I whole heartedly agree

Temporarily embarassed millionaire moment (even though I recently found out its a misquote*).

*The quote was apparentally originally criticizing how self-labelled communists in groups tended to be middle-class “temporarily embarassed millionaires” who romanticized the working class. Which I think is sometimes quite true. But I also think the misquote version is also true. Where the working class believe in the American Dream and myths about self-made millionaires and thus work against their own self interest.

NFT pfp, opinion discarded

The only thing stopping me from going to GOG now is just being able to play with friends and the steam workshop. I think I’ll start getting my single player games that dont have steam workshop on GOG now

I feel like its a little fucked up to toss Subcomadante Marcos in there considering the Zapatistas have vocally opposed the label of “anarchist” because they view it as european. Not that they arent a good example of anarchist structures in practice, but it comes with the nuance of them not being ideologically labelled as anarchist.

I imagine they likely aren’t related, at least not directly. Could have played an influence on why they did a challenge coin in the first place, but I’m not seeing any serious overlap in design and symbolism, besides the skull itself, and unlikely the flame and crown. Not saying they couldnt be related, but I wouldnt bet on it. It was a good possible lead, but I don’t think itll lead anywhere. But thats just my opinion and analysis. Someone else might see things I dont

Ok but actually, speaking as a person who studied flags, its not actually far off. Obviously not the France being muslim part, and whether or not the Iranian flag has any influence from the french, Idk, but there would have been a good chance you would have been right if you threw a dart at a map. Although more accurately most tricolor flags are inspired from either the red, white, and blue or the orange, white, and blue Dutch flags. Some of them in really roundabout ways.

With the swastika it shows up in pretty much every culture and religion, not just hinduism. But also the symbol does typically share similar meanings. And yeah the Nazis obviously appropriated it and ruined it. Fascism is an ideology of aesthetics, vibe over substance. It is also an ideology of paradoxes and contradictions.

I do want to emphasize that skulls are used by a lot of different groups. Anarchists and communists have used them, like in the case of Dnieper Division’s flag (frequently misattributed to the Ukrainian Black Army), the Kronstadt Rebellion, Paris Commune, Arditi del Popolo, and probably more. To be very tongue in cheek, “not all skulls.”

But yes, in this context ICE are nazis and they are using the skull for nazi purposes.

There are good skull and cross bones, and then there are bad ones. All the ones I posted are good ones! Although be careful with the Arditi del Popolo one, Italian fascists (blackshirts) used one that is VERY similar to the point of effectively being the same. The differences being the the antifascist one typically has red eyes and a red knife. The reason why both ended up using the same symbol is because they are both using the symbol of the arditi, Italy’s shocktroopers from WW1. The Arditi del Popolo were antifascists (many being former arditi from WW1), being made up of anarchists, communists, and just anti-fascists in general and fought against the blackshirts.

We do it by empowering the communities itself, and teaching them to liberate themselves. Its not perfect, but afterall no solution is. You still get cases like the atrocities  individuals of the Black Army committed against the Mennonites, and the ones committed by the CNT-FAI against nuns and priests. They are horrible actions, and while I still support and admire the groups I still condemn those actions and wish to learn from and prevent them in the future. And not that I am excusing it with whataboutism (just trying to avoid anybsort of singling out of anarchists about this), but this is not a unique problem with anarchists. Every group is guilty of doing similar stuff, and I feel anarchists are better about reducing, resisting, and condeming those actions than other groups. I think part of it is simply the culture and beliefs of anarchists that helps prevent these kinds of acts, but also like I said the community empowerment that comes with anarchism. I think it is also important to build a culture of accountability within anarchist groups, and to develop structures that reinforce that. What all of that looks like is stuff we are still figuring out and learnjng from, but we have progress made in that regard. “What about the rapists” is a good book discussing ideas on community safety and justice without cops, which some could be extrapolated to revolutionary militias

Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don’t really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don’t agree with or don’t understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.

Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol

“At the Cafe” by Errico Malatesta paired with the documentary “Living in Utopia” (available on Zoe Baker’s youtube channel) was what convinced me of its feasibility. But I was also already a Council Communist by then so it wasnt a huge leap for me.

No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win

Anarchists threaten the status quo far more than a fascist. Liberals still want government, hierarchy, property. And as long as you are not a minority or dissident, fascists will not threaten that. Anarchists however do. How an anarchist expresses individualism, equality, and democracy is fundamentally different from a liberal’s. Do I think all liberals would side with a fascist over an anarchist? No, but I would probably bet on it.

I think anarchists have more in common with communists, the issue is that the kind of communists that dominate the spaces are Marxist-Leninists who are the problem. I would be much more inclined to trust a council communist or a luxemburgist than I am a liberal or an ML. The reason being that (good) statist communists at least agree with anarchists on needing to abolish private property and capitalism, but disagree overmatters regarding the state. Liberals still believe in both capitalism and the state. I do not see a situation where liberals would ever allow anarchists to exist outwardly. I do not see it with MLs either. But I could see a very small chance of it happening if democratic communists (like council communists and luxemburgists) were the dominant force in statist radical left circles. Unfortunately though they are not. So unfortunately anarchists are pretty isolated for allies.

I am yet to be convinced. We are still only resisting through peaceful protest. That is the easy part, and I do not believe it will be enough. So will liberals escalate, or will they turn into bystanders? I don’t know. I want them to prove me wrong, but I will plan based on history until proven otherwise. I also won’t ignore nuance. There will be liberals who resist, there will be ones that hide, and there will be ones that become fascists. I go out and support the protests as best as I can, but I am also paying attention to whether they can keep momentum. Paying attention to how many will continue to resist, and how many turn in the towel to protect their privilege and comfort.

Its scary fighting back. You want allies, and many of them so the odds dont feel so impossible. Its hard not to fall into the thinking that capitalism is the bigger threat, so we should work together against the common enemy. “We’ll figure out which communism is best after the revolution” is what I often hear. Issue is, looking at history, we get backstabbed before we get to see the end of the revolution. In the end though, its hard not to end up trusting those you spend time working with.

Yes, and I actively distance myself from them. Its why I moved from dbzer0 to quokk.au and from Lemmy to Piefed. Anarchists who cosy up to MLs are naive and fail to learn from a hundred years of history. Anarchism is just as incompatible with statism and authority as it is with capitalism. That is not to say I wont work with liberals and marxists, just that I would never trust them.

To me it means liberals will side with fascists when push comes to shove. I wont fail to recognize that there are examples of liberals resisting fascism, but you also have many more instances where they enable, defend, or outright join fascists. Hitler drew a lot of inspiration from the US’s Jim Crow laws, and Hitler was chosen as New York Times Person of the year. The social democrats of Weimar Germany used proto-fascist to eradicate a communist revolution. The Weimar Republic is who put Hitler in power. The Kingdom of Italy as well allowed Mussolini into power. You also have situations like Pinochet and Franco. Pinochet being put into power by the US, and Franco’s fascist government being left untouched and allowed to exist.

Genuinely would rather be called anarkiddie lmao. You know what they say, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds