As someone who’s been diagnosed with ASPD (which is colloquially known as sociopathy), it just means I’ve got a dysfunction in the part of my brain that automatically empathizes with others. When I’m put under a lot of stress that part of me can come out, because it’s my default wiring, so to speak, but the vast majority of the time I’m able to manually empathize with other people and think it through rather than relying on intuition.

But yeah, the point I wanted to make is that just because someone’s a ‘sociopath’ it doesn’t mean that they’re irredeemably broken.

It makes a lot more sense to carry weapons if you live in the US. There’s a lot of crazy-ass fascists who will attack you without provocation. Hell, I had a neo-Nazi try to kill me with a tire iron when I was early in transition.

I’m happy you’re from a place where carrying weapons is alien or scary to you. But when you live in a police state and the police are more likely to victimize you than help, you have to take matters into your own hands (or your community’s hands). Idk, I hope this helps you empathize a bit better with why some people like having weapons.

So I’ve been thinking about this for a bit. Yeah, fuck countries, nation states, etc. Power should be at the level of communities of workers, similar to how the original Soviet system was before it got so fucked up.

Tbh I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree, I think wealth should be redistributed by force because I believe that the rich won’t redistribute it otherwise. But I can respect where you’re coming from - I wish it wasn’t necessary but I just don’t have faith that the rich will do it out of their own free will and kindness of heart. Also, even more than the local rich we need to expropriate the wealth of the billionaires and other shitheads that just suck the money out of areas and people, leaving them destroyed.

Also - what happens when the community is full of bigots? Like let’s take Odessa TX, where they’ve just functionally banned trans people from using their correct bathroom. The community there decided on that, does that make it right? There’s a similar argument with what happens when you’ve got a community of racist white people who decide that all POC are less than their equals.

First of all, yes, we’re living under a shitty authoritarian government in the US. It’s basically a dictatorship of the richest in society. I want to invert that, where the workers have all the power. It’ll flatten out the power hierarchy eventually because everyone will become workers like everyone else. Just, in order to get there, we’ve gotta do some things which will smack of authoritarianism, such as forcibly redistributing wealth and converting businesses to being worker-owned.

I don’t know what’s best for people, other than that we should make society more democratic. But thing is, we can’t let everyone act in their own self interest when doing so harms others. Like, it’s in a landlord’s individual self interest to charge as much money as possible and to refuse to redistribute their property.

Also, if you let everyone act in their own self interest, how do we solve the problem of getting land back to indigenous populations? For example, I’m certain that many white people in the US won’t want to give land back, and there could be a democratic majority that opposes doing the right thing. What do we do then?

Agreed, power should be held by syndicates, ideally with those syndicates/groups/unions/etc working together by sending delegates to a Congress and then abiding by the democratic decisions made by that Congress.

I think deciding who is or isn’t the vanguard is something you can only do when you look back at history - you can point at different groups at different times when they were leading the movement, but if you were living through it things might not be clear. It’s pointless trying to figure out who the vanguard is right now, instead we should be organizing.

So, I think the workers should own the nation and that power should be held at the level of workplace unions and community organizations. I see being “the vanguard” of communism as similar to a 1st place designation in Mario Kart - it’s a floating title that depends on who’s doing the most for the effort and who other people look to. That vanguard shouldn’t get any extra privileges, they’re workers just like anyone else.

I think the whole authoritarian vs antiauthoritarian split is kinda BS - IMO it’s more about who’s dictating terms to who. We really badly need land reform, and landlords aren’t going to willingly give that up, so we have to be a bit “authoritarian” in order to make them do so. Same thing goes with wealth redistribution, and land back. If you give up on using force to get what you want, how do you get land back to indigenous populations, or stop the genocide in Gaza?

I think we’ll be more free if we work together to build socialism than we would be if we keep shitting on each others approaches towards building it. Then we’ll just keep refining it until there’s a minimum amount of hierarchy or control in society that’s used to prevent re-privatisation, exploitation, and the re-establishment of Capitalism.

Signed, a “tankie”