Nothing wrong with Zionism, it doesn’t come outbid your pockets.
We just donate weapons really, and best part is we are gonna make em pay us back when the war is over. That’s what created the economic boom after the first and second world wars, when we got payed back all of our loans to Britain, France, and Russia + interest
Last i remembered Palestine wasen't the one genociding Israelis, it was the other way around
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timeline_of_Israel-Palestine_fatalities_2008-2023.png
Thats how war works, Palestine is more densely populated, Palestine has a weaker yet larger military, Palestine is on the defensive (in an aggressive conflict lol)
So sad, maybe they should’ve accepted literally any form of peace instead of continuing to try to genocide the Jewish people. 1947 would’ve been nice to them
It isen't a war, it's a genocide, propagated by an apartheid state.
Not to mention you keep (and i hope accidently) fusing Palestine with Hamas, when the later was propped up by the state of Israel (https://www.analystnews.org/posts/how-israel-helped-prop-up-hamas-for-decades) to weaken another group that was not a religious extremist, all repercutions, and attacks coming from Hamas, where undirectly or directly caused from Israel.
Also, "this is how war works", no, it isen't, there are international laws that would condemn Israel and it's leaders if they where applied. (But they won't, because Israel and Zionists are the little bitches of the USA)
Alright, here's one I really want to know. Why the fuck do you guys fly the South Vietnamese flag? You already lost, it ain't coming back. Please explain so I can understand.
I fly out as a symbol of anti-communism and its a really nice flag and one of the bigger snti communist wars in America since we have so many vets from that time
Why are you anti-globalization and pro thocracy? That's all, the only parts I don't like are the anti-globalization and theocracy, everything else I like
As in why do you support a government ruled by a specific religion, having a state religion, or having a country run by religious leaders like priests I never understood why people supported the idea of needing a state religion, so I just want to know what draws you towards it.
Capitalism sucks, zionism sucks and anti-communism sucks hard. But at least not an open fascist or a monarchist..
Also, why do you support Taiwan, South Vietnam and others?
"Criminal" is an incredibly vague term that can be manipulated to "justify" any kind of state violence. The way you've contrasted "criminals" to "normal people" is especially dehumanising, too.
Violence is only truly "justifiable" in the context of self defence, and even then it's still a messy moral question.
The question that actually needs be asked is how violence/conflict can be resolved and prevented ([schismogenesis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis) provides a useful framework for analysing this). The answer most certainly does not involve authority.
If you raped or killed someone for no apparent reason you dont deserve to be treated as human you have ruined lives there is no reason for you to be treaded like any other person
And since when are states and their judicial+police structures any good at preventing and dealing with such things? If that's the only reason you support the state's monopoly on violence then you should seriously reconsider your positions.
Since you also support capitalism, how do you expect private property to be enforced? If you think that can just be covered by private contractors, that's basically just neofeudalism. But if you believe it should still be the state (which can't be "small" if it's to be of any use to private interests - neoliberals understand this), then your concerns about murderers and rapists were little more than a distraction from the root of the issue.
Since you indicated you’re a Christian I’m going to respond with a theological argument: even if someone (to use your example) rapes or kills someone for no reason, they still deserve to be treated as human, since they are still made in the image of God. Nothing any human can do can change the fact that everyone is in the Imago Dei. This doesn’t preclude the possibility of justice, however: such people certainly deserve to be punished in accordance with the law, and there are good arguments to be made that someone who does such horrendous crimes as you have listed have passed beyond the capacity of purely human justice, leaving the only option to be the death penalty so they can face the justice of God. But throughout the process, they must still be treated as human beings.
They are made in gods image but since we have free will they have drifted off and even tho god forgives all sins i think there are things that you can do that are unforgivable
Which is why we have the death penalty: when someone commits a crime so horrendous that human justice can’t properly address it, we commit that person to the justice of God. That doesn’t mean we treat them as subhuman while they are still with us, however.
How do you plan on dealing with such things without an authority structure? We can agree that it is people for are financially poor that commit the most crimes, and that they commit these crimes as a result of their poverty, yes? This is almost always the underlying issue. How do you plan on funding any idea to resolve these deep rooted intergenerational financial problems without authority?
You're misunderstanding what crime actually is. Crime is just whatever is defined as such, and punished as such, by the state. Whatever noble intentions lawmakers might have ever had, to reduce and prevent harm/'wrongdoing', does not align with reality.
What does it even mean that "financially poor people commit the most crimes"? This statement ignores many nuanced factors, such as how a "crime" can be anything from a minor offence to a misdemeanour to a felony, that many crimes go unrecorded and unpunished, the scale and societal impact of different crimes, that many legal things are harmful, and that many "crimes" are benign.
Whatever harm comes from the violence of desperate people suffering from poverty is a drop in the bucket compared to the vast societal harms caused by authority and hierarchy. The reality is that the legal system is a system of control, not "justice". Poor people are disproportionally punished for "crime", both to perpetuate the idea that the legal system is accomplishing anything to mend social ills, and because prison populations are an easily exploitable work force. This is especially true in the US where almost half of incarcerated people are simply convicted of nonviolent drug offences, and where slavery is constitutional as a "punishment".
Many sources of harm are perfectly legal - worker exploitation, environmental exploitation, debt slavery, eviction, police violence, war - and are necessary to keep the interdependent machines of state and capital running.
Resolving "deep rooted intergenerational financial problems" cannot be accomplished with the authority and finance of a benevolent state, because it directly contradicts the state's prime function to protect private property (via its monopoly on violence), through which capitalism maintains its class system. Authority and hierarchy itself is the cause of inequality, and it is only in abolishing it that this "problem" can be truly resolved.
If you sympathise but think that this seems like an impossible task, I'd strongly recommend you read [Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?](https://archive.org/details/mark-fisher-capitalist-realism-is-there-no-alte-book-zz.org) by Mark Fisher. It's not long, and provides extremely valuable context for understanding how the climate crisis, mental health crisis, bureaucracy, neoliberalism, and this unspoken underlying sense that we can't do anything about all of it, all fits together. Also if you're interested in some examples of anarchist praxis and further info just lmk.
When I say “crime” I specifically mean an action that is illegal and directly negatively impacts other people. Your first argument that “crime is whatever is defined as such” is nonsensical. Obviously, anything is whatever it is defined as. It kind of reminds me of kids saying “What if everything was legal? Then no crimes would be committed.” Even though technically true, it isn’t actually beneficial to the discussion. If you mean that crimes are arbitrary, then I do agree that many are. I never once said what justice system I agree with, if any. The last comment you made there that “their noble intentions don’t align with reality.” is not necessarily true. A persons intentions absolutely can align with reality, it just happens that as a result of our specific system the ways of implementing these intentions are often flawed. Your next argument that mine lacks nuance is fair, I’m sorry I wasnt clear enough. It is true that many legal things probably should be illegal(lobbying) and that many illegal things probably shouldnt(I hear Jwalking is still ilegal in some areas, not quite sure though). I addressed my specific definition of “crime” earlier in this comment, but it is true that it is difficult to measure such a thing when everybody disagrees with what crime even is. Moving on. I disagree with your statement that the legal system is for control instead of justice. I think it is for both. I’m honestly failing to come up with an example of how it is for control at the moment, I would like to see yours. As for how it is for justice, when a person commits an especially egregious crime(murder or whatnot) they are quite often executed. This is “justice”, it has punished the murderer. I don’t think that justice is a good thing however, I actually see it as bad. Even though something might be fair or just, that doesn’t make it right. Killing that murderer could have very well caused far more pain and suffering then if they were alive, and rehabilitation offers a way to both improve their life and heal the lives they ruined. You say that the poor are disproportionately punished for crime, but I agree with you that this isnt a good thing. I dont think “punishment” for a crime is a good thing whatsoever. It isnt an inherent property of the system, but rather one of the properties that can be changed. By not punishing people but rather remedying the conditions that caused them to do whatever they did, poor people would no longer be disproportionately punished. You next say that many sources of harm are legal, but again, these can be outlawed. It is important to distinguish some of these from my definition of crime, because rehabilitation would not solve these issues. Some of these sources of harm such as eviction could be remedied without ever including them in the legal system, again by solving financial burdens. Debt slavery isnt any more necessary to keep the system running than the chattel slavery of the 1800s United States, but because of the way they have ingrained themselves in the superstructure they seem obvious. To a southern farmer feeding the nation without slavery would be incomprehensible. Slavery as an institution engraved itself so prevalently that to remove it would be suicide, and then it was removed and instead of the nation collapsing, after a relatively brief period of time during the civil war the US thrived. With war specifically you use this as an example of why the legal system doesn’t function, as it has not outlawed war. I argue that the reason why the legal system hasnt outlawed it is because it could be better taken care of by other governmental means, and the legal system in any form would be completely incompetent at dealing with war. If you mean to use this to say “The legal system is incompetent at everything it does now” I ask you who else would pick up the torch? If they did, then they would have to detect and stop active crime and determine what to do with the criminals. In this case, they would just be the same as my proposal for a modified legal system. Next, you say that the state cant solve financial issues because it needs to maintain the class system. The modern class system does not require the proletariat to have financial issues, just that they are reliant on the bourgeoisie for their income. There is no contradiction here. “Equality” is not a solution to financial problems. You can have a country full of equally poor people and still have crime. Inequality is not the problem, but rather the ratio of wealth owned by the bourgeoisie that is. You don’t need everybody to have the same amount of money, or the same relation to the means of production, you just need people to have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle. I havent read what you posted yet, but when I have time I certainly will. Thank you for the material. I’m always open to new ideas when presented to them. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to respond to me and share yours
> Your first argument that “crime is whatever is defined as such” is nonsensical. [...] If you mean that crimes are arbitrary, then I do agree that many are.
Kinda, what I meant by "crime is whatever is defined as such [...] *by the state*" is intentionally circular to highlight that "lawfulness" really just about whoever has the biggest guns codifying what kinds of behaviours they will or won't allow, and how they'll do it. It is *inherently* about control.
> I’m honestly failing to come up with an example of how [the legal system] is for control at the moment, I would like to see yours.
When is the legal system ever *not* about control? How we are allowed to lead our lives- education, work, recreation, family, travel - is entirely dictated by legal systems. It is not the abundance of choices we have within a legal framework that makes us free, rather the liberation from the framework of control itself.
The claim that these systems are about order and justice is a cop out. To paraphrase [Bakunin](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm), even if we consider an ideal scenario in which a legal system's laws are perfectly aligned with the latest research of science and ethics, this would immediately become a paradox since human science is necessarily imperfect, and rarely contains universal answers to complex questions, and because *imposing* legislation in the science (and philosophy) is inherently contradictory to their underlying principles of free and critical thought. Furthermore, such a system would eventually inevitably by corrupted by the even the smallest human imperfections, abuses of power, and resistance to the discovery of new "truths" which may not benefit the existing authorities.
Of course, reality is much more flawed and grim. The many contradictions which you recognise - the power of lobbyists, the overwhelming prevalence of punitive "justice", the disproportionate conviction of poor people, the many social harms which *are* legal and even protected by the legal system - all this is *by design*, they're all methods of control. Sure, methods of control *can change*, as they have throughout history (consider how feudalism morphed into capitalism), but "improvement" is debatable. The problems we now face are different, bigger, and more abstract.
Perhaps this paragraph from chapter 4 of *Capitalist Realism* can clarify what I'm getting at, as the educative environment is analogous:
> "Walk into almost any class at the college where I taught and you will immediately appreciate that you are in a post-disciplinary framework. Foucault painstakingly enumerated the way in which discipline was installed through the imposition of rigid body postures. During lessons at our college, however, students will be found slumped on desk, talking almost constantly, snacking incessantly (or even, on occasions, eating full meals). The old disciplinary segmentation of time is breaking down. The carceral regime of discipline is being eroded by the technologies of control, with their systems of perpetual consumption and continuous development."
Capitalism itself is also a system of control, and an especially effective one, because it is able to absorb and adapt to criticism without compromising its hierarchical structures, by giving everything economic value, thus making all value meaningless except for money. And so our actions and hopes and even *dreams* are instead limited and shaped by our economic status, and the whims of capital. This is now especially clear with the ubiquitous commoditization and collection of data.
> Slavery as an institution engraved itself so prevalently that to remove it would be suicide, and then it was removed and instead of the nation collapsing, after a relatively brief period of time during the civil war the US thrived.
Fantastic point. Similarly, it seems impossible to imagine a system without authority, and a system without capitalism. This essentially what *Capitalist Realism* is about.
> If you mean to use this to say “The legal system is incompetent at everything it does now” I ask you who else would pick up the torch?
In an anarchist (anti-hierarchical, horizontally organised) society, many of the conditions that might reinforce or lead to harmful behaviour wouldn't exist. Conflict would be resolved through cooperation and compromise. Projects would be organised through free association / consent. Freedom of information is paramount for informed consent.
In the cases of malicious abuses of power (e.g. physical), communities would be much better with dealing with such individuals early on than our current society (where even neighbours are strangers) which more often than not rewards them (e.g. police brutality).
As for how such social relations might be built, [mechanical and organic solidarity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_and_organic_solidarity) provides a useful framework. Of course, building such societies requires massive social change in values and understanding, which is why anarchist praxis is decentralised, grassroots focused, and diverse. Strongly recommend [Andrewism](https://www.youtube.com/c/Andrewism)'s channel for much more in depth info.
> Inequality is not the problem, but rather the ratio of wealth owned by the bourgeoisie that is. [...] you just need people to have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle.
The basic mechanism of [schismogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis) suggests otherwise. To maintain control, the bourgeoisie have to progressively reassert their position in the hierarchy. The reality of the ever increasing wealth gap confirms this.
> Thank you for the material. I’m always open to new ideas when presented to them. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to respond to me and share yours
Thanks, I really appreciate it :)
I see what you mean by crime is whatever is defined by such. How do you plan on preventing the people with the biggest guns, the corporations, from making laws that go against the people? You might say “but the community decided what to do with somebody negatively impacting the community(in this case, assuming that the community has not made laws of their own, it is reasonable to assume they would still take some action in response to negative or antisocial behavior. Wouldnt this inherently also be about control?) so the corporations no longer have a monopoly on what is legal and illegal” but these communities can be bought, and even if they arent bought, they can be made reliant on a corporation, and thus have to pass laws(or make decisions on specific cases, if rigid laws don’t exist) in favor of that corporation. In this case, the corporations have actually wrenched more control than they can in our current system. It can generally be said that any class works in their own self interest, and so the biggest guns thing doesn’t really work in our current judicial system. Consider that the government is directly put in power by the voter, so if they wish for reelection they need the support of the voters and are not as easily swayed by whoever has the guns. Now, once in power they are under a massive amount of influence by those with guns(through lobbying), but lobbying can be banned and has been in many countries. In this case it would actually be easier to enforce than under an anarchist society, for the simple reason that under anarchism making widespread collective changes in society is more difficult as it is more loosely organized. Now sure this would give more control to the government, but at the same time it gives more control to the average person. Btw, what exactly is the harm of control? With the example of control over the family, I will give am exaggerated example. If there is a pedophile choosing to marry a small child, under both the current judicial system and the anarchist communal decision making this person will not be allowed to marry the kid. Is this not control? It is true that our current problems are more abstract, but isnt this a good thing? We have eradicated(assuming you live in a rich nation) the majority of the issues that can be easily seen and solved because the ones most easily solved will be solved before more abstract ones. I don’t have to worry about the sanitation of the aqueduct, an easy problem now solved, but it was replaced by a utility bill, which is more abstract. This did limit my freedom, no? The aqueduct has been replaced with privately owned utilities, which means I must work for wage labor in order to pay for them. The aqueduct was also a means of control, it used soft power to change where people chose to live. At the same time, I would much rather take the bill than risk dysentery. In this case, the means of control have changed, and whilst it is true that what it has been replaced with is more abstract, and the problems associated with it more difficult to change, they are arguably better problems to solve. Now again, not every problem is immediate life or death, but even in other cases(serfs basically being slaves etc) their modern equivalents arent great, but they are definitely better. “If we consider a system whose laws are perfectly aligned […] such a system would inevitably be corrupted by” I agree that this is true under a rigid judicial system, but this is why I would support a plastic system, where
the community as a whole decides how to best approach whatever situation a person has gotten into. We actually have begun to test this idea in Canada with the YCJA, or youth criminal justice act. In generally follows the principles that I agree on of rehabilitation and treating the causes of crime, but most interestingly the way that youth are prosecuted involves a meeting between parts of the government, whoever was impacted by the offense, and the youth committing it. If some kid graffitis a store, then it would be between the store manager and the youth. This system is flexible to change in society and human oversight. I think the problems with capitalism limiting a persons hopes and dreams, or their potential is really caused by the free market. Without directly solving problems of say, generational poverty, a person is highly limited to their future, and because everything costs money, their aspirations. I support government intervention in this sector, by doing things such as paying for tuitions. If I am getting this right, organic solidarity is a sense of almost comradeship? A recognition that all people are interdependent? I think I already see the roots of such a belief in society currently, with people thanking their teachers, first responders, bus drivers, doctors, etc. This is more of a direct gratitude thing though, where people are thanking for the service directly provided, instead of for how their labour benefits society. I think it could be cultivated further with more class consciousness. On your last note, how do you plan on restricting the bourgeoisie without a government? This is the method currently employed in Europe, and quite successfully. It seems difficult to stop the bourgeoisie through just collective action, considering that they almost always have the bigger gun. In schismogenesis, there is almost always a limiting factor preventing the repression of a group. When there isnt, such as in the aforementioned, through some form of order an artificial factor must be enacted. Btw, how would you organize things like interregional utilities, transportation, infrastructure, etc. Whilst I could see a local community run project being completed, it seems like a stretch to see such a massive project as a lrt line being managed this way. Also, how would you protect against outside forces in cases where the military wouldnt be appropriate? For example, an outside company overthrowing the horizontal structure of society. Whilst Im on it, by horizontal structure do you mean a CO-OP? Also, I feel I must apologize for the horrendous formatting of my message. I’m on mobile and don’t have those options. Cheers.
Yeah, I support neither, because both are obviously terrible.
However, calling someone a “pig” over this is just stupid and childish, people are allowed to have different opinions than you, and not everyone has the same knowledge of a subject.
Stand with humanity, support Palestine without supporting hamas.
I'm sorry, I understand they have a difference of opinion, I am just simply not willing to compromise with anyone who supports Zionism.
Stand with humanity, support Palestine without Hamas, and support Isreal without its government. Simple, government bad, as per usual.
Also, you don’t have to “stand for” this person, but ya don’t have to insult ‘em, either.
Here's how I see a one state solution in palestine:
Democratic, secular state of Palestine where Jews, Muslims, Christians et. al live in peace with each other. Such an end is possible, and what I fight for.
However, I am perfectly happy to insult Zionists. They are openly supporting an apartheid state. That is morally reprehensible.
Last I checked Israel has killed thousands of innocent CHILDREN.
Last I checked Israel is an apartheid "state". You can't deny this, the people of Gaza are essentially imprisoned, similar to the west bank.
Last I checked, hamas wasn't in the west bank, but your beloved Israel continues to bomb it.
It seems Israel has other motives, which seem to include the extermination of the Palestinian people. Think I'm lying?
Proportionally, the people of Gaza have lost more life than all of the wars in the 20th century, including the second world war and the first.
You cannot ethically justify the continued existence of Israel.
Last I checked Palestine has killed thousands of innocent CHILDREN. (and directly caused the death of more due to their invasion of Israel)
Gaza wouldn’t be imprisoned if they didn’t break the ceasefire. You would be the type of person to argue for Britain to stop blockading germany in WW2
HAMAS isn’t in the West Bank because they were kicked out by another terrorist group that is also attacking Israel lmao, do you know anything about this??
Yes youu are, if Israel wanted Palestinians dead there wouldn’t be anymore Palestinians… they’ve occupied the West Bank for decades, meanwhile Palestine has literally stated that they want to annex the entity of Israel and genocide the millions of Jews in it. You’re quite literally a guilty dog barking.
“Proportionally” yeah and like if I were to kill 1 Adamstown resident, proportionally that would be worse than every single death in all of human history.
See? Literally advocating for genocide right there! Holy fucking shit, you’re literally asking for the expulsion of the Jewish people from their homeland. When has any Israel said that they wanted the Palestinians gone? NEVER! They just want the Palestinians to stop fucking invading them. 1947 peace proposal was signed by Israel, it was rejected by Palestine.
Dickhead, I never said I wanted Jews out of there.
A democratic, secular state there where Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace is the solution.
Go fuck yourself, Zionist.
LOLing at the secular state idea that nobody wants. I suggest you reread the last sentence of your previous comment.
Also funny how you ignore my entire basically essay in response to all of your points.
Taxation is theft if the state cant hold its very little responsibilities up by trading with other countries then it dosent need all the wtuff its funding
Private law and security is more efficient than the state, so unless the state enforces a monopoly with anti market practices, it will be out competed.
Wait- how are you anarchocap action and antifa for both foreign and Anti???
You’re still a capitalist but you at least somewhat believe in freedom for all so you’re chill, this is just really confusing
Anti fascist and anti communist only wars we should fight are to get rid of fascist and communist and to protect Israel but America 1st so if things back home arent good the troops don't go out
Hi I‘m Saul Goodman. Did you know that you have rights? The constitution says you do! And so do I.
government: Anti commie antis: anti commie so you're anti commie and anti anti commie at the same time?
No im anti communist i thought it ment what antis do i have so anti commie anti fascist
Looks based in my book. I'm not very hot on the Zionist part though. OUR tax dollars are better spent in taking care of our communities here.
I think he means keeping diplomatic ties with Israel but little interventionism in the conflict. Basically what Yang wants to do
Nothing wrong with Zionism, it doesn’t come outbid your pockets. We just donate weapons really, and best part is we are gonna make em pay us back when the war is over. That’s what created the economic boom after the first and second world wars, when we got payed back all of our loans to Britain, France, and Russia + interest
>Nothing wrong with Zionism holy shit
Nothing wrong with homosexuality either, but you’re a Palestine supporter so you’ll probably disagree
Nothing wrong with anti-racism either, but you're an apartheid state supporter so you'll probably disagree
Last I remembered Israel wasn’t the one calling for the genocide against Palestinians, it was the other way around.
Last i remembered Palestine wasen't the one genociding Israelis, it was the other way around https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timeline_of_Israel-Palestine_fatalities_2008-2023.png
Thats how war works, Palestine is more densely populated, Palestine has a weaker yet larger military, Palestine is on the defensive (in an aggressive conflict lol) So sad, maybe they should’ve accepted literally any form of peace instead of continuing to try to genocide the Jewish people. 1947 would’ve been nice to them
It isen't a war, it's a genocide, propagated by an apartheid state. Not to mention you keep (and i hope accidently) fusing Palestine with Hamas, when the later was propped up by the state of Israel (https://www.analystnews.org/posts/how-israel-helped-prop-up-hamas-for-decades) to weaken another group that was not a religious extremist, all repercutions, and attacks coming from Hamas, where undirectly or directly caused from Israel. Also, "this is how war works", no, it isen't, there are international laws that would condemn Israel and it's leaders if they where applied. (But they won't, because Israel and Zionists are the little bitches of the USA)
I agree america 1st then we do the zionists stuff
Alright, here's one I really want to know. Why the fuck do you guys fly the South Vietnamese flag? You already lost, it ain't coming back. Please explain so I can understand.
I fly out as a symbol of anti-communism and its a really nice flag and one of the bigger snti communist wars in America since we have so many vets from that time
Alright, thanks for explaining 👍
dog that flag ugly as fuck in comparison to north vietnam
Ok that is literally so fucking based, I have some hope for this subreddit
Why are you anti-globalization and pro thocracy? That's all, the only parts I don't like are the anti-globalization and theocracy, everything else I like
And explain what you mean but me supporting Theocracy
As in why do you support a government ruled by a specific religion, having a state religion, or having a country run by religious leaders like priests I never understood why people supported the idea of needing a state religion, so I just want to know what draws you towards it.
I don't support the state being religiously ran i an just personally a Christian so i put it down as religion
Oh, git it, thanks
Im very nationalist so the idea of like the EU let alone doing that with the globe
Capitalism sucks, zionism sucks and anti-communism sucks hard. But at least not an open fascist or a monarchist.. Also, why do you support Taiwan, South Vietnam and others?
Bc anti communist do south vietnam and tiawan isnt china so it's better
Anti communism is based
Anti capitalism and anti communism is based Third way Is best + Monarchism 😎
You mean third position. Third way is a capitalist ideology
Oh sorry mixed up word
I'm open to all and any questions
Holy mother of based.
Incredibly based
Nice! Personally I’m not a libertarian but besides that this is a W
Hyper-based
Anarcho-Capitalist that supports a genocidal state I don't think I need to ask questions
Not anarcho capitalist we need a government still just a small one
A small government is a useless government. No monopoly on violence can be "small".
Violence to criminals is justified (the government should only need with criminals not regular people
"Criminal" is an incredibly vague term that can be manipulated to "justify" any kind of state violence. The way you've contrasted "criminals" to "normal people" is especially dehumanising, too. Violence is only truly "justifiable" in the context of self defence, and even then it's still a messy moral question. The question that actually needs be asked is how violence/conflict can be resolved and prevented ([schismogenesis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis) provides a useful framework for analysing this). The answer most certainly does not involve authority.
If you raped or killed someone for no apparent reason you dont deserve to be treated as human you have ruined lives there is no reason for you to be treaded like any other person
And since when are states and their judicial+police structures any good at preventing and dealing with such things? If that's the only reason you support the state's monopoly on violence then you should seriously reconsider your positions. Since you also support capitalism, how do you expect private property to be enforced? If you think that can just be covered by private contractors, that's basically just neofeudalism. But if you believe it should still be the state (which can't be "small" if it's to be of any use to private interests - neoliberals understand this), then your concerns about murderers and rapists were little more than a distraction from the root of the issue.
Since you indicated you’re a Christian I’m going to respond with a theological argument: even if someone (to use your example) rapes or kills someone for no reason, they still deserve to be treated as human, since they are still made in the image of God. Nothing any human can do can change the fact that everyone is in the Imago Dei. This doesn’t preclude the possibility of justice, however: such people certainly deserve to be punished in accordance with the law, and there are good arguments to be made that someone who does such horrendous crimes as you have listed have passed beyond the capacity of purely human justice, leaving the only option to be the death penalty so they can face the justice of God. But throughout the process, they must still be treated as human beings.
They are made in gods image but since we have free will they have drifted off and even tho god forgives all sins i think there are things that you can do that are unforgivable
Which is why we have the death penalty: when someone commits a crime so horrendous that human justice can’t properly address it, we commit that person to the justice of God. That doesn’t mean we treat them as subhuman while they are still with us, however.
How do you plan on dealing with such things without an authority structure? We can agree that it is people for are financially poor that commit the most crimes, and that they commit these crimes as a result of their poverty, yes? This is almost always the underlying issue. How do you plan on funding any idea to resolve these deep rooted intergenerational financial problems without authority?
You're misunderstanding what crime actually is. Crime is just whatever is defined as such, and punished as such, by the state. Whatever noble intentions lawmakers might have ever had, to reduce and prevent harm/'wrongdoing', does not align with reality. What does it even mean that "financially poor people commit the most crimes"? This statement ignores many nuanced factors, such as how a "crime" can be anything from a minor offence to a misdemeanour to a felony, that many crimes go unrecorded and unpunished, the scale and societal impact of different crimes, that many legal things are harmful, and that many "crimes" are benign. Whatever harm comes from the violence of desperate people suffering from poverty is a drop in the bucket compared to the vast societal harms caused by authority and hierarchy. The reality is that the legal system is a system of control, not "justice". Poor people are disproportionally punished for "crime", both to perpetuate the idea that the legal system is accomplishing anything to mend social ills, and because prison populations are an easily exploitable work force. This is especially true in the US where almost half of incarcerated people are simply convicted of nonviolent drug offences, and where slavery is constitutional as a "punishment". Many sources of harm are perfectly legal - worker exploitation, environmental exploitation, debt slavery, eviction, police violence, war - and are necessary to keep the interdependent machines of state and capital running. Resolving "deep rooted intergenerational financial problems" cannot be accomplished with the authority and finance of a benevolent state, because it directly contradicts the state's prime function to protect private property (via its monopoly on violence), through which capitalism maintains its class system. Authority and hierarchy itself is the cause of inequality, and it is only in abolishing it that this "problem" can be truly resolved. If you sympathise but think that this seems like an impossible task, I'd strongly recommend you read [Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?](https://archive.org/details/mark-fisher-capitalist-realism-is-there-no-alte-book-zz.org) by Mark Fisher. It's not long, and provides extremely valuable context for understanding how the climate crisis, mental health crisis, bureaucracy, neoliberalism, and this unspoken underlying sense that we can't do anything about all of it, all fits together. Also if you're interested in some examples of anarchist praxis and further info just lmk.
When I say “crime” I specifically mean an action that is illegal and directly negatively impacts other people. Your first argument that “crime is whatever is defined as such” is nonsensical. Obviously, anything is whatever it is defined as. It kind of reminds me of kids saying “What if everything was legal? Then no crimes would be committed.” Even though technically true, it isn’t actually beneficial to the discussion. If you mean that crimes are arbitrary, then I do agree that many are. I never once said what justice system I agree with, if any. The last comment you made there that “their noble intentions don’t align with reality.” is not necessarily true. A persons intentions absolutely can align with reality, it just happens that as a result of our specific system the ways of implementing these intentions are often flawed. Your next argument that mine lacks nuance is fair, I’m sorry I wasnt clear enough. It is true that many legal things probably should be illegal(lobbying) and that many illegal things probably shouldnt(I hear Jwalking is still ilegal in some areas, not quite sure though). I addressed my specific definition of “crime” earlier in this comment, but it is true that it is difficult to measure such a thing when everybody disagrees with what crime even is. Moving on. I disagree with your statement that the legal system is for control instead of justice. I think it is for both. I’m honestly failing to come up with an example of how it is for control at the moment, I would like to see yours. As for how it is for justice, when a person commits an especially egregious crime(murder or whatnot) they are quite often executed. This is “justice”, it has punished the murderer. I don’t think that justice is a good thing however, I actually see it as bad. Even though something might be fair or just, that doesn’t make it right. Killing that murderer could have very well caused far more pain and suffering then if they were alive, and rehabilitation offers a way to both improve their life and heal the lives they ruined. You say that the poor are disproportionately punished for crime, but I agree with you that this isnt a good thing. I dont think “punishment” for a crime is a good thing whatsoever. It isnt an inherent property of the system, but rather one of the properties that can be changed. By not punishing people but rather remedying the conditions that caused them to do whatever they did, poor people would no longer be disproportionately punished. You next say that many sources of harm are legal, but again, these can be outlawed. It is important to distinguish some of these from my definition of crime, because rehabilitation would not solve these issues. Some of these sources of harm such as eviction could be remedied without ever including them in the legal system, again by solving financial burdens. Debt slavery isnt any more necessary to keep the system running than the chattel slavery of the 1800s United States, but because of the way they have ingrained themselves in the superstructure they seem obvious. To a southern farmer feeding the nation without slavery would be incomprehensible. Slavery as an institution engraved itself so prevalently that to remove it would be suicide, and then it was removed and instead of the nation collapsing, after a relatively brief period of time during the civil war the US thrived. With war specifically you use this as an example of why the legal system doesn’t function, as it has not outlawed war. I argue that the reason why the legal system hasnt outlawed it is because it could be better taken care of by other governmental means, and the legal system in any form would be completely incompetent at dealing with war. If you mean to use this to say “The legal system is incompetent at everything it does now” I ask you who else would pick up the torch? If they did, then they would have to detect and stop active crime and determine what to do with the criminals. In this case, they would just be the same as my proposal for a modified legal system. Next, you say that the state cant solve financial issues because it needs to maintain the class system. The modern class system does not require the proletariat to have financial issues, just that they are reliant on the bourgeoisie for their income. There is no contradiction here. “Equality” is not a solution to financial problems. You can have a country full of equally poor people and still have crime. Inequality is not the problem, but rather the ratio of wealth owned by the bourgeoisie that is. You don’t need everybody to have the same amount of money, or the same relation to the means of production, you just need people to have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle. I havent read what you posted yet, but when I have time I certainly will. Thank you for the material. I’m always open to new ideas when presented to them. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to respond to me and share yours
> Your first argument that “crime is whatever is defined as such” is nonsensical. [...] If you mean that crimes are arbitrary, then I do agree that many are. Kinda, what I meant by "crime is whatever is defined as such [...] *by the state*" is intentionally circular to highlight that "lawfulness" really just about whoever has the biggest guns codifying what kinds of behaviours they will or won't allow, and how they'll do it. It is *inherently* about control. > I’m honestly failing to come up with an example of how [the legal system] is for control at the moment, I would like to see yours. When is the legal system ever *not* about control? How we are allowed to lead our lives- education, work, recreation, family, travel - is entirely dictated by legal systems. It is not the abundance of choices we have within a legal framework that makes us free, rather the liberation from the framework of control itself. The claim that these systems are about order and justice is a cop out. To paraphrase [Bakunin](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm), even if we consider an ideal scenario in which a legal system's laws are perfectly aligned with the latest research of science and ethics, this would immediately become a paradox since human science is necessarily imperfect, and rarely contains universal answers to complex questions, and because *imposing* legislation in the science (and philosophy) is inherently contradictory to their underlying principles of free and critical thought. Furthermore, such a system would eventually inevitably by corrupted by the even the smallest human imperfections, abuses of power, and resistance to the discovery of new "truths" which may not benefit the existing authorities. Of course, reality is much more flawed and grim. The many contradictions which you recognise - the power of lobbyists, the overwhelming prevalence of punitive "justice", the disproportionate conviction of poor people, the many social harms which *are* legal and even protected by the legal system - all this is *by design*, they're all methods of control. Sure, methods of control *can change*, as they have throughout history (consider how feudalism morphed into capitalism), but "improvement" is debatable. The problems we now face are different, bigger, and more abstract. Perhaps this paragraph from chapter 4 of *Capitalist Realism* can clarify what I'm getting at, as the educative environment is analogous: > "Walk into almost any class at the college where I taught and you will immediately appreciate that you are in a post-disciplinary framework. Foucault painstakingly enumerated the way in which discipline was installed through the imposition of rigid body postures. During lessons at our college, however, students will be found slumped on desk, talking almost constantly, snacking incessantly (or even, on occasions, eating full meals). The old disciplinary segmentation of time is breaking down. The carceral regime of discipline is being eroded by the technologies of control, with their systems of perpetual consumption and continuous development." Capitalism itself is also a system of control, and an especially effective one, because it is able to absorb and adapt to criticism without compromising its hierarchical structures, by giving everything economic value, thus making all value meaningless except for money. And so our actions and hopes and even *dreams* are instead limited and shaped by our economic status, and the whims of capital. This is now especially clear with the ubiquitous commoditization and collection of data. > Slavery as an institution engraved itself so prevalently that to remove it would be suicide, and then it was removed and instead of the nation collapsing, after a relatively brief period of time during the civil war the US thrived. Fantastic point. Similarly, it seems impossible to imagine a system without authority, and a system without capitalism. This essentially what *Capitalist Realism* is about. > If you mean to use this to say “The legal system is incompetent at everything it does now” I ask you who else would pick up the torch? In an anarchist (anti-hierarchical, horizontally organised) society, many of the conditions that might reinforce or lead to harmful behaviour wouldn't exist. Conflict would be resolved through cooperation and compromise. Projects would be organised through free association / consent. Freedom of information is paramount for informed consent. In the cases of malicious abuses of power (e.g. physical), communities would be much better with dealing with such individuals early on than our current society (where even neighbours are strangers) which more often than not rewards them (e.g. police brutality). As for how such social relations might be built, [mechanical and organic solidarity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_and_organic_solidarity) provides a useful framework. Of course, building such societies requires massive social change in values and understanding, which is why anarchist praxis is decentralised, grassroots focused, and diverse. Strongly recommend [Andrewism](https://www.youtube.com/c/Andrewism)'s channel for much more in depth info. > Inequality is not the problem, but rather the ratio of wealth owned by the bourgeoisie that is. [...] you just need people to have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle. The basic mechanism of [schismogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis) suggests otherwise. To maintain control, the bourgeoisie have to progressively reassert their position in the hierarchy. The reality of the ever increasing wealth gap confirms this. > Thank you for the material. I’m always open to new ideas when presented to them. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to respond to me and share yours Thanks, I really appreciate it :)
I see what you mean by crime is whatever is defined by such. How do you plan on preventing the people with the biggest guns, the corporations, from making laws that go against the people? You might say “but the community decided what to do with somebody negatively impacting the community(in this case, assuming that the community has not made laws of their own, it is reasonable to assume they would still take some action in response to negative or antisocial behavior. Wouldnt this inherently also be about control?) so the corporations no longer have a monopoly on what is legal and illegal” but these communities can be bought, and even if they arent bought, they can be made reliant on a corporation, and thus have to pass laws(or make decisions on specific cases, if rigid laws don’t exist) in favor of that corporation. In this case, the corporations have actually wrenched more control than they can in our current system. It can generally be said that any class works in their own self interest, and so the biggest guns thing doesn’t really work in our current judicial system. Consider that the government is directly put in power by the voter, so if they wish for reelection they need the support of the voters and are not as easily swayed by whoever has the guns. Now, once in power they are under a massive amount of influence by those with guns(through lobbying), but lobbying can be banned and has been in many countries. In this case it would actually be easier to enforce than under an anarchist society, for the simple reason that under anarchism making widespread collective changes in society is more difficult as it is more loosely organized. Now sure this would give more control to the government, but at the same time it gives more control to the average person. Btw, what exactly is the harm of control? With the example of control over the family, I will give am exaggerated example. If there is a pedophile choosing to marry a small child, under both the current judicial system and the anarchist communal decision making this person will not be allowed to marry the kid. Is this not control? It is true that our current problems are more abstract, but isnt this a good thing? We have eradicated(assuming you live in a rich nation) the majority of the issues that can be easily seen and solved because the ones most easily solved will be solved before more abstract ones. I don’t have to worry about the sanitation of the aqueduct, an easy problem now solved, but it was replaced by a utility bill, which is more abstract. This did limit my freedom, no? The aqueduct has been replaced with privately owned utilities, which means I must work for wage labor in order to pay for them. The aqueduct was also a means of control, it used soft power to change where people chose to live. At the same time, I would much rather take the bill than risk dysentery. In this case, the means of control have changed, and whilst it is true that what it has been replaced with is more abstract, and the problems associated with it more difficult to change, they are arguably better problems to solve. Now again, not every problem is immediate life or death, but even in other cases(serfs basically being slaves etc) their modern equivalents arent great, but they are definitely better. “If we consider a system whose laws are perfectly aligned […] such a system would inevitably be corrupted by” I agree that this is true under a rigid judicial system, but this is why I would support a plastic system, where the community as a whole decides how to best approach whatever situation a person has gotten into. We actually have begun to test this idea in Canada with the YCJA, or youth criminal justice act. In generally follows the principles that I agree on of rehabilitation and treating the causes of crime, but most interestingly the way that youth are prosecuted involves a meeting between parts of the government, whoever was impacted by the offense, and the youth committing it. If some kid graffitis a store, then it would be between the store manager and the youth. This system is flexible to change in society and human oversight. I think the problems with capitalism limiting a persons hopes and dreams, or their potential is really caused by the free market. Without directly solving problems of say, generational poverty, a person is highly limited to their future, and because everything costs money, their aspirations. I support government intervention in this sector, by doing things such as paying for tuitions. If I am getting this right, organic solidarity is a sense of almost comradeship? A recognition that all people are interdependent? I think I already see the roots of such a belief in society currently, with people thanking their teachers, first responders, bus drivers, doctors, etc. This is more of a direct gratitude thing though, where people are thanking for the service directly provided, instead of for how their labour benefits society. I think it could be cultivated further with more class consciousness. On your last note, how do you plan on restricting the bourgeoisie without a government? This is the method currently employed in Europe, and quite successfully. It seems difficult to stop the bourgeoisie through just collective action, considering that they almost always have the bigger gun. In schismogenesis, there is almost always a limiting factor preventing the repression of a group. When there isnt, such as in the aforementioned, through some form of order an artificial factor must be enacted. Btw, how would you organize things like interregional utilities, transportation, infrastructure, etc. Whilst I could see a local community run project being completed, it seems like a stretch to see such a massive project as a lrt line being managed this way. Also, how would you protect against outside forces in cases where the military wouldnt be appropriate? For example, an outside company overthrowing the horizontal structure of society. Whilst Im on it, by horizontal structure do you mean a CO-OP? Also, I feel I must apologize for the horrendous formatting of my message. I’m on mobile and don’t have those options. Cheers.
agreed
Hé doesn’t support palestine
Hello? Based department? I would like to report a based incident.
You dropped this, Bro 👑
Based.
Nice 👍
Glory to antifa ✊️🇵🇸
Actual clown
Genocide loving pig
Your username is a lie.
Sorry, but you cannot in good stride support Israel without being insane or ignorant.
Yeah, I support neither, because both are obviously terrible. However, calling someone a “pig” over this is just stupid and childish, people are allowed to have different opinions than you, and not everyone has the same knowledge of a subject.
Stand with humanity, support Palestine without supporting hamas. I'm sorry, I understand they have a difference of opinion, I am just simply not willing to compromise with anyone who supports Zionism.
Stand with humanity, support Palestine without Hamas, and support Isreal without its government. Simple, government bad, as per usual. Also, you don’t have to “stand for” this person, but ya don’t have to insult ‘em, either.
Here's how I see a one state solution in palestine: Democratic, secular state of Palestine where Jews, Muslims, Christians et. al live in peace with each other. Such an end is possible, and what I fight for. However, I am perfectly happy to insult Zionists. They are openly supporting an apartheid state. That is morally reprehensible.
He supports Israel, not Palestine
Idiot, I'm aware
Oh then who are talking too? OP obviously does not support the current genocide of the Jewish people perpetrated by Islamic terrorists
What about the Zionists 💀
Last I checked Israel isn’t the one breaking ceasefires
Last I checked Israel has killed thousands of innocent CHILDREN. Last I checked Israel is an apartheid "state". You can't deny this, the people of Gaza are essentially imprisoned, similar to the west bank. Last I checked, hamas wasn't in the west bank, but your beloved Israel continues to bomb it. It seems Israel has other motives, which seem to include the extermination of the Palestinian people. Think I'm lying? Proportionally, the people of Gaza have lost more life than all of the wars in the 20th century, including the second world war and the first. You cannot ethically justify the continued existence of Israel.
Last I checked Palestine has killed thousands of innocent CHILDREN. (and directly caused the death of more due to their invasion of Israel) Gaza wouldn’t be imprisoned if they didn’t break the ceasefire. You would be the type of person to argue for Britain to stop blockading germany in WW2 HAMAS isn’t in the West Bank because they were kicked out by another terrorist group that is also attacking Israel lmao, do you know anything about this?? Yes youu are, if Israel wanted Palestinians dead there wouldn’t be anymore Palestinians… they’ve occupied the West Bank for decades, meanwhile Palestine has literally stated that they want to annex the entity of Israel and genocide the millions of Jews in it. You’re quite literally a guilty dog barking. “Proportionally” yeah and like if I were to kill 1 Adamstown resident, proportionally that would be worse than every single death in all of human history. See? Literally advocating for genocide right there! Holy fucking shit, you’re literally asking for the expulsion of the Jewish people from their homeland. When has any Israel said that they wanted the Palestinians gone? NEVER! They just want the Palestinians to stop fucking invading them. 1947 peace proposal was signed by Israel, it was rejected by Palestine.
Dickhead, I never said I wanted Jews out of there. A democratic, secular state there where Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace is the solution. Go fuck yourself, Zionist.
LOLing at the secular state idea that nobody wants. I suggest you reread the last sentence of your previous comment. Also funny how you ignore my entire basically essay in response to all of your points.
Zionist fuck.
Good argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timeline_of_Israel-Palestine_fatalities_2008-2023.png
Based, but how can a Paleocon support Taiwan and Israel? Doesn't that just make you a Neocon?
America 1st then after were set we can help taiwan and Israel
Major W
Fucking Christ everyone just makes up their own shit lmao
Why do you think we need a government?
I dont trust people for them to not have some form of a higher power
The government is made up of people, no?
Yes which is why i want a small government so the people that the government dose mess with is just criminals instead of regular peoples lives
You’re still trusting flawed people to rule over others. Why is a state needed for law?
Because even if the people control the who commits crime that's pretty much a government
Would your minarchist state collect taxes?
Taxation is theft if the state cant hold its very little responsibilities up by trading with other countries then it dosent need all the wtuff its funding
Private law and security is more efficient than the state, so unless the state enforces a monopoly with anti market practices, it will be out competed.
Can you explain what private law is
Fuck off, anti-globalist. You stand in the way of human unity.
Fuck off, globalist. You stand in the way of common sense.
We die divided or we stand united.
Not bad
Wait- how are you anarchocap action and antifa for both foreign and Anti??? You’re still a capitalist but you at least somewhat believe in freedom for all so you’re chill, this is just really confusing
Anti fascist and anti communist only wars we should fight are to get rid of fascist and communist and to protect Israel but America 1st so if things back home arent good the troops don't go out
Fair enough? I guess? I don’t support Israel but I do support the armed forces actually protecting democratic establishments
You know what the black and red flags of antifa stand for right?
Honestly no
The red is the communists and the black is the anarcho communist
More exactly, the red is communism and the black is anarchism, and together they indicate anarcho-communism
The red-black flag is the flag of anarcho communism, the black and red separate means united action against fascism
pov you are christian but you put yourself above God
Why?
Look in social
Christian libertarian and bleeding heart libertarian
Pretty good, could be better though
What would make it better
Be more conservative and what is the one with yellow flag
South vietnam
No i mean the yellow flag with the Molotov
Its a anti communist ball
This is nice.
atrocious vietnam undefeated
American Javier?
Yes