staying in staying in staying in staying in staying in staying in staying in staying in staying in staying in

Dear Mr. Holloway.

I will be attending your wedding. I choose you as my Minus One. Please do not show up.

Bless,
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S

Can confirm. Currently transitioning from the former to the latter 🤓

Is that hard to find? Genuinely don’t know since all of my diagnoses got spotted before I turned 18.

Tfw you have both 😭

Electrical engineering: … you learn everything else on the job

What job? 😆😂😭

Agreed 1000%, salad is trash. Imagine actually eating vegetables.

(This post was brought to you by Texture Issues Gang)

Why bother? Like it’s just a bunch of fruit in a bowl, why attempt to elevate it to the level of salad?

It’s a bit of a stretch to assume that just because someone calls a good person an “angel” that the person is religious.

Religion is the cause of all of this hate

Absolutely not. Religion is a pretext for the violence that people with power already want to commit. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for domination of others.

and always will be.

I’m not even remotely religious or even open to religion, but there are decent religious people out there. Frankly, some Christians are comrades, much more so than some atheists. Here’s an example:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-christoyannopoulos-an-introduction-to-christian-anarchism

And for a less radical example, see Liberation Theology.

I’ll find it. 😈😈😈🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴🏴🏴

Exactly what I’m looking for but I will proudly be stealing this one for his connections to Epstein and Bill Gates 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴🏴🏴

I think it would be so cool to have a cookbook cowritten by physicists/chemists and professional cooks.

Never

Glad to hear.

Also, the dbzer0 anarchism community is doing a community read-through of this FAQ! It’s not necessarily designed to be read in order, i.e. each section is self-contained, but we decided to read it front-to-back anyways.

Hope you feel better soon ♥️

Furthermore, recall what I previously said about Hayek: he was an economist. He was a professional soothsayer.

Same with the people who run johnlocke.org. And same with The Economist article that the johnlocke.org article is based on. They are part of a gigantic propaganda apparatus designed to convince you that despite the weight of reality, despite the very real consequences of economic inequality, and despite the structures of domination capitalists force on us, that capitalism is good for you.

Think about it: why on earth are they basing their worldview on the work of John Locke? He died over 300 years ago. Even if they don’t completely reject Locke… surely there have been better philosophers since then, right? Or at least philosophers of his…caliber…that are additionally up to date. Philosophy did not just stop 300 years ago.

Doesn’t that seem suspicious to you?

It’s because what he thought is convenient for property owners. It worked for the capitalists back when capitalism was fresh. But it never worked for the peasants or, later, the working class.

And how many billions has capitalism killed with war, starvation, poverty, and inequality? Far more than it has ever saved!

This, right?

So admittedly, there are some anarchists who are cool with markets — but they’re socialists nonetheless. I personally disagree with mutualists and left-market anarchists about free markets. The FAQ I linked several times explains this subtlety, so I didn’t really feel the need to explain it myself.

More importantly though, I am an anarcho-communist so I don’t endorse Vietnam or any “”“communist”“” states (or any states ever). Seems like in this case it’s a state capitalist society where the State has given some of its control to private individuals. I.e., still capitalist, still domination over the subjects, still contrary to the principles most people in this community hold.

wtf… libertarian socialism, wtf is this? North korea?

Check the links in my previous comment, specifically any of the links from An Anarchist FAQ. Libertarian socialists are very much opposed to “”“communist”“” dictatorships like North Korea. Furthermore, it is only relatively recently that the word “libertarian” was co-opted by the right. For most of the history of the word, “libertarians” were the anti-State wing of the left.

From the FAQ:

“After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference – the fundamental one – between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government.” [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

…

Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in direct opposition to what is usually defined as “socialism” (i.e. state ownership and control). Instead of “central planning,” which many people associate with the word “socialism,” anarchists advocate free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and so oppose “state” socialism as a form of state capitalism in which “[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage payer.” [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchists reject Marxism (what most people think of as “socialism”) as just “[t]he idea of the State as Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism.” [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31]

Also your link absolutely does not make Hayek look any better. IMO it’s just like when statist socialists insist that eventually the state will transition to final-stage communism and anarchists rightly predicted that the State would never wither away, i.e. it has to be killed.

Yeah…what a man indeed. Hayek was in bed with the dictatorial Pinochet regime. He was a racist and a capitalist. He is the opposite of the liberty we support here.

In this video, Hayek mischaracterizes socialism as synonymous with top-down centralized planning. More specifically, Hayek alludes to what anarchists would describe as state capitalism. The free market is neither an optimal nor efficient solution to the problem he has imagined.

Remember: Hayek was an Austrian-school economist. Meaning: he was paid to say things that put an academic veneer on the oppressive desires of the ruling class. He was a professional soothsayer. He was a monster, but he wore a suit so that makes him civilized. He was certainly smart enough to know better. No disrespect towards you or anyone you love that agrees with Hayek, but IMO Hayek deserves zero respect, and I think the best thing he ever did for the world was leave it.

Most of us here are anarchists or at least sympathetic to libertarian socialism, hence the red and black community icon. We are opposed to capitalism precisely because it is a form of domination and therefore antithetical to human liberty.