WabiSabiPapi
- 1 Post
- 19 Comments
imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing.
does a ‘nice’ king justify monarchy?
no. power centralized in the beaurocratic state apparatus is also oppressive. electoral politics are a sham, and democracy is impotent when the capital owning class can simply buy influence.
if 9 people vote to kill the 10th, is that just?
tongue-ass national forest😻
completely ignoring the relationship in which a worker must sell their labor as a commodity to a capital-owning class.
work != labor
this is the most generous possible interpretation of the gadsden, while ignoring its current usage, as well as ignoring the anti-authoritarian meaning behind the sabocat, and red/black scheme.
ps: the American revolution was a lateral move, replacing a hereditary monarchy with a dictatorship of capital. The ‘founding fathers’ were their time’s equivalent of musk and bezos, and they explicitly wanted to protect the interest of the capital owning class from the will of the working class and those humans who they kept as property.
they yearn for the glorious people’s boot
anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.
the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.
governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools
that depends if you draw distinction between the people and the state (which is merely an abstraction of capital)
state capitalism, as defined by lenin, is not a classless society, and is indefensible as a liberatory philosophy.
just as liberalism abolished the monarchy only to replace it with a dictatorship of private capital, authoritarian socialism replaced monarchy with a beaurocratic ruling class and unilateral control of the means of production.
the neck cares not the color of the boot
I hereby submit myself for consideration. I firmly oppose authoritarian apologists and jerks.
I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.
are you taking the position of a literal child?
do you consider that a rebuttal?
look for anarchists if you desire a classless, stateless, moneyless society.
communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
cringe and/or lame