anarcutie:

illegalist-pearl:

thepeacockangel:

illegalist-pearl:

thepeacockangel:

My politics are like “Revolutionary anti-authoritarian (but not necessarily anarchist, some Marxists/Trots/leftcoms/etc and so on are also okay, and like a lot of post-left anarchists/individualist anarchists aren’t) anti-capitalists who are willing to adapt their theoretical positions when presented with evidence of how they work in practice and are basically good hearted and want the best for people

“ should all work together to create revolution and then cooperate to create a better society, because ultimately they should care more about how their policies work than theoretical purity.

so what you’re saying is you’re a materialist, not an idealist, just like Marx? same tbh but I think there’s not an implementation of the state which is capable of being benevolent and non-tyrannical

I don’t know like… what qualifies as a state, because it becomes a weird semantic point…

funny because I have The Marx Dictionary in my hands and it defines the state as “the political expression of class rule, conditioned by the economic structure prevailing in civil society” which is a fine definition but I would definitely like to add to it Max Weber’s concept of “monopoly on violence,” which I think is crucial.

The LibCom Introductory Guide to the state is one of the best short introductions that I point folks at regularly.

“it is an organisation controlled and run by a small minority of people.“ is really useful, but like I know people whose definition of the state differs, like my spouse believes in something to enforce (without a monopoly on violence) a universal bill of human rights, and like go and stop shit like Steubenville and all that pedophilia on Pitcairn island, and like to prevent violence against unpopular groups, but like that doesn’t sound like a state to me