toxic positivity/ negative peace aside, I would imagine that not being represented within the established political hegemony could foster some negative emotional response.

cringe and/or lame

cringe

imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing.

does a ‘nice’ king justify monarchy?

no. power centralized in the beaurocratic state apparatus is also oppressive. electoral politics are a sham, and democracy is impotent when the capital owning class can simply buy influence.

if 9 people vote to kill the 10th, is that just?

lhd suggests otherwise, yank.

je suis l’etat-man

tongue-ass national forest😻

how? abolish the standing beaurocratic heirarchy which perpetuates and expends its own power and the interest of the ruling class by inflicting violence on the working class. what that looks like depends on how the people who make up a community choose to govern themselves.

realistically I don’t expect a revolution of the proletariat to take place, so I promote the institution of robust mutual aid networks, radical solidarity (organized labor, intersectional liberatory philosophy), and resilient autonomous communities, to compete with the prevailing system of power.

attempts at anarchist-adjacent organizing have existed, and continue to in some communities, though of course execution varies, as does identity.

the USSR was not an attempt towards a stateless society, being a state-capitalist imperialist kleptocracy.

common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.

communism is when ussr

profit is theft

completely ignoring the relationship in which a worker must sell their labor as a commodity to a capital-owning class.

work != labor

this is the most generous possible interpretation of the gadsden, while ignoring its current usage, as well as ignoring the anti-authoritarian meaning behind the sabocat, and red/black scheme.

ps: the American revolution was a lateral move, replacing a hereditary monarchy with a dictatorship of capital. The ‘founding fathers’ were their time’s equivalent of musk and bezos, and they explicitly wanted to protect the interest of the capital owning class from the will of the working class and those humans who they kept as property.

enlightened centrism, which is just ‘fellow kids’-ing perpetuating the current status quo, which is just capitalist democracy, which is just right-wing, which is authoritarian. that is when it’s not poorly concealed reactionary entryism.

https://lemmy.world/c/jbrc

based and sustainability-pilled

Removed by mod

the actual criticism by those on the left is that private ownership of the means of production necessitates an inequitable heirarchical relationship between an ownership class and the working class.

this relationship is enforced by the state, which is essentially an abstraction of capital, by inflicting violence in order to protect the interest of the capital owning class.

neoliberalism is conservative in that it functions to conserve this status quo, offering incremental material improvement as a social pressure-release valve, but liberal democracy can not deliver liberation to the working class because of its primary function of enforcing private capital.

most liberals don’t consider neoliberalism conservative because the coloqial usage in US contemporary politics is referring to the reactionary position of the christo-fascist right.