anarchism
Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society without borders, bosses, or rulers where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of themselves and the environment.
Theory
Introductory Anarchist Theory
- Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Pyotr Kropotkin
- Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman
- Anarchy Works by Peter Genderloos
- Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide by Ruth Kinna
- Anarchism and Its Aspirations by Cindy Milstein
- Anarchy In Action by Colin Ward
- On Anarchism by Noam Chomsky & Nathan Schneider
- Anarchy by Errico Malatesta
Anarcho-Capitalism
Discord Legacy A collaborative doc of books and other materials compiled by the #anarchism channel on the Discord, containing texts and materials for all sorts of tendencies and affinities.
The Theory List :) https://hackmd.io/AJzzPSyIQz-BRxfY3fKBig?view Feel free to make an account and edit to your hearts content, or just DM me your suggestions ^~^ - The_Dawn
view the rest of the comments
Lol I got banned in the db0 anarchist sub over refuting this garbage. A white guy filming himself sitting in a big chair in front of a giant lawn in a giant house dares to claim that the non white revolutionaries who liberated their nations from colonialism and imperialism are actually just capitalists
You did not meaningfully refute this "garbage". You merely screamed that it was garbage and got yourself thrown out of an anarchist space for being toxic and anti-anarchist.
Here's the thread in question beginning where Jabril starts quoting: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/73627349/27500114
Given the showing of those responding to Jabril I'm gonna say nobody that responded to them is even remotely serious about this topic. Like, at all. I don't think refutation is the right term, there would have to be some kind of contest in the first place.
That includes db0, who never actually engages in these topics except to fling dismissals and ban. So much for the anti-authoritarian left lmao.
db0's conduct on a separate thread is irrelevant to the content of the video. It was irrelevant when Jabril brought it up unprompted, and it's irrelevant now. If Jabril doesn't want to discuss the video then that's fine, I respect that user's time, but Jabril could have simply left it alone without bringing the drama over here.
It is obviously relevant to Jabril getting banned and to any refuting happening in that thread.
Same user posting the same video counts as a prompt I think.
Jabril did discuss the video.
not true in the slightest, but just like the other anarchists you can refuse to acknowledge the things that I said from the jump. it is the only way to meaningfully reject what I said since if you were to engage with my points you would have to acknowledge they are correct. this is why idealism is worthless, being dogmatically attached to an ideology instead of what actually helps the most people the quickest is essentially bourgeois individualism
edit: just to make it easy for everyone to see how wrong you are, here are my first three comments in chronological order:
as you can see, your interpretation is completely wrong and reveals you have no integrity.
Edit2: and just to be clear the fucking title of the video is inflammatory and condescending to MLs and communists. so the initial premise itself is doing exactly what you are clutching pearls at. I responded to the title and the premise of the video with less vitriol than the title itself, which erases and white washes billions of people's lives, almost all of which are non white. this is white supremacy, straight up, that you are promoting with this video. it is colonialist, imperialist propaganda made to erase the successes of billions of non white people who would likely be dead without communism and steer ignorant, budding leftists back into bourgeois individualism and DEATH
That is genuinely wild
No you didn't, you have been way more vicious since minute one, and the actual video is extremely gentle, even to a snake like Bad Empanada
That's a stretch
I'm sure many things really blow your mind
BE is a piece of shit and deserves vitriol, just like every other counter revolutionary who parades around trying to build an audience on miseducating people who are sincerely trying to find a path towards a better tomorrow
it isn't a stretch for your to double down on your commitment to perpetuating anti-communism, you are certainly right in the same lane as all the other anti-communists
We're not gonna engage with you if you're condescending to us. Lose the attitude and then we'll talk. I've been willing to talk to others in this thread and MLs in the large, so it's you, not us.
check my edit of the previous comment, I didn't have an attitude, they did. you are all as worthless as your ideology, lying and victimizing yourselves when you can't refute material reality
I think you forgot some stuff:
https://hexbear.net/comment/7367354
Yet somehow if it was a white man in a nice house (which btw he lives in a polycule IIRC, i.e. he's not that well off and he's sharing his house with a few people) telling you things you wanted to hear about socialism, you'd eat it right up. I somehow believe you object to the message and not the messenger.
https://hexbear.net/comment/7367348
Because by that point you had already been super rude and they had given up on convincing you.
https://hexbear.net/comment/7367483
I could say the same thing about you. I'm not gonna say those things because I know you're fighting for liberation in the best way you know how, but I could say that.
Also from what you posted:
An uncharitable person would say that this is anti-anarchist slander. A charitable person would say you're uninformed.
Yeah that's really gonna help patch things up.
Were my comrades over on db0 all super supportive and free from attitude? Absolutely not. Understandable that you'd yell at them. But to then bring that attitude over here? Not cool.
Wait what does living in a polycule have to do with not being a trust fund kid. I know some disorganized tech- and academia-adjascent leftists that all live in a "commune" (a very expensive Craftsman house in that they bought in a hip neighborhood) do I need to consider them to be poor now?
I was arguing against Anark being a rich kid solely from his demeanor and the part of his home you could see from his camera, which I think Jabril is pulling from. Like he probably lives in a decent house because he's in a polycule, i.e. lots of people living together in a shared space, so the whole polycule can afford a bigger house by pooling their resources.
He could very well be a trust fund kid, I dunno 🤷
No lol polycules and roommates can be poor, but they're probably saving some money over living in separate houses, so they might not individually be as wealthy as their house otherwise implies.
Polycules are romantic relationships so if anything they will explain cohabitation despite being a trust fund kid. It's also not coincidental that lefty cult leaders are often (1) personally wealthy and (2) live on the compound with their harem, though I don't know it care enough to figure out if this particular grifter is also abusive. I don't know actually anything about this person except that they put a lot of effort into a basic aesthetic, their way of speaking and presenting themselves, and that they make poorly thought out bad faith left punching videos, but the logic around living with a polycule just doesn't make sense.
If you have ever been poor you can see the show being put on. If you've organized in left spaces you've encountered the loud ignorant white boy sectarian, and certainly those who place aesthetic over substance.
I didn't forget those things, I didn't include them because they weren't relevant. You accused me of
and I showed how my initial approach was indeed not anything close to that. you made something up to justify your preconceived opinion because you have to do so in order to stick to your ideological convictions. this is liberalism, based in idealistic nonsense. how I behaved beyond those points felt like an appropriate shift in demeanor in response to the way the other posters responded to me
No you didn't
You brought up the drama. I would've kept my mouth shut if you just dunked on the video and left it there. You decided to tie it back to the drama on db0. I even waited a few days to post it here in the hopes that the drama would die down.
🧱 Not gonna budge until you stop being shitty to anarchists. Literally not even a single inch.
like even this, why is it always some stretch of reality? I posted on that other thread in the last 24 hours.
I know you aren't going to budge, as I've said elsewhere, I have spent literally years organizing with anarchists. over the whole period with hundreds of them, working together for thousands of hours. I know anarchists won't budge because the commitment to self interest is greater than that to the collective. plenty of anarchists move through that phase as they get educated but I know that many won't because it means they have to put other people before their own interests. this is why it is inherently bourgeois
I misremembered, it was a day, and since you're not the center of the fucking universe, I wasn't paying attention to your particular drama, I just knew that there was drama, and hopefully it would be cool to post it, I even tried not to crosspost it, but I guess PieFed fucked me over there.
No, you misunderstood. It's not that I'm not gonna budge with respect to MLs, it's "I'm not gonna budge for you, personally, Jabril." And not just ideologically, but fractally, at all levels of zoom, I'm not budging until you treat me like a human being.
Nope. You've dressed it in ideological language, but almost everything you have said to me has been a personal attack.
Because it's cheaper to live in bigger groups, so he doesn't necessarily make as much money as his house implies? Like this isn't rocket science.
Uh, yes. It's very obvious that's what you meant. No one is confused by what you are trying to say.
So then what's the issue?