Ohh, I see

Equality is everyone being treated the same way regardless of differences.

Generally, equality is just about equality of freedom or “power to –”. If someone needs support to achieve their goals (as long as this doesn’t involve “power over” others / oppression) then of course it is important that there be societal structures/networks in place to help them, or at least “meta-structures” that can facilitate the organisation of such supporting networks.

Of course, “freedom” is a poorly defined word in itself, but imo the “everyone treated the exact same” (or worse, “everyone should be the same”) interpretations are not in the spirit of “freedom” and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were constructed in bad faith (not to promote “equity” but to discredit “equality”).

But ultimately it’s just semantics, and if you like calling it equity that’s cool, it’s just good to keep in mind that people who still use “equality” can easily be referring to the exact same thing.

Ohhh :/

As far as I can tell, they physically present as masculine (albeit non-traditionally), perhaps with elements of femininity (I mean when it comes to specifics that kinda stuff is subjective), rather than butch/masculine femininity or smthn.

I just checked their reddit acc (u/anarcho-stripperism) and they still have their preferred pronouns as they/she/them, and seeing that they’re anarchist, perhaps they are going for a more subversive breaking-the-gender-binary thing (which I think is cool!) rather than something specifically about gender identity.

Do you know why? I’m curious because she presents as masculine and doesn’t seem to have any hangups presenting as such so it leaves me a bit confused. Like, with gender being a social contruct and all, gender neutral pronouns for all is my personal ideal, but yeah I don’t get why someone would choose pronouns associated with the gender they don’t actually “traditionally” present as. Is it about being intentionally subversive?

Only if the amount of wug is a prime number.

This is because non-prime numers of wuggi are highly unstable and will split into separate prime factors of wug if there’s enough space (and in most atmospheric conditions).

Idk, I’d say we want quality goods, and are lead to believe that these desires can be fulfilled by the lofty luxury goods market which is founded more on artificial scarcity than material scarcity. Even when rare materials and expensive labour are involved the fact that this simply makes them “more valuable” seems more important than any actual need, or lack of alternatives. Meanwhile, affordable products get enshittified, shorter lifespans, etc.

though it’s questionable when the cycle of just investing the newfound labor capacity into more luxuries will stop, if ever

Which is precisely why “post-scarcity” can only be reached with actual societal change, not just technological advancement.

Are we really dealing with “scarcity” at this point?

Supermarkets throw away literal millions of tonnes of food annually. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” has become a hollow mantra that cannot be truly adopted by the profit driven design philosophies of consumer products. Sustainability is being treated like some chic perk rather than a critical topic that must be taken seriously if we want any hope for our futures.

All these things are profoundly capitalist problems. Of course, it’s not like marxist-leninist ‘experiments’ fared any better, devolving into their own variants of capitalism, but there are many other socialist ideologies to consider (such as anarchism…)

The system is flawed and is working as intended.

Instead of anarchist cosplay, everyone should be learning about actual anarchist theory and praxis.

When anarchists talk about authority and hierarchy, they’re talking about coercive/oppressive power structures. Organisation doesn’t have to be founded in obedience and control, it can also be built upon mutual agreement/consent and cooperation. Are you really unable to imagine any examples of the latter?

As for laws, they really aren’t all that good at preventing “crime”, because they don’t address the fundamental reasons why people turn to “crime” in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of legal things which are unethical and plenty of ethical things which are illegal.

Some (religious) people think that without fear of god humans are immoral. I think that if the only reason you’re not murdering people is out of fear of god then there’s something seriously wrong with you. Replace “god” with “the law” and the same reasoning applies.

Anarchism isn’t about abandoning “all societal structure” though. Authority and law are not necessary for organisation.

Anarchism in praxis is largely about working towards the social change required to properly challenge/undermine the power structures that control our lives.

Yeah I’ve got no quick ‘n’ easy answer to what you’re putting on the table here, take it as a compliment, lol. As an anarchist I approach things with a certain worldview which I imagine you disagree with on a pretty fundamental level.

Overall, the system we live in is still governed by capitalist principles (and assumptions about society/humanity) even in cases like the nordic model which is considered “progressive” despite being a hybrid of social democracy and corporatism.

Even putting aside the whole discussion about the “tyranny of the majority”, democracy in practice really isn’t all that “democratic”. Between lobbying, corruption, the class system, societal biases, the manipulation of information, the education system itself… if you believe all that can still add up to the best we can achieve, at least currently, and that if any change for the better is to be made it’s through this system, and you’re firmly rooted in this belief… yeah I guess there’s not much else I can say to you.

Perhaps I was unclear, the “they” I was referring to in my original comment was tankies and fascists, as mentioned in the OP.

Anyways, this:

Happiness of the people, rights for minorities, salaries, education.i could go on and on how countries that have democratised have made lives better for the people who live there.

is a pretty vague and meaningless. In theory? Sure, sounds nice. In practice? It’s twisted doublespeak for systems that are still fundamentally authoritarian.

Again, what is democracy, really? How are these metrics measured?

There’s so much to unpack I’m not really sure where to start. Are you coming from a perspective of " capitalism can be reformed with democracy" or “voting with your dollar is democracy manifest” or smthn else?

humans are greedy and selfish

That’s just what you choose to believe. These’s no scientific proof that they make up some kind of transcendent truth about the human condition.

It’s entirely possible that the humans traits of greed and selfishness tend to become much more pronounced when humans are subjected to systems that reward those qualities.

Also, greed and selfishness are distinct from self-interest. And besides, self-interest doesn’t explain the entirety of human behaviour either.

Perhaps other systems that reward collaboration and egalitarianism and autonomy are not only possible, but also more sustainable that the shitshow we’ve got now, and all we need is for enough people to get out of the mental rut of believing capitalist bullshit about “humanity” and “life” just because it’s the status quo.

They “rank higher” according to certain metrics and certain definitions of “democracy” and “liberty”. Take some more honest definitons, and take a more holistic perspective, taking into account how many of those countries are simply really good at exporting their exploitation, and they won’t score so highly. Also, being better than fascism is a really fucking low bar.

Or in other words, just because your shit sandwich doesn’t have cyanide in it doesn’t mean it isn’t still a shit sandwich.

I can’t provide you with examples if I don’t know what you think communism means.

Sounds like council communism I think?

Using the state to make private property “illegal” might be a possible strategy, but it certainly isn’t an anarchist one.

Hypothetically, the moment that the state doesn’t exist, private property would be unenforceable/meaningless. How the state might be abolished is another question. While marxist-leninists might opt for a “trust me bro the state will dissolve once we reach true communism” strategy, anarchists again would not. Obviously it’s a tough question and an even tougher endeavour but it’s not something anarchists don’t have answers for.

Anarchist praxis is more grassroots focused, because obviously anarchy/anarcho-communism can’t happen overnight, and requires a profound change in social values. If you choose to believe that it’s impossible, I can’t blame you, but I would like to ask why.

Also you use private property and “property” interchangeably, but there’s a difference between personal property and private property. Abolishing private property isn’t about taking away your personal house and toothbrush, it’s about abolishing landlords, factory owners, and other “private” ownership of public/communal spaces.

Regarding unions, it depends whether or not they’ve been structured specifically without hierarchy in mind. In any case the point is that anarchist praxis is diverse and decentralised.

The state is needed to enforce private property, not the lack of it.

Critically, you assume that authority is required for order, so obviously you’re unable to envision whatever it might be that anarchists are getting at.

Sure, communism is an ideal that does not exist in practice currently, but the point of an ideal is to work towards it. The “anarcho” part specifies complete opposition to authority in praxis as well. Strategies could include unionising, community building, mutual aid, permablitzing, FOSS, copyleft, and whatever else can undermine the current power structures while maintaining anarchist principles. Which explicitly excludes Marxist-Leninist strategies of coopting the state, or forming any other kind of heirarchy.

Why do you think communism “lead” to authoritarianism? Do you think communism is inherently authoritarian? Is the distinction between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Communism and other ‘communisms’ meaningless to you?

What do you think communism means?