WabiSabiPapi
- 3 Posts
- 39 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?
351·11 months ago“…frustrated at Britain’s attempts to help Ireland during the Irish famine…”
lol. was this written by an English aristocrat?
tongue-ass national forest😻
how? abolish the standing beaurocratic heirarchy which perpetuates and expends its own power and the interest of the ruling class by inflicting violence on the working class. what that looks like depends on how the people who make up a community choose to govern themselves.
realistically I don’t expect a revolution of the proletariat to take place, so I promote the institution of robust mutual aid networks, radical solidarity (organized labor, intersectional liberatory philosophy), and resilient autonomous communities, to compete with the prevailing system of power.
attempts at anarchist-adjacent organizing have existed, and continue to in some communities, though of course execution varies, as does identity.
the USSR was not an attempt towards a stateless society, being a state-capitalist imperialist kleptocracy.
common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.
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.
enlightened centrism, which is just ‘fellow kids’-ing perpetuating the current status quo, which is just capitalist democracy, which is just right-wing, which is authoritarian. that is when it’s not poorly concealed reactionary entryism.
2·1 year agobased and sustainability-pilled
popular elections in an ecosystem 1/4 bots, in which the admins hold ultimate unilateral authority.
cringe and/or lame