You're viewing a single thread.
... Doesn't help that it described fascism as well.
I mean that's, like, literally their name
People really need to read Marx man…
He literally described fascism decades before it was born. He said the contradictions of capitalism would cause people to look for solutions, and a “false” path people would find was that indeed capitalism had to be overcome. But that they had to return to a pre-capitalist life, return to the land and to feudalistic idealisms. Fascist Italy literally had “guilds”…
Marx said these “anti-capitalists” would see value in communist rhetoric, because they agreed with communists half-way. But they missed that the only solution is to move forward. That before capitalism, there were contradictions that inevitably led to capitalism, and it would just happen again.
Fascism is literally miopic anti-capitalism. It’s what happens to actual justifiable dissatisfaction and anger at the system without theory and understanding.
Yes, fascism really does sound like communism. It’s the goal, it’s how it’s born. It SOUNDS like communism, but has none of the solutions or the substance.
I have read Marx. I've also read Gramsci in the original Italian.
My point was just that "Fascism" comes from fascio - the binding of individual sticks together to make a stronger whole.
It's literally "Sticks together strong"
Sure, but as others have said, that is just a basic political observation that most ideologies have made. Fascism is, as I said, entirely devoid of substance. Only the appearance of such.
“Sticks together strong” is as much a political statement as “water is wet”.
I honestly don't see how literally all politics don't boil down to "apes together strong".
Some of them have smart apes manipulating the rest to use their strength against their own interest. Some of them have apes going together using their strength to enforce things we don't agree with, like racist tribalism/nationalism. But it's all a matter of people cooperating to enforce and otherwise enable what they think they need to, to meet their goal.
Isnt anarchism more scattered and small groups of people fighting one another over power?
Thats what I imagine when I hear anarchism
And that's very unfortunate that that's the most common perception of anarchism, because all anarchist theory focuses on how cooperation beats competition. The "anarchy" in the name means that nobody has rule over someone else, but rather all members voluntarily help one another because it's the most efficient and safest way of living.
But what about bad actors? Surely anarchists believe, that there are "bad people" who want personal gain/wealth/possessions by stealing or through fraud for example?
So then there needs to be a (central) authority who can make enforce rules, even if they are trivially "natural" or democratically validated.
And for that authority to do their job, they need authority over other people. The ability to lock a appartment up to investigate a murder for example. Or maybe even search a house of a alleged criminal.
Or is all of that just the capitalistic way of dealing with things and there is an other way? Or do anarchists believe that problems of that kind wont exist in their utopia?
If there is a bad tone, Im sorry, not a native speaker and I am not trying to argue in bad faith.
Edit: Thats kind of the thing about the intersection of anarchism and feminism I find curious. (In my city I see stickers like "feminists for anarchism" or "anarchy: ..., ..., and feministic")
And at the same time feminists want a stronger percicution (sorry) and punishment for sexualized crime, better institutional protection in labour-law and so on. In my view all things that are only achiveable with "more government", or at least better government/laws and certainly not with less government/rules/authorities.
That is a big question which I am sadly not equiped enough to answer adequately, as I have not invested that much time into anarchist works. What I can give is an example from Kropotkin's book "Mutual Aid":
He mentions how in village societies every dispute was treated as a comunal affair. If no resolution could be found, the case was brought to a group of people (can't remember specifically how they were chosen), and they would pass a verdict and resolution. The disputing parties could then either accept the verdict, or they would be excluded from the community. By excluded I mean that they would not enjoy the hospitality and aid of other members, and would thus have to leave the community. So if you are deemed a problematic member and won't change accordingly, nobody would exert power over you, you would just cease to be a part of the community. Obviously if someone got violent, self-defence would be acceptible.
As for feminism, I know that there is a thing called "anarcha feminism", but I don't know any details.
Thanks, sounds interesting altho on first impression it doesn't seem too viable to mee. It reminds me if the "jury" some countries have, where a group of people decide, what to do with a alleged problematic person. Am not too sure thats the best way to do it.
And also the "I am not angry, just disappointed" vibe and love-starving seems a bit odd.
It seems hard to imagine in todays world. But maybe on a local level? In Switzerland we have communal-discussions and votes as local legislation, the other two state powers on communal level are elected. Thats enough politics for most people.
That is a big question which I am sadly not equiped enough to answer adequately
It's a question Anarchists in general can't answer. But they can make some shit up, hope to get a chance to give it a go, and fail miserably some day though.
Obviously if someone got violent, self-defence would be acceptible.
So many ways to exploit weak cunts. Just threaten them, show up in force, take what you want, do fucking whatever. See where they snap and where they'll bend. Abuse their weaknesses.