Teacher: “Slavery was bad.”

Republicans: “We need to end this indoctrination of our children.”

Jesusland makes me chuckle

It is already broken – and he has succeeded – is what I’m getting at. But Democrats will still try to use the thing.

I fucking hate how I agree with Jesse Watters when he says

It’s also crazy that they call this guy a dictator and when he won they’re like “Oh we’re gonna help you transition,”

The Republican party is done with any sort of politeness or goodwill, to the point of not conceding elections. They are breaking the system and rebuilding it in the aftermath. You can’t stop them from breaking the thing by using the thing itself.

It doesn’t walk in saying, “Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution.”

Yeah but evidently it does, and people still choose it.

Happily – I hope you have a great day:)) thanks for engaging, I’ll see you when the great appropriation occurs

Look at how upset you are! lmao. bro we’re in political memes, take a chill pill.

It’s pretty apparent your questions aren’t in good faith, or you wouldn’t be so combative. It’s clear you’re not actually interested in answers, just in getting a “gotcha,” which is pretty lame. Also, I wouldn’t call any of the questions you’ve asked actually tough, because they’re almost all the first, second, or third questions he typically answers in the book. They’re fair questions, for sure, but they’re the ones Kropotkin anticipates while you’re reading, which is part of the fun of reading Kropotkin.

Then you go on to completely mischaracterize his view of the Paris Commune based on a single chapter of his book, while also insulting people who call you out. It’s totally cool if you disagree and don’t like Kropotkin’s ideas – I mean the dude wasn’t right about everything. But you’re just being a dick about it, sorry to say.

If you actually read the book, you’d know how silly most of the things you just said are, especially about the Paris Commune. But I appreciate you sharing your opinion :)

edit: btw, its called conquest of bread. good stuff, check it out. you dont need to agree with it, but its a great intro to learning about some of the moral philosophies behind anarchy and communism and why they surged in the late 19th and early 20th century

Most of your questions are answered in the chapter I linked. It’s a good read, check it out. Obviously, the whole ordeal Kropotkin describes would require ingenuity, and patience, and M U T U A L A I D.

The house was not built by its owner. It was erected, decorated, and furnished by innumerable workers–in the timber yard, the brick field, and the workshop, toiling for dear life at a minimum wage.

The money spent by the owner was not the product of his own toil. It was amassed, like all other riches, by paying the workers two-thirds or only a half of what was their due.

Moreover–and it is here that the enormity of the whole proceeding becomes most glaring–the house owes its actual value to the profit which the owner can make out of it. Now, this profit results from the fact that his house is built in a town possessing bridges, quays, and fine public buildings, and affording to its inhabitants a thousand comforts and conveniences unknown in villages; a town well paved, lighted with gas, in regular communication with other towns, and itself a centre of industry, commerce, science, and art; a town which the work of twenty or thirty generations has gone to render habitable, healthy, and beautiful.

A house in certain parts of Paris may be valued at thousands of pounds sterling, not because thousands of pounds’ worth of labour have been expended on that particular house, but because it is in Paris; because for centuries workmen, artists, thinkers, and men of learning and letters have contributed to make Paris what it is to-day–a centre of industry, commerce, politics, art, and science; because Paris has a past; because, thanks to literature, the names of its streets are household words in foreign countries as well as at home; because it is the fruit of eighteen centuries of toil, the work of fifty generations of the whole French nation.

Who, then, can appropriate to himself the tiniest plot of ground, or the meanest building, without committing a flagrant injustice? Who, then, has the right to sell to any bidder the smallest portion of the common heritage?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html

nah you’re good you’re good, no need to apologize

Yeah I guess I should rephrase that – I knew lead poisoning wasn’t a myth, but I wasn’t sure about the theory that lead-exposure is the reason for the apparent rise in anti-intellectualism/conspiratorial thinking in older generations

At first I enjoyed the irony in this comment – thinking the lead-poisoning myth is my type of conspiracy – but it turns out, in a spectacularly non-conspiratorial way, researchers have shown correlation between lead exposure as a child and maladaptive personalities as an adult.

Isolated (mis)information streams and the need to identify with an ingroup are the two biggest features to me.

Looks like Skill Up on YouTube did not recommend – I typically trust his takes over review outlets

For the curious, this “Pro American Rally” Nazi rally occurred in 1939

At Madison Square Garden, the rally opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. The mood was jubilant. Attendees wore Nazi armbands, waved American flags and held aloft posters with slogans like “Stop Jewish Domination of Christian America.” There were storm troopers in the aisles, their uniforms almost identical to those of Nazi Germany. “It looked like any political rally — only with a Nazi twist,” said Arnie Bernstein, author of Swastika Nation.

The speeches were explicitly anti-Semitic, and tirades against “job-taking Jewish refugees” were met with thunderous applause. “They demanded a white gentile America. They denounced Roosevelt as ‘Rosenfeld,’ to say that Roosevelt was in the pocket of rich Jews,” said Sarah Churchwell, author of Behold, America. In equal measure to the xenophobia, the speeches were loaded with American boosterism.

Sound familiar?

Source

Hmm…I have to think about your first statement. I agree to the extent in that our modern political systems are more derived from Roman republic rather than Athenian democracy. Still, I guess my point was that there was a classical idea of anarchism before the thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries, and I don’t blame people for retaining the negative connotation. Especially because, like you said, that idea is apt to be perpetuated by the ruling class.

When I was reading Chomsky and Graeber, I kinda dismissed them at first because I was a liberal and “anarchism bad.” Nobody is really being called an idiot here, which is great, but I’m happy I had a chance to learn more about it before I went online and made a fool of myself.

Edit: Honestly I’m reading my comment over and I think I’m splitting hairs/being pedantic about “misunderstanding” anarchism. But I’m happy that in your response to them you’ve been completely kind and understanding to them

Looks like I gotta watch Porco Rosso

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here, but I want to preface this by saying I’ve just spent the last several months absolutely feasting on Kropotkin, Bertrand Russel, Leguin, Chomsky, and Graeber, and generally learning about anarchism as an ideology. I think anarchism is really the only political ideology that actually makes sense of the political and economic upheavals of the last 200 years (rather than say, Capitalism vs Communism, Democracy vs Authority), and it reconciles a lot of issues that people on the right have about people on the left and vise versa.

But one of the issues with anarchism is that it was only popularized as a legitimate political ideology around Bakunin’s time – ~1850s. When proponents like yours and myself and OP (I think Chomsky also described it like this) describe anarchism, it’s through the groundwork laid by those who popularized it in the 19th century.

When I learned about things like mutual aid and non-coercive participation, I thought “Wow, anarchism is so misunderstood. It seems the definition has really gotten away from us, similar to the definition of communism,” but then I listened to Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, and they actually use anarchism with the negative connotation that it still has today! I can’t quote verbatim, but they say things like “If X happens, society will fall into anarchy,” like it is synonymous with chaos.

So I guess my point is that we have a more fleshed out definition of anarchism due to the thinkers of the 19th century, but the classical idea of anarchism (ie chaos) still persists. In that sense, I don’t think the OP really misunderstands it, but hasn’t been exposed to what anarchism means as a political ideology outside the classical definition that really is just a synonym for chaos.

Edit: Some of my details are wrong. Anarchism gained traction in Western political thought during the 18th century. Bakunin was an influential figure, but he was preceded by others, such as Proudhon. This is just from reading the wikipedia page. Still, I think its understandable why people still attach anarchism with chaos, because we have philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle (at least in English translations, but then again, the word “anarchism” is derived from Ancient Greek, anyway) using the word in that way.