Hi. Radical materialist feminist, well versed in second-wave feminist theory. Very interested in critical theories of late-capitalism, gender abolitionism, radical leftism, and antifascism/combatting antisemitism in all of its forms (left and right).

I really only joined because the description made me choke. But on the off chance someone isn't afraid of education and theory, we might have a chat.

you're clearly under 20.

an "ex-communist" doesn't mean muc

much*

do you mean you spent 20 weeks or less liking commie memes on instagram before changing to an ancap?

yes

😉

"being a communist"

I cannot take someone with an ancap pfp seriously in any conversation. It won't happen.

But I'll talk to someone more normal.

no

I just said I don't

No, I want to discuss with people interested in educating themselves. Not me educating people.

I think I just told you how uninterested I am?

I haven't even discussed anything yet. But I can say with 100% certainty that I've never considered that 15 year old ancaps are "in the right."

Don't pretend you read Hegel.

It's unbecoming.

OOF

lmfao

I was honestly gonna use that as an insult earlier but I thought maybe it was too far.

"I bet you read the communist manifesto"

I mean, if you like educating yourself, I'd love to hear about what you read/believe and why.

It would be way better to discuss from a place of mutual interest

than one person trying to talk at or internet debate the other, who they know nothing about.

wrong pronoun bitch boi

I prefer "it"

I am still not interested in talking with you, btw. Indigo perhaps, if they're actually trying to.

wow I'm impressed, most people only see the flower but you get it.

it's a pussy

I think I already clarified for you that I'm interested in collaborative discussions and genuine attempts at understanding. I am not going to sit here and give you a lecture, but do expect people I talk with to be somewhat interested in what's at hand. And not just looking for swinging sticks at each other.

if you have an honest question then feel free to ask it and we can discuss it (indigo)

I'm not interested in having a conversation with you. And can you repeat it? I didn't see one.

I assume that means you don't have a question? I scrolled up even and haven't found one @Indigo

@Indigo if you want to discuss something, starting with something a bit more specific might be helpful. I already explained my broader interests. Was there something that you would like to address in more detail?

(no pressure, it just seems like you're attempting to begin a discussion)

I try to avoid ideology. If forced to classify I'd say antideutsche communist. But I focus much more on critical theory than on orthodox marxism

1. antideutsche is a particular brand of antifascism that began in germany, mostly in response to reunification and in contrast to anti-imp movements of the late 20th century.

2. sorry to admit, didn't actually choke :c

I'm against authoritarianism. The question of the state is rather complex and historical.

liberatarian originated in the left.

anarchism is also an explicitly left movement.

I think that's a bit of a loaded question, because you've already (falsely) defined "left" within it.

I will also say that anarchism is focused on the destruction of hierarchies. This includes all hierarchies, not just economic hierarchy. As such, any self-proclaimed anarchism that fails to meet such criterion is ignoring the political project of anarchism.

Economic hierarchy including but not limited to: private ownership of capital, waged labor, exploitation, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Wikipedia is an incomplete assessment, but it's even written there into the first sentence.

We're not really discussing hierarchy rn. Just clarifying the definition of anarchism.

If you would rather discuss that topic, we can try.

It would be prudent to first start with an evaluation of neo-positivist objectifications of "natural law" and how they reproduce the given state of affairs, disguising social opposition as immutable and creating a one-dimensional system of thought and confirmation of thought.

Can we kinda stick to a more coherent conversation? It's very difficult to keep up with 2+ people spewing their thoughts without any structure. It's not a constructive form of communication.

Okay, then indigo, can you respond to my lead in?

if you're interested in discussing hierarchy and "naturalness"

that's not engaging with anything I've said.

It's ideological ranting that has little to do with the topic at hand, and I can't really respond to.

"liberty" as a concept has been destroyed in the real discourse of capitalism. All emancipatory dimensions of the concept have been repressed and the meaning has been reduced to a reflection of behavioralism and operational definitions/instances.

The inherent contradictions of, for instance, American liberty and a *true* liberty may be masked, but can be critically determined.

Liberty would imply freedom, individual emancipation, and the furthering of a historical project of humanism. At the very least: satisfaction of material needs and the development of real needs beyond those.

This is impossible in the operational logic of capitalism, in which repression must be furthered (even when it is named liberty) to satisfy particular interests and the creation of surplus value.

You cannot take a discussion of liberty down to black and white. This sort of abridgment stunts any contemplation.

There is no *true* liberty in capitalist society. True liberty can only be achieved in a society that has transcended, at the first, the capitalist mode of production.

Actually existing socialisms (which I assume you refer to? Such as the USSR?) have also failed to transcend the capitalist mode of production and failed to result in human liberty and emancipation.

I feel somehow like my messages are not being read.

Or maybe understood.

Because we're communicating on two completely different conversations right now.

I've already criticized actually-existing-socialisms. Your question is redundant...and still no real engagement with anything I've said.

Do I agree that actually existing socialisms of the past have been repressive?
yes.
Do I believe that capitalism is also repressive?
yes.
Did/does liberty exist in either?
no.

Does freedom exist in capitalism?
no.

Because it's a nonsensical question with at least two undefined terms

Because you're extremely positivst and ideological, I can only assume that by "socialism" you mean your interpretation of actually existing socialisms? And freedom is completely undefined. I would give it the same treatment I just gave liberty, but that was completely ignored.

If this is the level of discourse that is fostered here, I can find more interesting people to talk to.

You haven't proved anything.

In fact, you've made a show of failing to engage even slightly with a thing I've said.

Presumably because it's over your head.

Sure.

wrong. That improves the discussion.

Playing dumb isn't an improvement on anything.

If this isn't the time and place for legitimate discussions of politics and relevant terms, then I will show myself the door.

You cannot "dumb down" complex concepts. As I said already, that abridges the meaning and reduces meaningful contemplation to an exercise in calculation/description.

Marcuse has some great chapters on this, if anyone is interested.

"hurts" =/= abridge.

discussion =/= contemplation

If the collective reading level here is middle school, then sure.

You can keep having dumb discussions. I'll leave.