"negative peace "

cringe and/or lame

cringe

imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing.

does a ‘nice’ king justify monarchy?

no. power centralized in the beaurocratic state apparatus is also oppressive. electoral politics are a sham, and democracy is impotent when the capital owning class can simply buy influence.

if 9 people vote to kill the 10th, is that just?

what is generational wealth?

incredibly simplistic perspective, and intellectually dishonest; we traded monarchy for a dictatorship of the capital owning class.

reactionary recuperation of revolutionary aesthetic-- shallow, reductive simulacrum of class analysis, stripped of systemic critique, intersectionality, and radical solidarity.

conservative pandering. lame af.

scrub the influencer brainworms from your gray matter for one moment and produce a critical thought–

engagement with what, exactly?

the signal which carries no message is white noise.

meaningless engagement is distraction, wasted bandwidth.

an emoji is not a meaningful improvement to the material condition of the working class, or a threat to the status quo. It’s not even relevant to the abolition of work.

thank goodness internet tough guys exist to defend limp-dick slacktivism.

hashtag resist

like and subscribe 👍

petitioning for a fucking emoji epitomizes the criticism that social media is a vehicle for diverting action into impotent dialogue.

since we’re on the subject

retributive violence against individual actors is not the same as dismantling oppressive systems, and should not eclipse the important work of creating resilient communities and networks of mutual aid to replace those heirarchies.

this is news?

lhd suggests otherwise, yank.

je suis l’etat-man

tongue-ass national forest😻

how? abolish the standing beaurocratic heirarchy which perpetuates and expends its own power and the interest of the ruling class by inflicting violence on the working class. what that looks like depends on how the people who make up a community choose to govern themselves.

realistically I don’t expect a revolution of the proletariat to take place, so I promote the institution of robust mutual aid networks, radical solidarity (organized labor, intersectional liberatory philosophy), and resilient autonomous communities, to compete with the prevailing system of power.

attempts at anarchist-adjacent organizing have existed, and continue to in some communities, though of course execution varies, as does identity.

the USSR was not an attempt towards a stateless society, being a state-capitalist imperialist kleptocracy.

common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.

communism is when ussr

capitalism has always carried the implied threat of starvation for those unable or unwilling to labor in order to enrich the capital owning class.

this sort of vapid whitewashing/revisionism is just ‘maga’ for neoliberals, and is entirely devoid of substance.

show me a period of prosperity under capitalism and I’ll show you a marginalized population subjugated.

this is the most generous possible interpretation of the gadsden, while ignoring its current usage, as well as ignoring the anti-authoritarian meaning behind the sabocat, and red/black scheme.

ps: the American revolution was a lateral move, replacing a hereditary monarchy with a dictatorship of capital. The ‘founding fathers’ were their time’s equivalent of musk and bezos, and they explicitly wanted to protect the interest of the capital owning class from the will of the working class and those humans who they kept as property.