punkisundead

Are there like anarchist RV squats / living spaces in other parts of the world? Atleast in Germany and some other european countries they are a decently common way of self organized living:

What exactly is "ICE-style" about this?

Like yes its shitty and racist, but it doesnt seem to be fundamentally different to before. ICE-style to me means the rapid emplovment of militarized, law breaking, extremely violent, untrained thugs to harass whole city and communities while having broad access to goverment resources. And that doesnt seem to be that.

Of course it shouldnt happen, it should get critized, should be stopped and resisted.

Thats a lot of words just to claim something so wrong.

Anarchy is not a system of economics.

Anarchy / Anarchism actually touches all parts of live as its opposition to domination can be applied in nearly all imaginable contexts. Also historically anarchisms main focus was economic, being extremely anticapitalist, as it spread alongside the rise of capitalism. Many early anarchists focused on tactics such as strikes and workers organizations such as unions. Your statement here is absolutely wrong. Also, if anyone is interested in how a potential anarchist economy could look, here is a link.

Market oriented mutualism and individualistic anarchism. Both support the existence of billionaires and are some of the more likely forms of anarchism to exist in a long term stable form.

Mutalism is about workers owing their places of work and trying build economic power to reach a world where every workplace is owned by the workers that work there. It also focuses on fair business practices and being in solidarity with other workers. All this hinders the concentration of wealth into the hand of a few and tbh, being a billionaire feels pretty anti ethical to Mutalism when you actually engage with that ideology in good faith.

And I also think that is an extremely uncharitable reading of "Individualistic anarchism". I dont know of any popular and serious advocate, that wants to have billionaires to exist. For more details, here is a pretty thorough examination on individualist anarchism economics.

Also the framign of the meme allows for patriotism in so called socialist states, as they are always labeled as (by themselves and by tankies) anti imperialist and antk colonialist.

I want to post that too, how do you do it?

You can easily access any undeleted convo in any app if you achieve device access. I would like to read more about this to understand it more and because your reply is still a little unprecise, do you have links to examples?

With WhatsApp I’m quite sure that they somehow can retrieve the private key. Certain events point to that.

What events point there?

I didn’t relate to the framing of a “sex addition” or “porn addiction”.

Yeah I get that. Cool from you to be able to look past that and focus on the things that might be useful to you.

Nobody is born to objectify women, they get taught that. And yes objectification is exactly what OP is doing, treating women just as things to stare at and really noticing things like their sexual attractiveness.

That men (everyone but we’re talking about OP, a horny young man) must control their urges not to hurt anyone?

Incel level shit.

Or that being in love, in a committed relationship with someone you respect and value, will make you less horny?

You can have a fullfilling sex life without being in a commited relationship

If you have access to it, therapy might be useful. Especially because you have behavious you dont like but still keep doing. Professionals are really good at giving you the tools to deal with that kind of stuff.

Also just wondering but have you tried self help or similar things regarding this? Like similar to what is desceibed in here: How to Stop Ogling and Objectifying Women

What kind of backwards thinking is that???

Nothing of this is true

Link to the text in question. I dont think there are any updates, but if you find one, please share.

If you or someone else has enough time you could use the current image as a base in GIMP and retrace it in higher resolution.

borujacketing

Maybe alapakala meant bad jacketing?

Edit: Removed pronouns

My first self chosen ideology was anarchism. But I was raised social democrat / liberal and also indoctrinated to liberalism by the school system.

Also I still have to reflect on the marks that being raised in an authoritarian ( structurally white supremacist, colonialist, patriarchical, ableist, classist, cisheteronormative, gerontocratic, capitalist) society left on and in me.

So I just noticed that I (and probably others) link to or refer to the Anarchist FAQ when discussing / answering. How do you think we could connect those threads with the reading group?

I think there probably reasonable and non violent ways to get everyone pretty decent smartphones, its just not something I would prioritize. An anarchist society spanning the whole globe might disagree with me of course and I wont object in that case, as long as we dont keep up current destructive practices.

Kropotkin ...

I would like to reply to this specific part with an quote and an link from the anarchist FAQ. Feel free to follow the link, there is so much more detail an perspective in the parts I left out of the quote.

I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production"?
No. The idea that anarchism aims for small, self-sufficient, communes is a Leninist slander. They misrepresent anarchist ideas on this matter, suggesting that anarchists seriously want society based on "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production." In particular, they point to Kropotkin, arguing that he "looked backwards for change" and "witnessed such communities among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the Swiss mountains." [Pat Stack, "Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] Another Leninist, Donny Gluckstein, makes a similar assertion about Proudhon wanting a federation of "tiny economic units". [The Paris Commune, p. 75]
...
Kropotkin's vision was one of federations of decentralised communities in which production would be based on the "scattering of industries over the country -- so as to bring the factory amidst the fields . . . agriculture . . . combined with industry . . . to produce a combination of industrial with agricultural work." He considered this as "surely the next step to be made, as soon as a reorganisation of our present conditions is possible" and "is imposed by the very necessity of producing for the producers themselves." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, pp. 157-8] He based this vision on a detailed analysis of current economic statistics and trends.
Kropotkin did not see such an anarchist economy as being based around the small community, taking the basic unit of a free society as one "large enough to dispose of a certain variety of natural resources -- it may be a nation, or rather a region -- produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural and manufactured produce." Such a region would "find the best means of combining agriculture with manufacture -- the work in the field with a decentralised industry." Moreover, he recognised that the "geographical distribution of industries in a given country depends . . . to a great extent upon a complexus of natural conditions; it is obvious that there are spots which are best suited for the development of certain industries . . . The[se] industries always find some advantages in being grouped, to some extent, according to the natural features of separate regions." [Op. Cit., p. 26, p. 27 and pp. 154-5]
Kropotkin stressed that agriculture "cannot develop without the aid of machinery and the use of a perfect machinery cannot be generalised without industrial surroundings . . . The village smith would not do." He supported the integration of agriculture and industry, with "the factory and workshop at the gates of your fields and gardens" in which a "variety of agricultural, industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined in each community" to ensure "the greatest sum total of well-being." He thought that "large establishments" would still exist, but these would be "better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature." He stressed that it "would be a great mistake to imagine industry ought to return to its hand-work stage in order to be combined with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human labour can be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is welcome and will be resorted to; and there is hardly one single branch of industry into which machinery work could not be introduced with great advantage, at least at some of the stages of the manufacture." [Op. Cit., p. 156, p. 197, p. 18, pp. 154-5 and pp. 151-2]
Clearly Kropotkin was not opposed to large-scale industry for "if we analyse the modern industries, we soon discover that for some of them the co-operation of hundred, even thousands, of workers gathered at the same spot is really necessary. The great iron works and mining enterprises decidedly belong to that category; oceanic steamers cannot be built in village factories." However, he stressed that this objective necessity was not the case in many other industries and centralised production existed in these purely to allow capitalists "to hold command of the market" and "to suit the temporary interests of the few -- by no means those of the nation." Kropotkin made a clear division between economic tendencies which existed to aid the capitalist to dominate the market and enhance their profits and power and those which indicated a different kind of future. Once we consider the "moral and physical advantages which man would derive from dividing his work between field and the workshop" we must automatically evaluate the structure of modern industry with the criteria of what is best for the worker (and society and the environment) rather than what was best for capitalist profits and power. [Op. Cit., p. 153, p. 147 and p. 153]
Clearly, Leninist summaries of Kropotkin's ideas on this subject are nonsense. Rather than seeing "small-scale" production as the basis of his vision of a free society, he saw production as being geared around the economic unit of a nation or region: "Each region will become its own producer and its own consumer of manufactured goods . . . [and] its own producer and consumer of agricultural produce." Industry would come to the village "not in its present shape of a capitalist factory" but "in the shape of a socially organised industrial production, with the full aid of machinery and technical knowledge." [Op. Cit., p. 40 and p. 151]
Industry would be decentralised and integrated with agriculture and based around communes, but these communes would be part of a federation and so production would be based around meeting the needs of these federations. A system of rational decentralisation would be the basis of Kropotkin's communist-anarchism, with productive activity and a free society's workplaces geared to the appropriate level. For those forms of industry which would be best organised on a large-scale would continue to be so organised, but for those whose current (i.e., capitalist) structure had no objective need to be centralised would be broken up to allow the transformation of work for the benefit of both workers and society. Thus we would see a system of workplaces geared to local and district needs complementing larger factories which would meet regional and wider needs.

Link to the relevant part of the anarchist FAQ