Diva (she/her)

I mean this was a .ee user complaining about seeing people they’re federated with, I’m sure they will be more happy in one of the more liberal echo chamber instances

I understand, the point in response was that non-authoritatian states don’t and haven’t existed. The compass portrays a field that is equal, but in reality only the top half is anything but idealism, historically speaking.

a classless stateless society is what I would prefer. That’s something we can conceive of, but getting there is another issue. Revolutions tend to be pretty authoritarian no matter how you slice it.

I think that still qualifies as a bourgious dictatorship

Yeah, but it’s weird to be complaining about people using /all and finding content, calling it “invading”

he did say communist governments are authoritarian, in them the capitalist class would be getting oppressed by the state in service of the working class. this is why it’s called the dictatorship of the proletariat - the proletariat should still be getting their interests as a class represented in this arrangement, while bourgious have no special status or access due to their capital.

All governments are authoritarian, all states are instruments of class opression. What matters is which class is being oppressed, by which.

are there any examples of libertarian states?

Mostly they were left unblocked until their users started to invade other instances to spread their blatant propaganda.

isn’t the entire point of a federated platform that you’re going to be able to access other instances?

istg people hit the block button like they’re mashing the independent thought alarm

Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.

Start by being honest with yourself about what the problem is. That’s why I raise the point that the political economy is at fault and won’t be fixed by simply purging the people you see as engaging in wrongthink. Personally I organize with like-minded people and do direct actions.

The original work you quote talked a tough game:

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh.

which you immediately walked back:

within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.

If you really think that out-groups should not be getting ruled over by in-groups, then you really need to recognize that US hegemony has been the most powerful ‘in-group’ in history. Workers in America get paid more not because their work is more valuable but because money can flow freely over borders while people cannot. Labor aristocrats are the workers who are given a small share of the spoils from the rest of the world in exchange for their political inaction. Capitalism is wildly authoritarian and much of what you take for granted as ‘constraints of US political discourse’ are predicated on the US’s hegemonic role within that system.

This entire line of argument seems like you’re trying to pose as if you’re maximally defiant against the status quo, but you also want to continue being anti-communist.

Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.

Revolutionary organizing has been far more effective, historically speaking.

Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.

So as someone who doesn’t actually want to address the systemic mass inequalities, because it might require something other than voting, got it.

the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

it’s a nice sentiment, but you really need to have criticisms of the political economy if you want to address the root cause. the reason “the law” doesn’t protect everyone is because the law is set up to prioritize the will of people with money and property over everyone else. I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.