based on him

Preface: I am defining the "state" as the central authority within a political body that holds access to legal violence, power projection, and authority over its inhabitants. It is not a governing body in itself

lets break this down. we have, lets say,

• an anarchist or DeCent socialist country (not state) in A
• a capitalist/neoliberal/fascist/imperialist state in B
• and a Marxist Leninist DOTProl in C

We have B attack A because the existence of A is an existential threat to capitalism, and taking them over means the introduction of some new markets. However, C provides assistance to A as they oppose capitalism, and A is an egalitarian state or something.

Already, there are a number of issues we see here.

• First off, the lack of a centralized structure that doesnt go beyond local levels means that C cannot provide effective help to A in the case of attack. How are they going to know materiel needs or military intelligence without a central body to coherently organize and communicate information outside of the territorial body? Is it just going to be a group of villages and counties flooding the ally with different requests? That already presents a myriad of issues.

• Secondly, the very idea that A must rely on another political body like C to protect its very existence is inherently imperialist in a sense that A's existence is hinged upon the support and involvement of C in their political affairs. It would go against the very ideals of anarchism, and C, as an anti-imperialist state probably wouldn't want to spend all day putting troops in A to defend it

• Third, reliance on an uncertain condition like the existence of C, a foreign power who is willing to go to war with B over A while not even politically identifying with A is a terrible way to justify the survival of a community through defense. And i don't think another anarchist government would reasonably be able to coordinate and assist A against an overwhelmingly directional force like B

• Fourth, what is A doing to defend itself? Where did "self sufficiency" go? Sure they can create a temporary central organization to commit to the defense and survival of the political organization, but now you have a "state," something that is inherently against anarchism, again.

We can conclude three major points from this exercise in relation to anarchy in itself and revolutionary politics as a whole. The first point is that anarchism is not a realistic immediate conclusion of revolution unless it occurs, simultaneously, throughout the imperial core such to totally disable the threat of imperialism. This is a possibility that is based more in fantasy than fact. Secondly, the everpresent threat of capitalism in the fase of non-immediate and non-global revolution means a central organization is required for socialist states to effectively communicate, distribute, and coordinate the information, need, and material of its populace. This central organization must also be in regular communication with similarly positioned states. This central organization cannot be shed until the threat of capitalism is extinguished, as an early attempt to deconstruct the state means that the means of defense have been brought down.

In our real world, we have never seen the post-revolutionary world as these socialist states must still contend with the existence, competition, and threat of capitalist states who position themselves specifically upon the downfall and subjugation of socialist states

yeah i was reading through my art history course and reached the soviet arts of Constructivism and the emphasis on social and progressive mindsets placed directly against the sensual, personal works of bourgeois France. This dichotomy was directly framed between the types of furniture they were making and the french stuff was just so gaudy, wasteful, pretentious, etc.

literally think this everyday
i try my best to jst enjoy things .. like nature, life, emotions, reading, etc. but it is very hard, let me tell you.

honestly does feel so impure, immoral, hell-like to have literally everything around you commodified, and to see the people around you exploited to the bone, and to know it is even worse two thousand miles away, where literal governments are desposed, people are assassinated, etc. then to top it off with climate change and the inability to end commodity production.

just makes me sick and sad.

LMFAOOOO

The burden of class consciousness

invisiblepeople.tv/59-of-americans-are-just-one-paycheck-away-from-homelessness

Lol sweet f***ing Christ

is a one party state that practices democracy not functionally the same thing as a no party state

These people don’t know what a state is nor a political party

Hope no one here is a serious Western Gonzaloist

Western third worldist cuckery in action

THE DIALECTICS ARE IN MOTION

Wait so all the "fuck capitalism" and hammer and sickle graffiti in my uni's bathrooms aren't actually doing anything

f*** now i gotta go erase it s***
brb

my f***ing reform the vanguard party graffiti gotta be edited now

we need each other to lean on, to share the burden

stronger together comrades

Huh Gonzaloist arent third wordlists otherwise they wont be trying to organise in the first world and create mass bases in the first world. While the most third worldists would be jerking off to low quality p*** of minorities, and the most active one I seen suggested to start some volunteer brigade to help out third world struggles.

Gonzalists wrote polemics against third worldism lol.

tjen-folket.no/index.php/en/2019/08/30/against-third-worldism-the-false-anti-imperialism

struggle-sessions.com/2020/05/11/maoism-v-s-maoist-third-worldism-responding-to-criticism-from-a-reader

Though I doubt if Gonzalo thought is the correct line in first world either

I’m not in the same boat politically as Yuzzy, I’m not inherently against a one party state because I can separate personal political idealism from realistic political practice. That said I don’t think democracy is good though.

C ain't gonna help A like that cause C consists of buncha greedy sociopathic board members with a 'benevolent' synopsis figure as the chairman. C would only help other dictators.
Dictators help each other cause fall of one would lead to disaster for the other.

you're creating unrealistic hypothetical conditions that contribute nothing to the discussion outside of starting some stupid ass argument

go touch some grass or something kusi

Actually you are creating unrealistic hypothetical conditions.

What's a kusi?

to be fair like half of this thread is like people debating hypothetical conditions and then being catty or passive aggressive at each other when they disagree
i have to give serious credit to the people like @Cudderwalks @Womanpuncher69 (you too) who are like actually engaged with real organizing and stuff and not just debating stuff online