Removed by mod
Please help me understand Hexbear.
Removed by modSo, since coming here, I've been accosted left and right by ML's calling me a Lib for not being a ML. Essentially that's what it's come down to.
My personal philosophy aligns with Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Bookchin. I consider myself an Anarcho-Communist or Communalist, depending on the situation, I suppose.
I firmly oppose fascism and authoritarianism. I believe in direct democracy and the inherent goodness of humanity.
I really thought that I had found a place where leftist thought was going to be welcomed, but so far I have not found it here. All I've found are hateful people who want me to leave.
Like I said elsewhere, it's almost as if they don't want new people to join their cause. Like they're actively pushing people away who could have the potential to learn, and who have explicitly come here to learn and to engage in good faith.
I just don't get it. I feel like our cause will never come to fruition because of these types of attitudes.
I would be lying if I say it would be super welcome by some parts, but it wouldn’t get people angry. And also, stalin is kinda irrelevant, he is dead. unless you are having a peasant country in need of rapid industrialization, and you don’t want to make same mistakes/successes, either defending or attacking him is, largely, meaningless.
Also, your definition of fascism is very peculiar, I think even some anarchists would be surprised by it.
Colloquial definition of fascism is bunch of bullshit (“it’s what hitler did(tm)”), despite hitler being nazi, and much better case studies for fascism being rise of mussolini and persistence of salazar and franco in late 70s.
It’s not an academic definition, lol, it’s kinda trotsky/marxism influenced one, which I subscribe too, but not some divine truth from academia.
Re your 4 points: every corporation fits your definition of fascism, why do you think they don’t exhibit same outward projections?
again, you are using terms with very specific definitions for marxists (and historians) like feudalism/monarchism/capitalism and then get surprised when people with different frameworks think it’s strange. Capitalism is not fascistic by itself (neither is feudalism), it’s horrible in all the ways, but fascism represents a very particular solution to some capitalism ills, in my view.
How is feudalism is fascism, I’m actually curious?
Also, small note with hitler inspiration: germany had its own colonies, it was perfectly able to make their own horrible decisions without usa know-how, as they have made them already in other places
I'm not sure what you mean by "exhibit the same outward projections"?
It's all about money/resource accumulation and distribution. Capitalism, if left to its own devices, inevitably devolves back into Feudalism, and Capitalism's hierarchy is almost identical to Feudalism's.. Company Towns have been a thing forever, and the ideal state of an anarcho-capitalist system (or lack thereof) is a Feudal society by another name.
Makes sense, if your definition of fascism is what you said it was. Makes total sense.
Feudalism is fascism (according to my definition of fascism) - authoritarian rule, nationalism, suppression of dissent, etc.
This reply made me make an account after a long time lurking.
How old are you? The way you type gives off major vibes of either being extremely immature or being a wrecker.
You need to do a lot more research before you comment the way you do friend, even in this latest reply you show evidence of having no clue what you're saying. How does feudalism display nationalism if the nation state didn't exist during the feudal epoch?
You're asking a community to give you a level of respect that your behavior so far doesn't command, might seem harsh friend but you need to realise this.
I'm 40.
LOL. Why is it always the same old shit? Kids accusing their elders of being kids?
In fact, I'm willing to bet that the ONLY people who use this line of ad-hominem are under 35. How old are YOU, kid?
Sigh. Again, you guys are using academic definitions for words - as if words can only have a single meaning at all times throughout all ages.
What is called a "nation" today was called a "kingdom" or "fiefdom" back then. Words change, but meanings remain the same.
The United Kingdom is actually a perfect example of this. It's a kingdom that we call a Nation now, because that's the meaning of both words.
Nation-states are a recent invention, like Anglo-saxon kingdom was not a nation, I implore you to read history of feudalism
LOL. Again, you're hung up on dictionary definitions of words and not what the words actually mean.
A kingdom IS a nation. It is a geographical area within which a governing body has authority and sovereignty.
What authority? They didn’t use same coins, the law was the dictate of local lord, not some codex, judiciary was the lord. Borders? What borders? Common language? Common identity? They don’t know who the king was, outside of seeing new shiny coins, languages were unintelligible in some places 100 miles from each other. There were no taxes to nation, all your interaction was confined to your lord and maybe church taxation.
What exactly nation-like characteristic they’ve shown?
THE FUCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITION IS WHAT WORDS ACTUALLY MEAN! THATS WHAT A DEFINITION IS! You can't be perscriptivist with language to the point that others have no fucking clue what you're talking about. That's stupid, you might as well just speak gibberish. You'll never be able to communicate if you just make up what words mean and expect people to take you seriously.
Ok cool, then if you're using that definition what does it mean for feudal "nation" to be nationalistic. And from that, how is a feudal "nations" nationalism an indication of fascism?
Hmm see how you get nowhere when you use words differently to how they're used in a context like a forum without defining what you actually mean without reference to anything else?
Cool, was just asking your age because of the possibility that you were a younger person not aware enough of the background of some of the topics you're talking about. Obviously I touched a nerve.
Your take on semiotics is interesting and completely wrong in this case. Yes words can change and meanings stay the same, but you are not using the meaning of these things correctly.
Any lexicographer would disagree with you.
deleted by creator
I mean paramilitary violence coupled with political goals, the corporations don’t exactly do that, not in the imperial core.
Capitalism doesn’t evolve into feudalism, because it’s much more broader than feudalism ever hoped to be. As a feudal lord, the only way to increase your fortunes is land, because productivity is low, then it became take over sphere of trade (mercantilism), then it became owning means of production. Capitalism achieving its ultimate monopoly equilibrium is nothing like feudalism. I think you have very simplistic perception of feudalism (no offense). It was much freer than cyberpunk hellhole of capital totality.
Actually in the article/essay I linked to you (as it’s anarchist), they use very similar thought process (authoritarianism, blah-blah), even they don’t go to declare everything on earth fascism lol.
:sleepi: now, so good luck with your hot takes (?) or catch some sleep as well
Oh, they don't?
There is no such thing as "equilibrium" in Capitalism/Neo-Feudalism. It's all just a big chess match to see who can launch their dicks into space first.
Sure. That may be the case.
Sure. That may also be the case.
I mean there are militias, but there are no amazon strikebreaker blue shirts, not yet. I specifically said in imperial core as well, as in global south they usually do exhibit this behavior, but still they hire mercenaries outside, instead of grass-roots brownshirts typically.
Equilibrium is monopoly, it is just stopped/frozen for a time due to popular pressure in the 20-30s with trusbusting/social democracy stuff. Don’t mistake random shenanigans with competition: if given free reign, companies will have cartels and buyouts in 10 years
Less than that, if the Trump Administration is any indication.
You're just making up meanings for words. We're not using our own personal definition for words and expecting others to know what we're talking about, we are using words based on what they mean in order to facilitate communication, y'know, like how language works.