3w ago

rebels with a cause

67 comments

Of course it's Kropotkin handing out bread. Dude fucking loves bread
- How can be True Anarchism if you love bread but give away?
  True Anarchism is Anarcho-Capitalism. Mean you love bread so you take away from as many as possible.
  Give bread away not love. Is against human nature. Stupid leftist no understand how things work.
- Only anarchist to lead a conquest. A conquest of bread. That's how much he fucking loves bread.

And so anarchism is defeated the same way it always is: No ability for self preservation
- Like the furthest from the truth comment possible.
  The Rojava and Zapatistas are still fighting and defending their land to this day.
  In Spain we fought, in Ukraine we fought, etc.
  
  I don't think bringing up Spanish and Ukranian Anarchist movements is a good way to combat notions of a lack of preservation of Anarchist movements. EZLN was a much better example.

I just don't get tired of this comic!

source: cartoon

Our Anarchy who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory, forever and ever.

WKUK - Amarchism

They are also killing politicians of course but this is generally a net good
- Order people to fire off more explosives than the human mind can comprehend in a war, then launch more explosives than that entire war in every battle of the next war, and you get called a "great man"
  You toss a single grenade at that first guy and suddenly you're the "bomb thrower".
- Watch "the Chekist", and tell me how much of a net good it is.
  I love your naivety where you think they'll kill all the people you don't like, but they'd never touch you or your loved ones, because you're the exception
  
  Watch The Murder of Fred Hampton, and tell me how it’s not currently being done by those in power.
  I love your naivety where you think that just because they don’t kill you or your loved ones, because you’re (likely) part of the accepted group, it’s ok to ignore the fact that they kill all the people you don’t care to think about.
  (I have no idea who you are. I just think the counter point to your point is equally valid and deserves consideration)
  
  It was a joke man jesus
  I mean I do genuinely believe there are many politicians who deserve to be shot though. Just not genuinely suggesting we line them up against a wall or anything

The joke would have landed better if the depicted leftists were not anarchists but were accused/charged by the police of being anarchists

Leftist memes are awful man
- Usually the ones who say this just disagree with Leftism and thus don't find it funny.
- So show me an example of a good rightwing meme. Never seen one to date but chuds keep acting like the left sucks.
  
  Just keep deepfrying Stonetoss until you can swallow it

Yeah.
And that would never happen. Same goes for communism. On paper its all pretty but in practice you have to deal with han beings who want their own thing.
The only way to push through communism (or anarchism, for that matter) is to force people to follow it. This inevitably leads to the dictatorships we all know and love where people were murdered by the thousands only for disagreeing. Corruption will flourish because you'll keep having a richer class who just hide all their crap better, and those backroom deals are just awesome for a system corrupt to the core
Just acting as if the current problems with capitalism only exist because most people are blind while you "opened your eyes" is an attitude I'd expect from a 15 year old who is just repeating slogans
- I like that your argument against Anarchism is that people are selfish and greedy, so having a system where individuals have huge amounts of power and wealth and can get what they want is better.
  Because (many) Anarchists would say that humans being selfish and wanting more for their own benefit is (one of) the most important reason(s) for stopping humans having power and control over others.
  
  I didn't read him as saying that though. He is not stating that capitalism is better, he stating that human greed will corrupt every system.
  There have to be safeguards in place to stop the greed. And yes, there might be safeguards in one anarchist collective, but not another one that gets greedy and wants to take over your collective and has bigger guns.
  Fighting against greed is an ongoing project no matter what political system you are under. Switching systems does not miraculously solve this.
  
  Those powerful individuals, however, were chosen by the citizens. (Assuming the system you're talking about is a democracy.)
- Personal property ≠ private property of the means of production
  It's astonishing how many people are ok with building bombs to kill kids in the Middle East or developing better drugs that are paywalled by private healthcare so that rich people can get richer, but instead of chalking this up to "human nature" we can see it as a product of repression and persuasion.
  
  Who says I'm okay with bombs?
  I'm pretty sure that no one is "fine" with bombs. The reason we have them though is that they are (still) a necessary evil. The second you start your sweet anarchistix community where were all friends and let eachother be free and do what we want you'll get your ass run over by your dictator neighbor who loves what you did with the place.
  You either prepare yourself to defend yourself or you will either be imprisoned, enslaved, or killed. Look at what Russia is doing right now.
  I HATE violence, and if it were up to me, all guns would be gone tomorrow. However, I also am realistic enough to understand that that is not how the world works.
  Same for drug development, I fully agree. This is a bad part of capitalism that needs to be resolved. Absolutely agree. However, I'm not so naive to just say "dump capitalism" because I also understand the positive aspects of capitalism.
  How about instead wed try for a mix of it all. Best of all worlds, capitalism, socialism, anarchism. The raw power of limited and tightly controlled capitalism to create capital for all from capitalism, that can fund all the socialist systems like free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc.
- The only way to try and get everyone to follow communism is through force, which requires a state, that is true. This is why I prefer anarcho-communism, where there is no state enforcing it.
  It is also true under anarchism people have the option to not cooperate peacefully. As you said, humans are still humans at the end of the day and some will take advantage of others or hoard resources.
  But I don't think that is reason enough to not at least try to get there. Because under capitalism those same issues still exist, only people are expected to be okay with losing their autonomy and giving up their resources for the sake of a wealthy ruling class.
  
  Wonder why we cant just hammer capitalism into the socialism everyone wants with money. Just beat the shit out of it with money until its utopia. Well, i imagine thats what the neoliberals would like to do. Too bad people give more money to evil people
  
  Regarding Communism, I mean, kinda? But at the point of Communism, where all production is owned and managed collectively along a common plan, what would you reasonably want that would cause you to want to go against the rest of Humanity?
  
  I just can't see how you aren't describing feudalism once anarchist communities become large and widespread enough to create resource competition between them. Some people are just always going to accumulate some foothold of power and then it's all downhill from there.
  I want to love anarchism and communism, but I can never escape the fact that they require consistent, universal altruism in a way that just seems utopian to me. It comes across as maybe the ultimate example of perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good.

Just saying that thats not anarchy. Anarchy will never work its just unstable and will become some kind of system(which we see in this comic too)
Edit: for the people who downvoted me, the comic literally says "constructing a society" which means its not anarchy.
- when will people understand that anarchy as a form of society is different from the colloquial use of the word to mean absolute chaos (which by the way is probably the result of a deliberate attempt to undermine the former)
- I'm a Marxist, not an Anarchist, but I used to be one. That's mostly wrong.
  Anarchism isn't about having no society, but one established based on full horizontalism, like a spiderweb of communes. This is opposed to Marxism, which seeks full collective ownership and planning in a global Socialist republic (kinda like Star Trek).
- That is literally anarchy you clown.
  Anarchy is not no rules lawless free for all MadMax world.
  
  Anarchy is when you run around a room waving your hands and screaming "This is Anarchy!!!"
- Edit: for the people who downvoted me, the comic literally says “constructing a society” which means its not anarchy.
  It's funny, because you actually dug a deeper hole with this edit.
- Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralised polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy.
  Why you gotta be so confident in your opinions when you haven't bothered to even skim read a single article on the topic?
  Like why? What leads to such false self confidence? It's fine to not know things or double check stuff.
- the comic literally says “constructing a society” which means its not anarchy.
  how does every scrap of culture containing the word "anarchy" attract these experts who were apparently born with these incorrect assumptions about anarchism, SINCE THEY'VE NEVER READ A SINGLE DAMN AUTHORITATIVE WORD ON THE SUBJECT
- It's the assumption of altruism that gets me.
  
  mutual benefit, not altruism. capitalism has the same assumption except it has different incentives.
- As long as all the participants buy into the system without coercion or under the threat of starving, who the fuck cares?

67 comments