Almost like the illusion of choice already exists under capitalism.

He strongly believes:

That if people were to enforce anything against say, someone deciding to take over a community by force would equate to laws and a government and thus it's not an anarchist system.

Communism requires a command economy to work, tried explaining worker ownership under Ancom and he seemed baffled but then had to leave

No matter what communism always leads to authoritarianism (stated multiple times emphatically 😭)

Albert Memmi grew up in Tunis, a colonized, but French-educated enough to know the colonizer almost as well as he knew himself. He was in a position to draw both portraits from the inside.

The colonizer: In his own words, the colonizer "is a privileged being and an illegitimately privileged one; that is, a usurper." Skin color and passport hand you the privilege whether you asked for it or not. This sounds very familiar nowadays. According to Memmi, the colonizer has three options: leave the colony, stay silent, or stay and fight the system. He argues that few would opt for the third option with success. He has a term for the second one though: "humanitarian romanticism”. Again another very contemporary dynamic; think about aid workers today, who draw hardship pay and a security detail while ostensibly there to fight poverty.

The Colonized: Memmi wrote in 1957 that a qualified worker among the colonizers earned three or four times more than the colonized worker, without producing three or four times as much. He presents an economic argument that the colonized had no incentive to be more productive with such an imbalance. Memmi described colonized women who tried desperately to uncurl their hair and lighten their skin, chasing an acceptance that never actually occurred. No matter how fluent or how polished a colonized became, he argued they would still be met with disdain.

In commenting liberation movements, Memmi rejected half-measures like a negotiated "French Union" outright. His final word was that the colonized refusal "cannot be anything but absolute" Not just revolt, but revolution, breaking what he called an iron collar.

We discuss the book at length in our podcast Threads of Ifriqiya, and we try to draw parallels to contemporary times of which we identify many. I will link the podcast in the comments.

Let's say, in the end, Leftism wins. All the "far-right racist fascist nazis" all gets their butts kicked or are killed. Then what? What do they want? Because, what I want is, a safe normal society with heavy culture and history. Looking around and only seeing good working class citizens right next to towering beautiful architectural buildings. Not being afraid that the person standing, sitting or walking next to me isn't going to kill rob or stab me. (And if your a woman reading this then add rape to that list too.) I see leftist promoting their ideology all the time. But what is the END goal? If all workss out, what happens?

Libs keep telling me that anarchists believe in the social contract but can’t find the contract I signed when I was a baby.

Curious

For context: I lived in Ukraine but now I am subhuman migrant in Czech. Because of my invalidity I had a legal right to leave the country, so I'm ashamed to talk about it while conscripted people are dying on the front lines, but I need to talk about it. Without army my country will be occupied by the imperialist state and probably ethnically cleansed, and my friends and family is still in the Ukraine so it's hard to be anti conscription, but at the same time something feels incorrect about it

In an anarchist society people will probably have sense of self obligation for their friends and family they work with, but is it possible to achieve such society quicky enough and what can we do now?

Do these people not know what punk is?

Andrew Sage's (Andrewism) newest video aired just an hour ago.

In his latest and, rather deep dive, he ventured to unpack the historical, legal, as well as theoretical roots of property. Tracing the concept from Roman law (dominium) and historical enclosures, to Benjamin Tucker's four state-backed monopolies, the video goes on to dismantle the conflation of personal possession with private property.

Drawing heavily (primarily even) on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his What is Property?, but also Kropotkin, Malatesta and more contemporary anarchist and other social/anthropological theorists, Andrew explores why private property is both an act of ongoing enclosure and is also structurally unworkable, before proceeding to outline how an ethics of recognized interdependence, a-legality, occupancy, use and reciprocity offers a viable path toward genuine social liberation.

Enjoy the video!

i just really like reclus bakunin and kropotkin lol 😅😅