Only sticking point is the use of “demonic”.

It’s a silly term based on fairy tales and is needlessly dehumanizing rhetoric that not only makes the piece feel childish but also opens up the piece to criticisms that will distract the audience from the point that is trying to be made.

Why not just use “Imperialist Captors” and actually sell the anti-imperialism angle? That seems like it would be much more effective at getting the point across.

That’s a whole lot of words that mean absolutely nothing without context.

Seeing as this is posted in an Autism feddit, this seems incredibly ignorant of a thing to say considering the audience it is being told to.

Man, I haven’t played D&D in so long.

Time allotted for rest is still time that is already accounted for which is unable to be spent elsewhere.

There shouldn’t be any confusion.

Removed by mod

Yes it does still collectivize production; it just does so in a decentralized method. You don’t need centralized authority to be a collectivist.

You have no understanding of what anarchism is.

Oh and of course, the lame fallacy that because it failed it means it can never be a thing. Tell me again how that worked out for the communist projects around the world? Oh, right, those imperialist nations totally don’t have clear class distinctions and any day now they will just willfully give up their newly gained authority over the masses… any day now…

Bruh, you’re taking a metaphor at face value instead of just understanding that it is, yes, a simple slogan meant to represent a much larger idea. A very common anarchist slogan, in fact.

It wasn’t meant to be a point. It isn’t an argument against any of what you stated because it isn’t itself an argument. It is just a slogan that represents a more in-depth point.

No, the proletariat cannot just use systems of oppression and hope it withers against its fundamental design. That’s just naive, wishful thinking that doesn’t understand how the system works to reinforce itself.

Tools also depend on their design to function in a specific way. You can try to saw away at a tree with a hammer all day but you’ll never cut it down. So the answer isn’t to use their tools to do something they weren’t designed to do but to build/use different tools altogether.

If you remove the system that allows them to gain authority over necessities and dictate how others access resources that should be communally available then you fundamentally remove their ability to be able to oppress you and your community.

by asking nicely,

I didn’t say you ask nicely. Nice try misrepresenting my argument because you can’t understand it.

What you are literally talking about is that we tried using the tools of the masters and instead of making a better society we just changed who was at the helm of the oppressive system. Thanks for proving my point.

Our ends require dismantle systems that allow for any kind of oppression. You don’t inspire confidence in admitting you just want to be the one doing the oppressing instead.

Bruh, it’s called a metaphor…

“The house” represents the position from which the owning class rule and the “tools” are the system that lets them rule from on high.

Yes, they are effective… at oppressing others, which is not anywhere close to reconcilable with our ends. You cannot build a world free of oppression by using the very systems that allow them to oppress us.

Lol, the irony that I was ML first when I finally broke free of my propagandized response to communism then continued reading a plethora of authors and it led me to being Anarchist.

Master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.

He and Kropotkin are my favorite authors, so I love that you say that.

I wasn’t explaining the difference between anarchism and communism.

I was explaining how the quoted text is why we currently live under a hegemony of capitalst republics. So it has already been proven to be the most viable method, which is to undermine their authority and build up your own from the bottom up, of overthrowing a hierarchical power.

Though to your confusion, the difference I believe you are missing is in how they structure their systems of authority.

One says they will retain the system of the state to ensure their authority and dismantle it later after we have achieved majority while the other says that we must preconfigure the societal systems we want to see in the here and now while simultaneously removing ourselves from the current system.

Sorry you felt attacked by a simple statement with a follow up question. Hope your wounds heal and scars fade.

Highly recommend reading up on some Malatesta.

What snark? I was legitimately confused about how you didn’t catch the glaringly obvious context.

Tell me you have no understanding of political analysis without telling me you have no understanding of political analysis.

The liberals that this post is directly talking about who believe themselves to be “leftists” while supporting a fundamentally right wing ideology.

Who else would I be talking about?

Oh man, this is gonna piss off a bunch of “leftists”. How dare you speak facts!

People really do not grasp the concept of “dual power” and harm reduction when it comes to anarchist “participation” in electoralists systems.

You don’t try to shift it to be less oppressive. None of this “change the system from the inside” nonsense. It is oppressive by its very fundamental nature. The only reason for an anarchist to participate in the electoralist system is to protect the interests of the collective and ensure that you are able to conduct your internal business as you see fit. This means lobbying and leveraging your local power to prevent private industry from forcing their way in to extract the wealth of your community while simultaneously facilitating the existence of anarchist structures.

Essentially, you become a roadblock for private interests while facilitating the growth of anarchist and community interests.