• @poVoq
    link
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPM
      link
      32 years ago

      To sum up, you provided links to read and now you’re saying you don’t agree with the theory you linked. Amazing stuff. You still haven’t explained how any of the writings contradict my points. The ones I’ve read certainly don’t.

      Surely since you’ve read and understood this anarchist theory you’re promoting, you’d be able to explain it to others in simple terms. As Albert Einstein famously said, if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself. I’ll leave it as is. :)

      • @poVoq
        link
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPM
          link
          32 years ago

          So, you sent me a link and now that you realized I’ve read the things you linked to, you’re distancing yourself from it. Amazing stuff.

          • @poVoq
            link
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            deleted by creator

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPM
              link
              32 years ago

              I read both Graeber and Russell, neither of them say anything remotely close to eliminating work entirely. You’re evidently unable to explain how that would work either, and just keep deflecting when asked. Don’t make me laugh. ;)

              • @poVoq
                link
                -2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                deleted by creator

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPM
                  link
                  32 years ago

                  You wouldn’t be just explaining it to me, you’d be explaining it to everyone on this public forum. This is an idea that you’re promoting and you are evidently unable to explain the basics of this idea.

                  At least I’m able to articulate my points and ask people to read books if they’re interested in more details. You are unable to articulate what this theory of yours is, which is quite telling.

                  You’re claiming I don’t understand what Graeber and Russell write, but again fail to articulate what it is that you claim I’m not understanding. The term for what you’re doing here is sophistry.