Systems like the US’s wins, not scales, because we kill all the people who have different systems.
Like anarchist Spain, Rojava will eventually fall, not fail.
@Sabo "When other peeps post things like “Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist”, or discuss real world examples like revolutionary Spain or Rojava… they aren’t talking about “small communes can work and maximize human happiness”.
There is an aspect of these conversations that causes frustration on a consistent basis–category error. It’s a result of how our language can use similar/identical words to identify different concepts.
For example, I know that @suzzer99 is writing a book about his travels through Mexico and Central America. I think that is a really cool project, and I look forward to reading the finished product, even if it ends up at 100k+ words 
Imagine if suzzer were sharing a story about his travels with a friend and he told them about the nice families he’d met in Mexico who’s “padres”(fathers) were local artists. And how he then went to a old mission-style church in Zacatecas and spoke with the “padres”(priests). If his friend responded to his story by saying, “I could never enjoy those experiences! I’ve always hated the “padres”(baseball team) because I’m a dodgers fan.” You’d catch the stumbling block in the communication right away. And if his friend insisted on talking about the Padres(baseball team) and the Dodgers, well his friend would be derailing the conversation.
This is precisely what is happening in the conversations ITF and back on 22. In this case to do with the series of letters arranged in this order: a-n-a-r-c-h-y.
So, when you(jmakin) interject and ask about ACism in the context of others talking about things like Rojava or the Spanish revolution, you’re doing what suzzer’s friend is doing in my hypothetical example. I don’t think you are doing it intentionally or maliciously, but I will be candid and say that it is surprising that this has been going on for a ~decade here and 22.
Imagine if despite suzzer’s clarifications his hypothetical friend was still insisting on talking about the Padres and Dodgers 10 years later. It would be hard not to laugh or roll your eyes at that person. Right?
2 Likes
The examples people like to cite are parts of Scandinavia, but that conveniently ignores the period before 1945.
That’s the problem with only looking at the Europe of the past 70 years - the whole reason it’s been relatively peaceful is because the spectre of WW2 devastation and the Holocaust has been hanging heavily over it, hence the birth of the EU.
If you look at the Europe of the past ~500 years despite a lot of highlights it’s been a fucking disaster for a large number of people, and if the EU fails it might well end up as one again.
1 Like
As I mentioned above, issues of scalability would be structural, and be independent of the purpose of the organization. We know that they scale successfully up through seven figures, with no ceiling in sight.
To make a positive argument that this scalability somehow breaks down between seven and nine figures would require an actual theoretical, and perhaps historical, review of things.
Cliffs: scalability is not an issue.
I realize now where the source of confusion is here, I referred to anarchism as ACism which here is known as anarcho-capitalism. That was my mistake and believe it or not I know there are differences between the two.
Call it whatever you want or call me ignorant for thinking the conversation is about anarchy (again I just realized now I made an unintentional error and referred to it as ACism, when I meant anarchism - not anarcho-capitalism) when it’s been mentioned several times. Is there an answer to my question? Are there any large successful communities that fit whatever exact -ism we’re discussing here? I am genuinely curious. It is not my intent to derail the conversation, and I will ignore the tone of your post because I believe it is with good intent, but I am not a child wandering into the conversation. I was around 22 politics for these discussions going way back.
The tone of my post? Seriously, what are talking about? My post was entirely respectful. I didn’t call you a child. I didn’t call you ignorant. I didn’t call you names. I didn’t mock or deride you.
In fact, I correctly identified the error in communication that was going on(ACism/=anarchy as it relates to Rojava or revolutionary Spain) without attributing malice to you, and you agreed that was the source of the miscommunication.
I will admit that I have a hard time understanding how you perceive yourself to be knowledgeable about ACism and how it /=anarchy while simultaneously stating that this is gibberish:
Which @oneeyedtripping was able to parse as:
Then you went into a spiral of calling people “douches”, telling them to “slobber on someone else’s cock”, and clown emojis. I won’t be joining you in that journey, as it’s not my preferred path of communication.
1 Like
I was referring to that post as gibberish because of the language involved was nonsensical, not because of its content. As a response to sabo calling another poster’s post gibberish, which struck me as extremely ironic coming from a person that routinely speaks in his own made-up vocabulary and characters.
As I acknowledged in my post, I believe your post was with good intent and respectful, but it struck me as a little infantalizing. Sorry I took it that way. I do understand the point sabo was trying to make (poorly).
Thanks for the good response, I have more questions but maybe I’ll just pm them.
AFAICT, sabo stated that what suzzer posted was gibberish. It’s not my preferred language usage, but it was addressed at the content of what was posted. Sabo didn’t call suzzer(the poster) a “douche” or tell him to “slobber on a cock”. I was under the impression that ITF we attempt to discuss the posts people make and not attack the posters. Nobody is perfect, myself included.
1 Like
So basically, no, you can’t give me any meaningful alternative systems that will actually work.
Oh I see. I thought we were having an interesting chat where we might share a few thoughts, not another tedious gotcha contest, but that was probably expecting too much. My bad.
1 Like
In the context of chatting about the “anarchism” exemplified by Rojava and the Spanish Revolution, suzzer has brought up his experiences at Burning Man festival, his buddy subscribing to a magazine 20+ years ago, and ACism. None of those things are on topic. For the same reason that talking about the Padres baseball team is a non-sequitor when discussing padres(aka fathers).
If you are discussing fathers(padres), how many times do I get to bring up baseball teams(padres) before you’d say to me: “you have no idea what you are talking about, and have even less interest in educating yourself”? Once? Twice? More than that? Regardless, at some point it is an accurate description of what is happening.
Calling people “douches” and telling them to “suck cock”…well that’s always an insult.
2 Likes
Is this LC worthy or does it deserve its own thread?
Sorry but in what possible world is sabo’s original post not abusive? You keep bringing up things I’ve said while ignoring the context of the conversation and sabo’s original response. It does not seem you are arguing in good faith here.
Absolutely hate when I roll a d20 for a metaphor check and it comes up blowjobs. Unlucky!
nice of you to completely remove agency for one person while assigning the worst intentions to the other, very fair treatment from someone very concerned about the use of language
1 Like
Capitalism destroys the earth as we know it…but what was the alternative?
3 Likes
Yea make fun of an ESL speaker for their choice of words, classy as always. She clearly meant unfortunate, but you know that. Never miss a chance to be shitty, do you?
1 Like
It is not my job to police every bit of communication ITF. Immediately prior to me conversing with you ITT, you had directly and explicitly insulted others that you were communicating with: “douches” and “cock sucking”. I have not, and will not do the same.
I brought it up when I responded to you directly, because I wanted to be clear that I would not be going down a communication path where we call each other douches and tell each other to suck cock. I will also not be implying or accusing you of posting in bad faith thing either. I’d appreciate the same in return.
Since you and zarapochka are both bringing up context, I will point out that while the two of you have focused on the singular sabo/suzzer interaction upthread; I have brought up the broader context of the conversation between he and suzzer…I mean this isn’t the first time that they’ve interacted on this exact topic ITF. And I also brought up the broader context of people confusing ACism/Anarchy Magazines/Burning Man Festival/etc. with anarchy as being a category error. I’m taking a wide view, rather narrow view of the conversation.
I addressed that here. What would your answer to my question be?
1 Like
Yea, you’re not arguing in good faith here. Your analogy is not anything like what happened re: sabo’s response to suzzer. There is no world in which sabo’s response was not abusive.