Builderelf (Discord ID: 236971624761393153), page 1
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
497 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/2 | Next
after all, moderation is a construct of the capitalist class
i literally just joined and im already loving this
anyway, im gonna go to bed, i shoulda done that an hour ago
but yeah, Bakunin is pretty lit
I like Kropotkin a bit more tho
I dont remember any anti-semite works from him
im still a liiiiiitle new to far-left politics, like I've read a good bit but at the end of the day Im still learning a lot
right now im reading theory and practice of anarcho syndicalism
but fr tho guys, i should head to bed
So I've been reading Theory and Practice of Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker, and I came across a concept of his that I haven't seen before in anarcho syndicalism. That being Labor Cartels. I haven't seen it much before when I hear others talk about Anarcho Syndicalism, and I'd like to hear another source on it, and maybe more details on it-- because Rocker only goes into a page or two into detail about it.
also, big oof @Killamune
all is forgiven comrade
yeah, i havent seen it before myself
i think the name is terrible too
people would just associate them with drug cartels
lol no im not a kaiserriech normie
I came across it before, i just saw kaiserriech after
but from what I understand, it sounds like labor cartels are a way to regionally group trade unions, and said labor cartels would organize things like:
1. How much of x resource we need to produce
which is pretty broad, and a little weird to me
yeah, i could see that
the trade unions just provide more stability than the cartles
in my opinion at least
like I agree that said unions need to federate, but these cartels are too general and too hard to organize I think
I guess thats debatable
but im in favor of the trade unions
i mean, anarchists love some direct democracy, i think thats incentive enough
and by making a directly democratic federation, itll provide more stability to the anarchist society while keeping the freedom
plus, its a justified heirarchy, because it's, well, directly democratic
but nowadays trade unions kinda plummited in quality and popularity after the dang old 1930s or so
no, heirarchy is real, and its everywhere, anarchists just wanna get rid of unjustified heirarchy
in my opinion, trade unions dropped off after the 1930s (especially in the US) after some reforms were earned and WW2 came around, so anarchism and trade unionism became a thing of the psat
"Heirarchy is non existant in the eyes of anarchists"
but your revised statement is true
i guess you just mistyped, it happens to us all
meh, I still think anarchists see heirarchy everywhere
you can see lots of us anarchists going on and on about unjustified heirarchy
so i mean, we think its real tho
oof, are we gonna talk philosophy now?
because then we'll start asking what "real" is
a justified heirarchy? a direct democracy, where the people give *direct* power to a position
exactly @Deleted User, thats why id prefer not to argue about if heirarchies are real or not, because we both agree that they are real
also @Onlyinmizzou who are u calling a newfag?
cuz i kinda am, i just joined this server yesterday lel
so if anything call me a newfag
well @Deleted User, those anarchists u were talking to might've been talking about people elected in borgeoiuse democracy
(also chill on my spelling of borgeiouse i know its autistic)
no matter how many times i see that word i cant spell it for the life of me
so my theory was wrong there.
but then again, i've only been able to hear the opinions of *some* anarchists, so perhaps my concescus of what anrachists want is a bit out of touch. I've always wanted to meet more anarchists, but I haven't been able to find any
brb my chicken tendies are ready
but for real tho, i guess I am tunnel visioned, because I'm still kinda new to the far-left. I only became an An-Synd in, like, September.
and I've been reading what I can get my hands on, but there's still plenty I don't know
but hell, at least im not a bernie sanders normie
i mean, most of an-synd rhetoric is economic, with some political aspects with forming our directly-democratic federation, so social aspects like that aren't nearly a big deal. Personally though, I don't have much of an opinion, I don't see why a changing demographic is that big of a deal.
now if you were, say, a strasserist, or part of the nazbol gang thats a different story
it might change the way that cultures operate and what kind of cultural values are in play, but I doubt that a few demographic changes can reshape society as a whole
i mean, most societal reconstructions come from science
for instance, the industrail and agricultural revolutions
jesus christ my spelling
lol I know, I try my best to talk to people but I'm the most radical guy at my school tbh, and everybody talks to *me* about the far-left, so I personally dont have any good local sources to learn about the far left because others rely on me as said source
but if u know a good way to talk/meet up with anarchists etc. that would be great @Onlyinmizzou
also @Deleted User I did imply that different races act differently through different cultures, but I doubt that having a different culture take control would call for a radical reconstruction of society at large
I think thats a bit of a leap
Thats an interesting philosophy, but I think that our environments (and by extension our culture) has a much greater influence on us
like, white people in a mostly black culture will act in accordance witha black culture @Deleted User
@Deleted User I know YOU arent talking about culture, I'm saying that culture/environment dictates your mindset and behavior, not your birth/race
but nonetheless, thatd be an interesting study
id like to look into it
if you could find out where it is on the internet that'd be fantastic
also @Onlyinmizzou, you were reccomending to me earlier to avoid labelling myself a certain ideology without knowledge of it, or something along those lines. thats not what im doing (or at least, not TRYING to do), Anarcho-Syndicalism just seems like the best path to socialism to me. It simply seams like a good blend of anarchist idealism and sydicalist pragmaticism.
That's because black culture is differnt @Deleted User. being born black doesn't automatically make you a drug dealing murderer, I find that ridiculous. This isn't to say that your arguing that ALL black people are like this, I'm simply stating that being born black doesn't automatically shuffle you to that role
its usually due to economic conditions in ghettos that black people commit more crimes
thats an interesting fact. Do you know by how much? @Deleted User
yeah, id like a citation for that, because thats a BIT of a big claim
that last stat u had a pass for, but no this one I'd say.
but this one I'd say no*
and also @Onlyinmizzou I understand that concern, and usually use the term an-synd as a way to tell people what exactly I stand for
before I read the article, id like to say that going to prison and actually doing a crime are to seperate things @Deleted User
people who commit crimes get away scott free, and people you do nothing go to prison all the time
but lemme read the article real quikc
the reason I said that thing about incarcaration is becasue you can't generalize taht a group commits more crime just because they get imprisoned more
sorry, i could've connected my point better
About 2.7 percent of the poorest white young people -- those whose household wealth was in the poorest 10th of the distribution in 1985, when they were between 20 and 28 years old -- ultimately went to prison. In the next 10th, 3.1 percent ultimately went to prison.
The households of young people in both of these groups had more debts than assets. In other words, their wealth was negative. All the same, their chances of being imprisoned were far less than those of black youth from much more affluent circumstances.
About 10 percent of affluent black youth in 1985 would eventually go to prison. Only the very wealthiest black youth -- those whose household wealth in 1985 exceeded $69,000 in 2012 dollars -- had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth. Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated.
it litterally says that the white young people had a slightly higher percentage of imprisonment
3.1 for white and 2.4 for black
am I misreadeing this?
oof, nice ad hominen there @Onlyinmizzou
so, I started a socialist club at my school
thats a good conversation starter
I had my first official meeting last friday @Onlyinmizzou
it went pretty good, we had 25-30 all at the same time
we needed more chairs actually
we voted on what we would discuss next time @Onlyinmizzou, and they all decided to talk about cold war propaganda
so now im making a slide show for that
cuz now my ACTUAL food is ready
a nice eggplant parmesian 😉
@Onlyinmizzou yeah, the most radical people there is a demsoc or two and an ansynd I converted, the rest are Bernie supporters, liberals, and political moderates (and a couple conservatives)
So, they aren’t quite familiar enough or interested enough with the more radical side of socialism to be interested in it
I mean, radical in comparison to Bernie supporters
In the grand scheme of things I’m not tooooo radical I guess, because I’m still learning, I’m just radical on the local sense
Antifa full of porn stars? That’s a new one.
I’m sure that the average porn stars just cannot stand fascism and has strong tendencies to wreck police cars
One porn star. One. Suddenly, they’re FULL of porn stars
Meh, I’m critical of antifa but I don’t think we should shit on them
The preaching of tolerance is mostly center left honestly, the far left can take a good joke
low-key is actually jesus
i saw a reddit post of this one ancap visitting greece, and met with a bunch of ancoms and told them about his ideology. apparantly the ancoms had never heard of anarcho capitalism, and upon hearing it legitemitely thought it was a return to feudalism, and they proceeded to beat up the ancap guy and throw him out
also yeah, damn ancap memes
yeah, pretty violent to say the least
yeah i heard about that
may they rest in peace
well, its a bit of a stereotype to say that anarchists are just a bunch of idiots wanting no rules. anarchism as a philosophy is rooted in idelistic beliefs of the self-governance of people and the reliance that human beings are inherently good\
but yeah, greece's economy is in shambles, i hear it's godawful over there
but I should really start on my homework, I've delayed it enough
idk, i think we kinda finished this specific discussion. We'll definetly move onto a different topic tho
also trasserism huh? Haven't seen much of that in a while.
@Krieg#0336 I've always thought that Nazi Germany was a corporatist economy where the Government had a lot of influence over capitalist monopolies, nowhere near a social democracy ala Nordic countries. Also, on Mousillini being a National Syndicalist, from what I heard he abandond Syndicalism quite quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
And for the record, I would personally accept Strasserism as a form of socialism, albeit a bastard child of socialism and fascism.
Yeah, I’m in the IWW. I’m new though, just joined last month @stratagast
Okay, from what I see and what I'm researching right now, I could definetly see @Krieg#0336's arguement for Germany being a "racist social democracy". For instance:
-Taxation was high
-Government spending was through the roof
-Private business was allowed to operate
-Healthcare was a thing
-Keynes himself LIKED the Germany economy
-Pensions were even given out, apparently
However, I'm also seeing elements of totalitarianism in there. For instance, State-Run Trade Unions designed to squeeze out productivity in factories. Also, military spending took was as high as 32% of the budget-- that doesn't sound like a Social Democracy at all! Additionally, the reason that public projects such as job programs and industry protectionism seems to be mainly for the sake of increasing productivy of home industries, not for the sake of basic human rights, as it is in Nordic countries.
So in other words, I'd place Hitlerist economics as an Authoritarian-Right version of Social Democracy. Not quite corporatism, not quite social democracy, a strange kind of militaritic totalitarian welfare state.
why yes, this is true. I know a fascist friend that claims that fascism calls for "Class Collaboration, not Class Warfare", so thats correct @Deleted User
I would also agree that fascist economics has more diversity than people give it credit for.
Then again @Deleted User , thats because political compass tests are actually cancerous ways of viewing politics
yeah, fascism has more roots in politics if anything. Probably why history classes don't cover it's economy very much and why fascist economics are so diverse.
but then again, my latest history classes have been a lot better
for instance, my current history teacher is W O K E af
he legit knows what Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marx's Labor Theory of Value etc. are. I have NEVER seen a history teacher talk about any of that. He's pretty fricking lit.
hell, he's the sponsor for my socialist club
so overall a pretty cool dude
but I still think he covers a lot in his US history classes
what predictions did you have?
well, as far as America is concerned it can cover a lot. obviously I won't learn shit about, say, South Africa or something.
But I learned about some pretty major Labor Unions within the mid-late 19th century up to the early 20th century.
well obviously, I just didn't know that the AFL or the Knight of Labor were a thing.
Specifically those labor unions.
but I see your point nonetheless, the American education system is in desperate need for reform.
I'm just saying that it's not 100% terrible, because sometimes you get a good class (like my AP US history class)
either way, hope you have a nice evevning.
even as an anarchist, I still think that the death toll under stalin is ridiculously exagerated
its more like 25 mil if you count from both famines AND from ww2, and even that is pretty exaggerated.
but population growth and population in general would've boomed under this period due to Stalins high amount of industrialization
for instance, before stalin life expectancy was around ~37 or so
it became like 60 something by the end of the reign
which meant that more children were being born (becaues medicine) and people were living longer
which counteracted some of the pop loss from ww2 and famines
but not nearly enough to facilitate +80 Million people in 20 years, thats just absurd
+40 Million at the absolute most is the most believable
Estimates I've seen is about 1-2 million, but thats just because the Soviet Union is pretty damn big place.
besides, there a lot of kulaks to get rid of
honnestly, the kulaks deserved it, but I don't like the fact that Stalin sent anarchists to the gulags too
besides that act of Left Secretarianism, Stalin was a pretty cool noodle
nonetheless, still sent to prisons.
and its kinda hard to justify prisons
(except for kulaks of course)
But wasn't Lenin a-okay with the Anarchists?
It was mainly Trotsky and Stalin that didn't like Anarchists
it doesn't mention her being an anarchist here
but for the sake of arguement, lets say she is
it still wasn't Anarchism in general that attacked Lenin, or even a group, just one Radical
Obviously he didn’t AGREE with anarchism, I was just saying that Lenin could with with them while Trot and Stalin couldn’t
Also my computer just had a heart attack, I’m using my phone
And if she alone made Lenin sick and useless, then how did Lenin last four years after this, AND effectively lead the Soviet Union?
Because the assassination was in 1918, right in the middle of the civil war
But either way, I understand your point
Besides, bickering over whether it was anarchists or communists that started all the violence is rubbish
It’s what the capitalist class would want us to do
But thanks for the history, Comrade.
In my opinion, Communism is only as effective as the guy in charge. You get somebody like Lenin, Stalin, or Mao in power things are pretty cool. Get a cuck like Gorbachev and everything sucks and we have capitalism again
I agree @Deleted User that they had some pretty bad authoritarianism, as an Anarchist I see that as pretty bad. But I think their achievenments were pretty cool, not necessarily themselves.
also @Shwiani, Stalin mainly killed Kulaks (which is good) and some anarchists (which is bad),but most humans in history? far from it. The statistic that says "Communism Killed 100 Million people" is an exaggeration from the Black Book of Communism, which concluded it was 94 million. The source itself was exaggerated too. In fact, the publishers of the Black Book of Communism went back and said that they greatly exagerrated their sources to drive up the numbers! For instance, they considered anybody arrested to be "a death under communism". Furthermore, the population of Russia actually INCREASED during stalin's reign from 1922-1952, from 120 million to 140 million. If 20 million were supposedly "killed under communism", then wouldn't that population increase in fact be a DECREASE? And on the topic of famines, the industrialization policies under Stalin and Mao actually ENDED famines in their respective countries-- famines which plagued the nations for hundreds of years.
So to say that "they killed the most humans in history" is a capitalist lie
Now do I agree with Stalin and Mao?
No, I think industrialization and re-militarization of thier nations could esaily be achieved under Anarchism, without resorting to Totalitarianism.
But that doesn't mean I should whine and say they were big meanies that killed a hundred quadrillion people
eh, i dont mind that stalin gulaged the filthy grain horders
and the nazis deserved what they got in ww2
everything else however, stalin wasn't justified in doing
I think that holodomor was a combination of bad weather conditions and bueacratic incompetency.
For instance, the soviet regime sold a lot of their grain mostly to buy machine parts for industrialization, which eventually got the food situation under control but for the time being only increased the levels of starvation.
I also don't think it could've been a genocide, because it mostly effected peasants. There is no way in hell that I could believe that Joseph Stalin would lead a genocide to KILL PEASANTS.
The entire communist ideology is based around PROTECTING the peasants, and Stalin was and alwasy has been a die-hard communist
hell, he read up on communism very extently in his university days
and in an interview one of his bodygaurds said that he went out of his way to give people waiting for their late bus one day rides to their location
so I don't agree with the very liberal view of history that says "Stalin was a big meanie that just wanted power and corrupted the soviet union with genocides and bad stuff"
497 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/2 | Next