This is a very silly position that isn’t supported by anybody but very naive ancaps. Even anarchists don’t support that.
What your position means is effectively just support for the most prolific invaders in the world - NATO, - who very much do benefit from the dismantlement of governments in the Global South, i.e. what you are proposing.
Also, again, if you support the dismantlement of governments that are opposed to NATO before the dismantlement of the latter, all you do is support the most prolific insert in the world.
T_F does not speak for anarchists who wholeheartly agree with the meaning of your message.
Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions.
Good governements can exist in theory but no nation on earth is even close to resembling annything but facism.
Personally i believe when a good governement will emerge it will not be any nation that provides it and instead be a set of logical open source ideas, concept and methods that may voluntarily spread amongst the self organised communities of people in however ways they choose.
Will it be perfect society… absolutely not. Bad people will still exist. But they will be smaller and less powerfull.
Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions.
Magical thinking helps no one. Power is not a magic force that corrupts all who touch it, this isn’t Lord of the Rings. It is a social relation that allows people to more effectively work in their interests. The issue is that society in much of the world thus far has been structured such that a minority class, be they the landlords and aristocracy of feudalism or the bourgeoisie of capitalism, hold an effective monopoly. They use this monopoly to extract surplus and protect their property. The solution is not to wish away power, but to seize it and democratize it, transforming it from a tool of class exploitation into an instrument of social administration.
subjecting a healthy adult to anyone other than themselves is always harm.
By your logic, nuclear power station workers being subject to the safety team is truly harmful. An operating room being subject to a chief surgeon is another great harm.
Or is it possible that hierarchy is a useful social relation that has been reproduced across geography, centuries, and even species for a reason?
In nature, coordinated structures emerge because they solve material problems of survival and resource management. In human society, as the division of labor grows more complex, large scale production physically demands coordination, discipline, and unified direction. A factory, a railway network, or a hospital cannot run on pure consensus without collapsing.
The goal should not be to abolish all authority, which would mean abolishing industry and modern society itself. The goal should be to abolish class authority. End the subjection of people to people as exploiters, and replace it with the rational, democratic administration of things and the technical direction of production.
Your confusing hierarchy and authority, dont worry i also still mix them up sometimes.
Trusting and following a leader is not the same as being subjected to an authority.
If a chief is wrong then the assistants should be free to resist. They only follow as long as they agree with the direction.
About abolishing major parts of modern industry and society. uhm in my wildest dreams maybe. But realistically we are better of evolving things slowly
There is no magic involved in “power corrupts”, its just a way to reference the mental illnesses that emerge in people when leadership stops being contested.
But i know the community i am in, i am not really here to fight tankies, that just results in stale mate. in many ways we overlap and fight the same abstracted evils really as i welcome the resistancd against the usa. My comments are intended for other inspiring anarchists who dont know what tankies are about yet frequently end up confused when sharing opinions that they tought where aligned with the opinions expessed in the content featured on ml. Because really, many memes here are delighfully refreshing for anti-nationalists.
I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone “agrees” with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning.
You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if “slowly.” This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival.
Furthermore, reducing class power to “mental illness” is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions.
You claim your comments are meant for “inspiring” anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism.
Even anarchists support various proposed sorts of governments.
What you are doing is simply ruining propaganda in support of destroying and subjugating the enemies of your empire under the guise of ‘all states/governments are bad’.
If only the empires that exist today could just eliminate eachother without taking their citizens down with them, that be something to cheer for.
We are aligned with the same abstracted enemy, the only difference is you see a head that is a solution requirring support, i see a heads of a single hydra fighting itself.
You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism.
The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that.
Anything you do to act against or weaken a given state tends to benefit that state’s rivals. Unless you have some switch you can flip to overthrow every government at once, then either you refrain from meaningfully opposing your government or you make peace with the possibility that another government may benefit from your actions.
There are cases where leftists should refrain from opposing their government, for example, during WWII, it wasn’t the best time to strike or revolt if you lived in the US. On the other hand, in WWI every side was relatively the same, so there was no need to put class war on hold, it doesn’t matter if German capitalists or French capitalists came out on top, so both German and French workers would have been justified to strike and disrupt and revolt, even though French workers doing so would benefit German capitalists and vise versa.
Therefore, this “oppose all states” line is reductive. If someone paints the PRC as being so bad that they’re a threat on par with the Nazis, so we should put class war in the US on hold in order to stop them, then we need to evaluate whether or not that’s actually true. Which means first making the assessment, and then, if we assess that it’s not that serious of a threat, that means “defending” it (at least to an extent), it means saying things that will get you labelled as a tankie. If, on the other hand, you don’t do that, if you concede even the most extreme and far-fetched claims about them, then either you must also concede that we should drop everything to fight them, or you must adopt the unreasonable stance of weakening a state that stands between you and something equivalent to the Nazis.
Any actual opposition to a government (as opposed to opposition merely in principle) means at least being ok with that government’s geopolitical rivals benefitting from the internal conflict. Actual opposition will almost always mean getting accused of supporting enemy states (whether you do or not), or at least of not taking their threat seriously enough. It’s necessary to have an answer for why you’re not rallying around the flag to fight off that supposedly greater evil.
How about not supporting any government?
Is it really that hard to imagine? I don’t like when human rights are abused by any party
This is a very silly position that isn’t supported by anybody but very naive ancaps. Even anarchists don’t support that.
What your position means is effectively just support for the most prolific invaders in the world - NATO, - who very much do benefit from the dismantlement of governments in the Global South, i.e. what you are proposing.
Any existing government
Not even anarchists support that.
Also, again, if you support the dismantlement of governments that are opposed to NATO before the dismantlement of the latter, all you do is support the most prolific insert in the world.
Liberals oppose all wars except the current one and support all revolutions except the succesful ones
T_F does not speak for anarchists who wholeheartly agree with the meaning of your message.
Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions.
Good governements can exist in theory but no nation on earth is even close to resembling annything but facism.
Personally i believe when a good governement will emerge it will not be any nation that provides it and instead be a set of logical open source ideas, concept and methods that may voluntarily spread amongst the self organised communities of people in however ways they choose.
Will it be perfect society… absolutely not. Bad people will still exist. But they will be smaller and less powerfull.
LOTR was a mistake seriously.
What does lotr have to do with any of this?
Religious nonsense
Magical thinking helps no one. Power is not a magic force that corrupts all who touch it, this isn’t Lord of the Rings. It is a social relation that allows people to more effectively work in their interests. The issue is that society in much of the world thus far has been structured such that a minority class, be they the landlords and aristocracy of feudalism or the bourgeoisie of capitalism, hold an effective monopoly. They use this monopoly to extract surplus and protect their property. The solution is not to wish away power, but to seize it and democratize it, transforming it from a tool of class exploitation into an instrument of social administration.
By your logic, nuclear power station workers being subject to the safety team is truly harmful. An operating room being subject to a chief surgeon is another great harm.
Or is it possible that hierarchy is a useful social relation that has been reproduced across geography, centuries, and even species for a reason?
In nature, coordinated structures emerge because they solve material problems of survival and resource management. In human society, as the division of labor grows more complex, large scale production physically demands coordination, discipline, and unified direction. A factory, a railway network, or a hospital cannot run on pure consensus without collapsing.
The goal should not be to abolish all authority, which would mean abolishing industry and modern society itself. The goal should be to abolish class authority. End the subjection of people to people as exploiters, and replace it with the rational, democratic administration of things and the technical direction of production.
Your confusing hierarchy and authority, dont worry i also still mix them up sometimes.
Trusting and following a leader is not the same as being subjected to an authority.
If a chief is wrong then the assistants should be free to resist. They only follow as long as they agree with the direction.
About abolishing major parts of modern industry and society. uhm in my wildest dreams maybe. But realistically we are better of evolving things slowly
There is no magic involved in “power corrupts”, its just a way to reference the mental illnesses that emerge in people when leadership stops being contested.
But i know the community i am in, i am not really here to fight tankies, that just results in stale mate. in many ways we overlap and fight the same abstracted evils really as i welcome the resistancd against the usa. My comments are intended for other inspiring anarchists who dont know what tankies are about yet frequently end up confused when sharing opinions that they tought where aligned with the opinions expessed in the content featured on ml. Because really, many memes here are delighfully refreshing for anti-nationalists.
I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone “agrees” with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning.
You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if “slowly.” This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival.
Furthermore, reducing class power to “mental illness” is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions.
You claim your comments are meant for “inspiring” anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism.
Even anarchists support various proposed sorts of governments.
What you are doing is simply ruining propaganda in support of destroying and subjugating the enemies of your empire under the guise of ‘all states/governments are bad’.
Lel.
If only the empires that exist today could just eliminate eachother without taking their citizens down with them, that be something to cheer for.
We are aligned with the same abstracted enemy, the only difference is you see a head that is a solution requirring support, i see a heads of a single hydra fighting itself.
You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism.
You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me.
The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that.
Anything you do to act against or weaken a given state tends to benefit that state’s rivals. Unless you have some switch you can flip to overthrow every government at once, then either you refrain from meaningfully opposing your government or you make peace with the possibility that another government may benefit from your actions.
There are cases where leftists should refrain from opposing their government, for example, during WWII, it wasn’t the best time to strike or revolt if you lived in the US. On the other hand, in WWI every side was relatively the same, so there was no need to put class war on hold, it doesn’t matter if German capitalists or French capitalists came out on top, so both German and French workers would have been justified to strike and disrupt and revolt, even though French workers doing so would benefit German capitalists and vise versa.
Therefore, this “oppose all states” line is reductive. If someone paints the PRC as being so bad that they’re a threat on par with the Nazis, so we should put class war in the US on hold in order to stop them, then we need to evaluate whether or not that’s actually true. Which means first making the assessment, and then, if we assess that it’s not that serious of a threat, that means “defending” it (at least to an extent), it means saying things that will get you labelled as a tankie. If, on the other hand, you don’t do that, if you concede even the most extreme and far-fetched claims about them, then either you must also concede that we should drop everything to fight them, or you must adopt the unreasonable stance of weakening a state that stands between you and something equivalent to the Nazis.
Any actual opposition to a government (as opposed to opposition merely in principle) means at least being ok with that government’s geopolitical rivals benefitting from the internal conflict. Actual opposition will almost always mean getting accused of supporting enemy states (whether you do or not), or at least of not taking their threat seriously enough. It’s necessary to have an answer for why you’re not rallying around the flag to fight off that supposedly greater evil.