I have zero interest in spending this beautiful Friday morning arguing, so I’m not going to, but if you would like some reading recommendations to understand my political positions on these sorts of things, let me know and I’d be happy to provide them.
I’d start with Kropotkin’s “The Conquest of Bread” followed by Gelderloos’ “Anarchy Works.” Kropotkin explains the theory behind why libertarian socialism / anarchist communism is a better, more fair way to structure society, while exhaustively addressing common objections. Gelderloos writes from a modern perspective while offering examples of non-hierarchal human organization throughout history. For those who (somehow) read these and remain convinced that the idea is utopian, I’d recommend Kropotkin’s essay “Are We Good Enough,” and his principal scientific work: “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” which offers a compelling counter-argument to the ‘dog eat dog’ conclusion drawn by many from Darwin’s theory of evolution by positing that cooperation is sustained in humans and animals over time through natural selection.
For a quick and dirty intro to the basic idea of what classical anarchism is: “An Anarchist Program” - Errico Malatesta.
Anarchism is a line of political thought that goes back for well over a century, with many branches and differing opinions; like any group, libertarian socialists are not a monolith. Anarchism, including anarchist communism, is a response not only to capitalism, but to other branches of leftist thought: while communist revolutions were taking place around the world, anarchists were there alongside them, critiquing the practices that continue to be critiqued today concerning communist projects with their focus on challenging power and unnecessary hierarchy: who has power over who, why, and is it strictly necessary? As someone once said: “Freedom without equality is the jungle. Equality without freedom is prison. I want neither the jungle nor prison.” That is what classical anarchist thought brings to the table: it examines how society can be structured while providing both freedom and equality in a way that neither capitalist thinking nor other leftist schools of thought adequately address.
I already know your political positions: you posted a portrait of Mao.
Look, capitalism is broken. It’s a terrible, terrible system - especially the ultra-capitalist society with ultra-billionnaires we have today. My personal opinion is that said ultra-billionnaires should face the pitchfork sooner rather than later.
But I also know enough history to know that communism is even worse. I don’t know what the solution to capitalism is, but it’s not Mao or Stalin. They can fuck right off.
I’m making a joke in poor taste to express my disdain for people who commodify human necessities for profit.
I’m curious: are you also against private grocery stores? Because ya know, eating is also a human necessity.
In other words, you do sound like you’d like someone like Mao in charge.
I am, yes.
I have zero interest in spending this beautiful Friday morning arguing, so I’m not going to, but if you would like some reading recommendations to understand my political positions on these sorts of things, let me know and I’d be happy to provide them.
I’d be interested if you are still willing to share.
I’d start with Kropotkin’s “The Conquest of Bread” followed by Gelderloos’ “Anarchy Works.” Kropotkin explains the theory behind why libertarian socialism / anarchist communism is a better, more fair way to structure society, while exhaustively addressing common objections. Gelderloos writes from a modern perspective while offering examples of non-hierarchal human organization throughout history. For those who (somehow) read these and remain convinced that the idea is utopian, I’d recommend Kropotkin’s essay “Are We Good Enough,” and his principal scientific work: “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” which offers a compelling counter-argument to the ‘dog eat dog’ conclusion drawn by many from Darwin’s theory of evolution by positing that cooperation is sustained in humans and animals over time through natural selection.
For a quick and dirty intro to the basic idea of what classical anarchism is: “An Anarchist Program” - Errico Malatesta.
Anarchism is a line of political thought that goes back for well over a century, with many branches and differing opinions; like any group, libertarian socialists are not a monolith. Anarchism, including anarchist communism, is a response not only to capitalism, but to other branches of leftist thought: while communist revolutions were taking place around the world, anarchists were there alongside them, critiquing the practices that continue to be critiqued today concerning communist projects with their focus on challenging power and unnecessary hierarchy: who has power over who, why, and is it strictly necessary? As someone once said: “Freedom without equality is the jungle. Equality without freedom is prison. I want neither the jungle nor prison.” That is what classical anarchist thought brings to the table: it examines how society can be structured while providing both freedom and equality in a way that neither capitalist thinking nor other leftist schools of thought adequately address.
I already know your political positions: you posted a portrait of Mao.
Look, capitalism is broken. It’s a terrible, terrible system - especially the ultra-capitalist society with ultra-billionnaires we have today. My personal opinion is that said ultra-billionnaires should face the pitchfork sooner rather than later.
But I also know enough history to know that communism is even worse. I don’t know what the solution to capitalism is, but it’s not Mao or Stalin. They can fuck right off.
So you aren’t at all interested in understanding my positions, got it. Have a good day.
Indeed I am not. Like you yourself said, I’m not interested in spending this beautiful Friday arguing 🙂
deleted by creator