Someone played CRPGs!

Fancy a knobbing? 😏

Ok… Where’s the social darwinist? You sure you commented at the right spot? What does that have to do with anything discussed?

Just say you’re running away because you don’t have the theoretical capacity to continue. It’s ok you don’t have to pretend.

Wanking motion

Yes, I personally have murdered you. Twice at least.

I don’t want to waste my valuable time with you anymore.

Have fun with your easily sabotaged worker’s party, waiting for true communism as introducted by China. /s

TIL ancient rome was not doing imperialism. /s

I don’t “want to built to” any conclusion. I gave one definition. And your conclusion, according to that definition is correct.

States don’t do altruism in a world of states that compete against each other.

You must tho

If you look at how much property the british crown still owns: they’re still part of the owner class.

Not a historian, but from the top of my head: driving back Germany from having too much power in Europe, assisting the British allies and/or preventing the soviets from conquering too much of Germany and turning it “socialist”.

Do you think the US entered a war, because Hitler was a bad guy? O.o

No, I did not.

Why bring him up, then? Does your assessment of anark have anything to do with the definition? Would you have deduced that this definition must come from a person, which insert your false assumptions about Anark here?

Saying someone is a phrase-monger with a poor understanding of Marxism is not slander when it’s true.

Ok. It’s not true, though.

If someone’s categories erase class content, state form, property relations, imperialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, then their understanding of Marxism is directly relevant to the discussion.

Anark’s work erases none of those things.

Calling that “slander” is just a way to avoid answering the critique.

Correctly classyfying it as slander is a protection against Brandolini’s law.

Leninism is not a correct logical development of marxism. His theory of the bourgeois state as an agent of the bourgeoisie is blatantly incorrect.

Your Lenin quotes, where he dismisses anarchist collectivism is another example of how he had some serious bullshit takes.

Name one animal where a hierarchy exists that starves other members of their species from the things they require to live. Name one animal where the hierarchies persist in a form after the individual at the top dies. Name one animal where the upper rungs of the hierarchies can punish the lower ones.

Is your doctor your boss? Can they take away your liver as punishment? Do parents regularly enact their position to starve their children? Is it a healthy parent-child relationship when the parent continuosly takes away the child’s decision making power?

You don’t understand the anarchist definition of hierarchy. That’s a prerequisite to be able to understand any anarchist position. You’re like an intelligent designer arguing against mitosis.

neither is the same thing as a workers’ state suppressing counter-revolution.

Explain how workers defending against counter-revolution is authoritarian, according to the above definition.

You continuously conflate the party with the workers. That’s the same BS as conflating the Ukranian people with the Selensky regime (or “government”, if you prefer the less loaded term).

Your formulation exposes exactly the individualist petty-bourgeois premise you just spent paragraphs denying. You treat socialism as if it should mean each worker or each workplace immediately pockets its own product.

No, in socialism, every worker should have a say in how the surplus value (or the MOP, or whatever) is employed, in addition with the consumers, ideally in decentralized soviets.

They were done for imperialist reasons, yes.

What’s your point? I didn’t make a moralist statement about imperialism.

Vacous redefinition of the term that vacates it of all it’s explanatory power.

Definitions aren’t used to explain things on their own. They need to be combined with reasoning to explain anything.

What’s your definition? Do you have a better one? Ideally one, without any (moral) judgement baked in.

A definition of capitalism that includes no mention of class or class power is meaningless.

Again with the motivated reasoning. Also, the class structure can be deduced from the definition without explicitly stating it.

Not moralist to ask for proof of the imperialist power doing imperialism.

Now you conflate imperialism with something that needs victims. My definition doesn’t require any definition of victims. You can disagree, but you’d need to supply a definition that is better suited to describe the world.

You genuinely become more of a parody of the western “anarchist” with every post.

Insulting me doesn’t make your arguments any more coherent.

They sure as shit weren’t there to free the concentration camps.

Imperialism: The practice of states to expand their influence beyond their sovereign borders.

State-Capitalism: The mode of production where the means of production are owned by the institutions of the state.

list the victims of Chinese imperialism?

So, now you want a moralist argument? O.o

The working class is the owner of production, and elect and delegate managers dedicated to this task.

So, can anyone be delegated to be a manager, can that mandate be recalled by the workers again, or do you need to be in the party to be eligible?

Name me a single grouping of any kind that doesn’t have managers, leaders, or organizers.

Straw-man. I’m not arguing against administration (nor is any collectivist anarchist).

Saying Anark displays a poor understanding of Marxism is not an ad hominem.

You attacked the person instead of the argument by stating wrong things about him (aka slander). That’s close enough. What Adam Smith understood about Marxism shouldn’t matter in the discussion about what he observed about the economy.

I said it is a pillar, which it plainly is, and this has been a Marxist criticism of anarchism since Marx and Lenin.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know any better. But bragging about your analysis lacking one essential perspective is less of a brag than you think.

Also, what Marx said and what Lenin are two distinct things. You shouldn’t throw them together.

You also make wrong statements about anarchism. It is not petit-bourgeois and not moralist. The rejection of being dominated is rooted in biology.

The problem is bad abstraction.

The applied reasoning is inductive, not deductive. The quoted work analyses from first principles and therefore needs abstract definitions to have as a base.

If a math textbook starts with an axiom, would you complain after the introduction that the axiom doesn’t include some corellary you expect twenty pages in?

So your complaint about not including class relationships and other things that happen further down the logical chain lays bare that you’re practicing motivated reasoning: if you can’t anticipate that the reasoning coincides with your pre-meditated beliefs, you discard it with unrelated accusations.

You’re like an intelligent design christian, reading a book about evolution and exclaiming “But where is god in all this?” When the book explains the basics of mitosis.

The proletariat has an interest in abolishing those relations because it does not own the means of production and survives by selling labour-power.

And how does that definition fit the so-called “parties of the proletariat” in the PRC?

Class position is determined principally by relation to the means of production, particularly ownership thereof.

So, do the workers of state-owned MOP keep all the value they create, or is the surplus value taken by it’s owner (the party)?

The point is that the two things are in fact not diametrically opposed. Russia is a capitalist, imperial power. As is the USA. As is Iran and China.

The notion that two things can be bad at once is actually an antidote to the thought terminating cliche of “the enemy of my enemy is my ally”. It encourages to actually analyse the two things that are supposedly diametrically opposed at their own merits.

It used to be common for leftists not to condone any war effort by capitalist/imperialist states, because there is nothing to gain. But now, campist “leftists” (I can use scare-quotes to childishly delegitimize self-proclaimed “leftists”, too) are laser-focused in their anti-americanism that they don’t see what’s happening around them anymore.

When the “lesser” evil is an openly genocidal liberal politician, they bang on and on about how it’s tactical and a step in a direction and trolley problem and blah blah blah.

I agree. Therefore I condone neither politicians nor states. Because “both things” are “bad”, as it were.