[anarchist23]

Willem Van Spronsen’s Final Statement

There’s wrong and there’s right.
It’s time to take action against the forces of evil.
Evil says one life is worth less than another.
Evil says the flow of commerce is our purpose here.
Evil says concentration camps for folks deemed lesser are necessary.
The handmaid of evil says the concentration camps should be more humane.
Beware the centrist.
I have a father’s broken heart
I have a broken down body
And I have an unshakable abhorrence for injustice
That is what brings me here.
This is my clear opportunity to try to make a difference, I’d be an ingrate to be waiting for a more obvious invitation.
I follow three teachers:
Don Pritts, my spiritual guide. “Love without action is just a word.”
John Brown, my moral guide. “What is needed is action!”
Emma Goldman, my political guide. “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution.”
I’m a head in the clouds dreamer, I believe in love and redemption.
I believe we’re going to win.
I’m joyfully revolutionary. (We all should have been reading Emma Goldman in school instead of the jingo drivel we were fed, but I digress.) (We should all be looking at the photos of the YPG heroes should we falter and think our dreams are impossible, but I double digress. Fight me.)
In these days of fascist hooligans preying on vulnerable people in our streets, in the name of the state or supported and defended by the state,
In these days of highly profitable detention/concentration camps and a battle over the semantics,
In these days of hopelessness, empty pursuit and empty yearning,
We are living in visible fascism ascendant. (I say visible, because those paying attention watched it survive and thrive under the protection of the state for decades. [See Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.] Now it unabashedly follows its agenda with open and full cooperation from the government. From governments around the world.
Fascism serves the needs of the state serves the needs of business and at your expense. Who benefits? Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Betsy de Vos, George Soros, Donald Trump, and need I go on? Let me say it again: rich guys (who think you’re not really all that good), really dig government (every government everywhere, including “communist” governments), because they make the rules that make rich guys richer.
Simple.
Don’t overthink it.
(Are you patriots in the back paying attention?)
When I was a boy, in post-war Holland, later France, my head was filled with stories of the rise of fascism in the ’30s. I promised myself that I would not be one of those who stands by as neighbors are torn from their homes and imprisoned for somehow being perceived as lesser.
You don’t have to burn the motherfucker down, but are you going to just stand by?
This is the test of our fundamental belief in real freedom and our responsibility to each other.
This is a call to patriots, too, to stand against this travesty against everything that you hold sacred. I know you. I know that in your hearts, you see the dishonor in these camps. It’s time for you, too, to stand up to the money pulling the strings of every goddamn puppet pretending to represent us.
I’m a man who loves you all and this spinning ball so much that I’m going to fulfill my childhood promise to myself to be noble.
Here it is, in these corporate for profit concentration camps.
Here it is, in Brown and non-conforming folks afraid to show their faces for fear of the police/migra/Proud Boys/the boss/beckies…
Here it is, a planet almost used up by the market’s greed.
I’m a black and white thinker.
Detention camps are an abomination.
I’m not standing by.
I really shouldn’t have to say any more than this.
I set aside my broken heart and I heal the only way I know how—by being useful.
I efficiently compartmentalize my pain…
And I joyfully go about this work.
(To those burdened with the wreckage from my actions, I hope that you will make the best use of that burden.)
To my comrades:
I regret that I will miss the rest of the revolution.
Thank you for the honor of having me in your midst.
Giving me space to be useful, to feel that I was fulfilling my ideals, has been the spiritual pinnacle of my life.
Doing what I can to help defend my precious and wondrous people is an experience too rich to describe.
My trans comrades have transformed me, solidifying my conviction that we will be guided to a dreamed-of future by those most marginalized among us today. I have dreamed it so clearly that I have no regret for not seeing how it turns out. Thank you for bringing me so far along.
I am antifa. I stand with comrades around the world who act from the love of life in every permutation. Comrades who understand that freedom means real freedom for all and a life worth living.
Keep the faith!
 All power to the people! 
Bella ciao.

[ingliz]

@anarchist23

There’s wrong and there’s right. It’s time to take action against the forces of evil.

The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda by the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise.

Trotsky (1911)

Individual acts of violence ("propaganda of the deed") are a ridiculous waste of time and lives.

Even Kropotkin, for all his bluster, acknowledged that such acts were not sufficiently compelling to inspire 'the people' to revolt.

[Palmyrene]

Yes it is, we have established that a few posts ago. Private property, or private possession, whatever you call it, can only be guaranteed in a community where thiefs are being punished. Needless to say communal property woudn't even exist without a community.

You've established it. There's no "we" here.

Private property can only be guaranteed by a clan, gang, or kingdom large enough to create a legal system to defend it. Theives being punished is a symptom not the cause.

Somebody must decide what constitutes theft, either from other villagers or the village's communal property, somebody must decide how theft is punished, and somebody must hand out the punishment. For that alone, a community is in need of organization and collective decisionmaking.

Organization and collective decisionmaking need not be hierarchial.

I don't think that's a useful definition. An dictator who has only the best interest of his subjects in mind still rules over them.

Have you ever read the dictator's handbook?

A dictator even with his people's best interests at heart cannot fully achieve those interests because he still must provide greater rewards (or bribes for maintaining loyalty) to his keys. CGP Grey goes into this deeper if you don't want to read the book:

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

I found this source for the death rate from military conflict. It's a log scale. The 2 world wars are definitely peaks, along with the thirty years war.



However, when it comes to violent death in general, we seem to live in rather peaceful times:

All those non state societies statistics were from the 19th century which certainly wasn't a good year to be a native. The ethnic cleansing was almost done and these tribes were a shell of their former selves.

The pics are from this slideshow:
https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-a ... itle-slide

Yes. We, today, live in far less violent times but that doesn't mean modern industrial wars haven't been far more deadly.

Instead of looking up statistics of Europe look up Syria, Iraq, Africa, etc. the Caliphate during it's golden age certainly had a lower death rate than Europe but that doesn't mean the medieval period was all flowers and roses.

[Palmyrene]

:muha1:

I'm seriously concerned.

[Truth To Power]

So your idea of striking against the root is to do nothing?

Trying to educate people isn't nothing.

Oh my god this is so stupid. You die as free man because you refuse to be subservient to the state. Even though you're in prison you're there because you refuse to comply. Thus you are a free man.

No, you aren't.

The difference between anarchist revolutions and others is that anarchist revolutions don't seek to obtain state power and avoid power vacuums by building dual power structures.

That's the theory, I suppose. The reality is rather different because it takes power to resist power.

You're not experienced nor knowledgeable enough to make statements about human nature.

Sure I am. More importantly, I'm honest enough and brave enough to tell the truth about it.

You are not fully aware of the underlying causes of things, only the superficial.

Wrong.

Then why did you say they tried it before. You're not consistent. Duh.

They tried it because it was the default. I don't understand why you aren't getting this.

I highly doubt you actually want to respond to it given that you aren't making any arguments outside of "no, my edginess proves you're wrong".

You know that is false.

You try to vague as to appear cool or wise but you just fucking stupid because no one understands your point at all.

I am very clear. And you know it.

You're not even consistent with your points. You first said (in edgy voice) "the world already tried that [anarchism] and we got this" and then I ask for proof that the entire world tried anarchism and then you say (in edgy voice) "what? it was the default. Duuuuhhh."

And...?

You have no idea what you're saying, you're trying to sound cynical or edgy when you just come across as cringey. There's no substance to be found in your posts.

You know that is false.

[B0ycey]

Well @Palmyrene, I have read one chapter of Mutual Aid and I agree with you that Kropotkin has a strong argument that it is cooperation (mutual aid) that gives the best chance of animal society to progress in nature and not individual animals of aggressive stature.

Although reading the Selfish Gene a few years back, I think even though animals have to cooperate to survive, selfishness is a factor in domination within society in which these genes pass on throughout society and as such perhaps might be a factor in why we see domination heirarchy within nature today also. In regards to human nature that may well translate that they are programmed to cooperate but ultimately will take a yard when no one is looking.

[Palmyrene]

@Truth To Power

Dude. It's done. We're over with this (at least I am). There's no point to this discussion at all and I'm pretty sure the only reason you bothered to debate with me is because you want to appear contrarian.

This was never a debate. You never started one.

[Palmyrene]

Well @Palmyrene, I have read one chapter of Mutual Aid and I agree with you that Kropotkin has a strong argument that it is cooperation (mutual aid) that gives the best chance of animal society to progress in nature and not individual animals of aggressive stature.

Although reading the Selfish Gene a few years back, I think even though animals have to cooperate to survive, selfishness is a factor in domination within society in which these genes pass on throughout society and as such perhaps might be a factor in why we see domination heirarchy within nature today also. In regards to human nature that may well translate that they are programmed to cooperate but ultimately will take a yard when no one is looking.

It is because we are selfish that we cooperate with one another and rely on each other. We want the best for ourselves and because of that we surround ourselves with people who can.

Read Max Stirner's An Ego and His Own. He addresses this kind of thing. After mutual aid of course.

[B0ycey]

It is because we are selfish that we cooperate with one another and rely on each other. We want the best for ourselves and because of that we surround ourselves with people who can.

What chapter can I expect to read this. No matter I can wait.

In terms of naturalism, Kropotkin is most definitely an unsung genius from what I have read so far.

[ingliz]

It is because we are selfish that we cooperate with one another

A surficial cooperative and prosocial structure is a layer placed on top of the layer of selfish goals.

Social dominance inevitably results when individuals are unequal in their ability or motivation to acquire and control resources.

Hawley (1999)

[Palmyrene]

A surficial cooperative and prosocial structure is a layer placed on top of the layer of selfish goals.

Social dominance inevitably results when individuals are unequal in their ability or motivation to acquire and control resources.

Hawley (1999)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Difference does not equal hierarchy.

[Palmyrene]

What chapter can I expect to read this. No matter I can wait.

It's in a completely different book by a different author. Max Stirner distinguishes himself from Mises, Ayn Rand, or Rothbard by being more of a psychological individualist and rejecting capitalism, among other things, as social constructs or "spooks".

In terms of naturalism, Kropotkin is most definitely an unsung genius from what I have read so far.

He actually did alot of the scientific research himself. Kropotkin was actually an aristocrat with the title of prince but rejected his class position and got into alot of trouble because of it.

[ingliz]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark, an agony in eight fits, from fit the first.

[Palmyrene]

@ingliz

Agh, just stop being pretentious and get to the point. Why post a quote when you can just say you're annoyed by me repeating the same thing?

I don't understand the context of the passage so I can't agree or disagree.

[Palmyrene]

@B0ycey

Oh yeah btw I have a much better retrot to one of your points.

You can't get rid of a class system and also maintain hierarchy because that would result in social stratification which is a class system.

[B0ycey]

Oh yeah btw I have a much better retrot to one of your points.

You can't get rid of a class system and also maintain hierarchy because that would result in social stratification which is a class system.

Your point is perhaps valid but when I say heirarchy is needed it is more in regards to decisive action within admistration and not social order. Whether that is government, unions, federations or associations, there will be roles and orders. It isn't so much that that these people are entitled or that these roles that they are given have a higher social order away from their position, it is stating that because we are not drones heirarchy just prevents conflict of interests and creates efficiency overall.

[ingliz]

get to the point.

Overwhelming evidence has been presented that shows complex networks to be inherently hierarchic. Cooperation is more likely to be favoured if individuals interact in relatively small subgroups e.g. primarily with a few neighbors (See Hamburger et al. 1975; Louis et al. 2007, Santos et al. 2006; Berman et al. 1997).

primarily with a few neighbors

If keeping it "simple, local" is the only way to make anarchy work, that is a problem for you. A modern industrial economy is neither.

I don't understand the context of the passage so I can't agree or disagree.

To post a snippet of nonsense verse seemed fitting given the nonsensical character of your prose.

annoyed

You are an emotional fellow.

repeating the same thing

Ritualistically incanting, "There is no hierarchy," does not make it true. Magical thinking, a belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world, is a thought disorder.

[Palmyrene]

Your point is perhaps valid but when I say heirarchy is needed it is more in regards to decisive action within admistration and not social order. Whether that is government, unions, federations or associations, there will be roles and orders. It isn't so much that that these people are entitled or that these roles that they are given have a higher social order away from their position, it is stating that because we are not drones heirarchy just prevents conflict of interests and creates efficiency overall.

You can't say that people "need to be governed" and then assume that the administrators won't have a bloated sense of importance which will lead to social stratification. Roles and orders will inevitably lead to a class or caste system and thus capitalism (eventually). You will be the thing you hated.

Hierarchy is not needed for organization.

[Truth To Power]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Difference does not equal hierarchy.

It does when it's a difference in ability to control things that are important to others.

This was never a debate.

True. It was more of a demolition.

You never started one.

I ended it.

[Palmyrene]

Overwhelming evidence has been presented that shows complex networks to be inherently hierarchic. Cooperation is more likely to be favoured if individuals interact in relatively small subgroups e.g. primarily with a few neighbors (See Hamburger et al. 1975; Louis et al. 2007, Santos et al. 2006; Berman et al. 1997).

primarily with a few neighbors

If keeping it "simple, local" is the only way to make anarchy work, that is a problem for you. A modern industrial economy is neither.

Difference =/= hierarchy.

Anarchy is not "localist" it's a network. From the perspective of a single person, their everyday life will certainly be local but there will be alot more going on in a macro scale.

To post a snippet of nonsense verse seemed fitting given the nonsensical character of your prose.

If you don't understand I can explain it to you.

You are an emotional fellow.

?

Ritualistically incanting, "There is no hierarchy," does not make it true. Magical thinking, a belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world, is a thought disorder.

I have told you my definition of hierarchy which anarchists oppose and I have stated that none of the examples you've given fulfill that definition of hierarchy. Thus, anarchism does not see it as hierarchy.

As someone who reads Wittgenstein this should be perfectly fine grounds for debate. The debator has defined their word so that there is no ambiguity within the discussion and has argued with that definition in mind.