I've gotten a bit bolder since downvotes were yanked, but these semi-ironic threads today are giving me "not today" instincts.
Hey, do you think it is productive to complain about sectarianism before it even occurs on a thread?
There's another thread with the same title on main with 20+ replies almost all by anarchists but go off wrecker
This post is riffing on an earlier post with the same title that reminded me of this interview
Not trying to do a sectarianism
Because I want to hope that we can actually change human behavior enough to work together as communities without the need for overwhelming violence first.
I think tankies have an easier path, because forcing communism by, well, force, from the top, is a much clearer and simpler path than creating communism by building and nurturing small communities across the world but I think that if we could build communism from the bottom up rather than the top down it's likely to be easier to majntain.
Ultimately though if the tankies start throwing billionaires into gulags I'm happy to help. The end result is what matters and we should be putting our efforts into the actions that are going to bring about the change we want regardless of if it's "the path" we believe in. Sectarianism is dumb we're all on the same side
Since I approach most social issues by thinking about hierarchies, I find necessarily violent transition states to be super contradictory to the eventual goals of a money less classless society. I think once its implemented it could work with a bit of luck for who is in temporary power, but its more that I don't think its possible to even implement it. Idk how to word this but I feel that trying to do a communism through another hierarchy is still working within the current system, and the current system has a terrifying monopoly on the systems of power and control (in the same way that :vote: isnt feasible). Because of this I think the only thing that can happen is a shared political awakening among the population that in times of material crisis will result in leaderless groups forming to protect and care after each other that will ideally (on the other side of a collapsed country) result in a leaderless unjust-hierarchyless decentralized group of people.
I watched the entirety of that interview some time ago, and the not gae person (don't remember their name sorry) is pretty based. The interviewer doesn't seem to be, like, evil or something, but he is clearly very clueless. Pasta is a piece of shit though, and also apparently influenced by American evangelicals.
I seem to remember a bunch of American Evangelical psychos helping institute the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda.
funded by those people who ring bells outside of stores at christmas and claim it's to help the homeless, yes.
help the homeless
As long as they're not gay or trans
Not to go all epic bacon atheist but I hate religious bigots even more than nazis
yes. it's a serious problem when trans people are directed to salvation army shelters, or cities decide not to bother with one since 'the salvation army already has that covered'.
and also, you know, funding genocide.
Because that's what aligned to the worldview i always had the most without me knowing it. Reading about it more just strengthened that conviction.
Not an anarchist but no country has a good immigration policy regarding refugees. There are millions of people who are stateless or otherwise don't have a secure national environment to live in (for now largely due to first world imperialism), and no nation accepts them. Considering that this population of people needing to find new places to live is only going to increase with global warming (no matter if there is a best-case-scenario elimination of imperialism) and the most "refugee friendly" nations in the world only let in a few tens of thousands of people a year, it's fair to say that pretty much every state in the world is a total failure that must be dismantled.
