HOME | DD
OmicronPhi β SOLIDARITY With The LGBT Community!
Published: 2014-09-08 14:17:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 2111; Favourites: 42; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
My version of Comrade Sch's LGBT picture (comradesch.deviantart.com/art/β¦ .Related content
Comments: 36
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm a gay wobblie and proud to be both(wobblie are the industrial workers of the world)
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm a bi syndicalist.
Anarcho-pride, comrade!
π: 0 β©: 0
Seen it. Pathetic.
π: 0 β©: 0
To Stifle bible Believing Chrisitans and all who do not agree the the LGBT Community like Muslims?
π: 0 β©: 1
What are you even trying to say?
π: 0 β©: 1
Why Support Politically Correct Knuckleheads who want to take away my free speech as aΒ bible Believing Chrisitan.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why support LBGTQ people? Because they live in a society that oppresses them?
π: 0 β©: 1
There Oppressed in the Middle east, the west is More Accepting.
π: 0 β©: 1
More accepting does not equal accepting. There is still oppression against LGBTQ people; if you deny that you're an idiot.
π: 1 β©: 1
How do you fight Oppression, with a Politically Correct Society? because that's not the answer.
π: 0 β©: 1
I find time and time again that people who complain about "political correctness" are just bigoted pieces of shit.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then People need to stop getting offended so easily andΒ political correctness Wouldn't exist.
π: 0 β©: 2
mylittletripod.deviantart.com/β¦
Maybe you should get a thicker skin and not get so whiny whenever someone criticises your views and accuse them of being "politically correct".
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to say whatever you want without any consequence. You have the right to spew repugnant bullshit, but people like OmicronPhi also have the right to criticise you for it.
π: 0 β©: 0
You don't think "YOU LEAD AND SINFUL LIFE! YOUR GENETIC MAKE UP IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EVIL CHOICE YOU MADE AND YOU DESERVE TO BURN FOREVER IN A LAKE OF TORTUROUS FIRE!" is kind of fucking offensive?
π: 0 β©: 1
Β I hold controversial and politically incorrect views, and I'm proud!
Deal with it..
π: 0 β©: 2
Translation: I hold idiotic and backwards thinking views based on a book from centuries ago and I'm too stubborn or dogmatic to ever evaluate them or bring them into question.
STAWP CRITICISING ME!
π: 0 β©: 0
You hold irrational, dangerous, offensive, and evil views. I will not deal with it; I'll tell you to fuck off and let LGBTQ people live their lives without being harassed!
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, ain't no Communist ever harmed a gay person!
Oh, wait...
Ernesto Guevara executed them by the literal truckload.
I wonder why that factoid didn't make it into the Motorcycle Diaries...?
π: 0 β©: 1
And appearently ever communist must agree with everyone thing that every other communist has ever done.
gr8 logix m8
π: 1 β©: 1
Perhaps you can answer me then, why virtually every historically noteworthy Communist has been guilty of mass murder?
π: 0 β©: 1
That claim is false. Look at anarchist Spain and anarchist Ukraine and Primitive communism et.c. et.c.
Also, din't trust your school history books..
π: 1 β©: 1
Are you joking...? It was my school history books that tried to absolve Communism of any wrongdoing.
And if you want me to start looking at the blood shed in Ukraine and Spain in the name of anarchy, I could dig up dozens of news stories.
Primitive Communism....???
Your answer to the problems facing the world...
... is to regress?
And you hypocrites accuse Conservatives of clinging to old, failed beliefs?
π: 0 β©: 1
You do realise that he was referring to Primitive Communism as AN EXAMPLE of a society with Anarchist Principles, just as he was refering to the CNT Revolution in the Spanish Civil War (1936) and the Free Territory in Ukraine from 1919 to 1921 as examples of societies with Anarchist Principals. He wasn't indicating in the slightest that the solution was to regress back to Primitive Communism, just that it was an example of a society with Anarchist principles, so you are essentially taking the example out of context and using it as a Strawman of what kind of Society Anarchists advocate.
π: 1 β©: 1
Why don't you enlighten me then.
π: 0 β©: 1
Basically Primitive Communism was the theory that in the earliest stages of humanity (For roughly 2 million years) human society was structured in a very, very primitive form of Communism or Anarcho-Communism.
In a primitive communist society, all able bodied persons would have engaged in obtaining food, and everyone would share in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be no private property other than articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed. The few things that existed for any length of time (tools, housing) were held communally.
The reason that Omicronphil included this as an example of Communism in practise was that albeit extremely primitive, it had the principals of an Communist society; it didn't have a State, Social Class nor Private Property other than Personal Possessions.
Basically Anarcho-Communists desire a direct transition to a far more technologically advanced version of the Society described here, a non hierarchical, egalitarian, classless society where the means of production is communally owned (Although respect for PERSONAL property, like your toothbrush or books remains) and money and markets are abolished in favour of a Gift Economy.
And this sort of thing has been accomplished before. Look at Makhno's Free Territory in the Ukraine for example:
zabalaza.net/2014/01/15/the-stβ¦
.Or a more better example, look at the Anarchist Revolution organised by the CNT-FAI in parts of Catalonia,Aragon, Madrid and Andalusia during the Spanish Civil War in 1936 .
libcom.org/history/1936-1939-tβ¦
The goal of this revolution was Libertarian Communism and the results were for the most part very successful. George Orwell himself was a witness to the Anarchist Revolution during his involvement in the Spanish Civil War. He wrote his experiences in a book called Homage to Catalonia;
www.george-orwell.org/Homage_tβ¦
And just to show how successful the Anarchists were , here is his views on the revolution;
" It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Sen~or' or 'Don' ort even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for. Also, I believed that things were as they appeared, that this was really a workers' State and that the entire bourgeoisie had either fled, been killed or voluntarily come over to the workers' side; I did not realise that great numbers of well-to-do bourgeois were simply lying low and disguising themselves as proletarians for the time being."
"Together with all this there was something of the evil atmosphere of war. The town had a gaunt untidy look, roads and buildings were in poor repair, the streets at night were dimly lit for fear of air-raids, the shops were mostly shabby and half-empty. Meat was scarce and milk practically unobtainable, there was a shortage of coal, sugar and petrol, and a really serious shortage of bread. Even at this period the bread-queues were often hundreds of yards long. Yet so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine. In the barbers' shops were Anarchist notices (the barbers were mostly Anarchists) solemnly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves. In the streets were coloured posters appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes. To anyone from the hard-boiled, sneering civilization of the English-speaking races there was something rather pathetic in the literalness with which these idealistic Spaniards took the hackneyed phrase of revolution. At that time revolutionary ballads of the naivest kind, all about the proletarian brotherhood and the wickedness of Mussolini, were being sold on the streets for a few centimes each. I have often seen an illiterate militiaman buy one of these ballads, laboriously spell out the words, and then, when he had got the hang of it, begin singing it to an appropriate tune."
π: 1 β©: 1
So what is the formula of making such a thing work on the macro scale? And conversion on the macro scale, taking into account the fact that not everyone would be on board with it?
I have never seen any anarchist or communist adequately explain that one.
π: 0 β©: 1
(1) Basically, on a macro scale, An Anarchist Society (Or Confederation in this case) would be structured as a network of participatory self-governing communities (each one with their own structure) , based on free association and federalisation. The confederation, when dealing with issues that involve a larger area and more than one community,holds assemblies where the communities elect delegates (with a certain mandate according to the community) that can be recalled at any time that they fail their mandate. These delegates are essentially there to voice the stance that their respective communities has on said issues. The delegates all discuss these issues and, through consensus based democracy like in the communities, come up with policies that deal with these issues and submit these policies to their respective communities for approval.
For more info on this, I'll leave a link to a FAQ on what a Anarchist Society would look like;
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/sβ¦
(2) By those who aren't on board, I suppose you mean those that aren't Anarcho-Communist or Socialist in general, such as Individualists and\or Capitalists in general. Well this may seem odd to you but under Anarchism, people won't be forced to adopt a particular system for their communities. Anarcho-Communists in general won't advocate forcing communities to adopt Communism as their system, because to do so would go against their anti-authoritarian principals, they just recommend a communist system would be the best system to adopt, just as Anarcho-Capitalists or Agorists would recommend Capitalism. In an Anarchist Society, nothing's stopping you from just creating your own Capitalist group or business, provided of course that it is non authoritarian, non discriminatory and won't cause any harm to others in the process. This sort of attitude is usually referred to as Anarchism without Adjectives.
Here is a more detailed version from here; propagandalalaland.blogspot.ieβ¦
" A common misconception I often hear is that anarchists are contradictory in their anti-authoritarianism since they want to force everyone under a particular system, and are thus authoritarian in their own right. From my own experience, this is said not just by "anarcho"-capitalists who claim social anarchists want to force everyone under libertarian socialism but also from those who call themselves "anarchist without adjectives" and "panarchists" who insist that individuals who promote one particular school of anarchism (be it mutualism, collectivism, anarcho-communism, and so on) want to force the entire world under their system. Though it should be mentioned that "anarchism without adjectives" traditionally meant anarchists who were agnostic about which economic system to implement rather than today's "anarchism without adjectives" which seems to be more of a call for pluralism among all anarchist economic systems, a point I will touch on shortly.
Anarchism as a philosophy stresses a holistic set of values, hence why anarchists promote anti-authoritarianism, direct democracy, and so on. The reason for this is because these values promote a plurality of values, as individuals are able to fully maximize their individual autonomy. However, all these values are derived from the preconditions of specific values, so unles you agree to be anti-authoritarian and maintain a system that's based on anti-authorianism you will not have that plurality. The real issue is how we come to agree upon those values and enforce them without a hierarchical power structure. So if one holds an "anything goes" attitude towards new institutions and planning they will (ironically) not get a plurality of values, since some of the systems which may come out of this "anything goes" means of doing things will not meet the prerequisite for the plurality that the more "laissez faire" types claim to strive for. As an example, you could see a reemergence of capitalism or the governing state with specific systems. In a market anarchist society, individuals would have to concern themselves with the potential for capitalist property relations to re-emerge through the divorce of possession from occupancy and use to the point where the right-of-increase becomes prevalent and class society forms, whereas an anarcho-communist society would face the potential for governmental statism to re-emerge also through the divorce of possession from occupancy and use to the point where individuals and all property become entirely subordinated to "the commune". Either way, individuals and the institutions they create within each system will have to subscribe to a certain amount of values and principles if they want to maintain a society where autonomy and equality are maximized. Some anarchist systems could smoothly coexist with each other as well. In a mutualist society, communes could easily become parts of the federation; in a communist society, gifting could be done on a reciprocal basis.
Most of all, every anarchist school initially promotes a plurality of institutions and systems. Where did Proudhon say he was going to get the federation to uproot communes? Where did Kropotkin say he was going to force societies to not be mutualist or collectivist? What anarchists who promote a particular school of anarchism claim is that a society ought to be run in this system if anarchist values of autonomy and equality are to be produced and remain as such. That was Proudhon's argument against what he called "communism" and Kropotkin's argument against what he saw as mutualism. These attributes are hardly unique to "anarchists without adjectives". Anarchists of all schools never, ever say they want to force everyone under a particular system, they just claim that the specific system they advocate would result in something more desirable. For example, an anarchist society where you have elements of capitalism and governmental statism will probably be far less free and egalitarian than a system where these elements don't exist. No one is going to force that society out of its quasi-capitalism, however, if people chose to implement those particular property norms or institutions the end result will not be anarchy or anything close to anarchy (assuming that "absolute anarchy" is improbable). Likewise, preserving or instituting authoritarian cultural norms will not result in anarchy. If groups want to keep practicing them, fine, but they shouldn't expect a freer society to be the end result.
Of course, when deciding how we're going to accomplish our goals we can simply point to general tendencies of certain systems and see what does or doesn't ultimately result in more freedom and equality. No one follows a textbook like it's some infallible work that needs to be followed word-for-word. We just look at what institutions and systems are better at carrying out our values and specifically go with that. As a mutualist, I believe the best way we can achieve these goals is if our institutions and property relations incorporate reciprocity in principle and action. (I've explained this idea in this post as well.) As far as the issue of compulsion goes, any society will require some kind of compulsion, since obligations will always exist, though we can take efforts to heavily reduce the need for compulsion by balancing individualist and collectivist elements.
Finally, I thought I'd bring up the allegedly "adjectives-less" approach. From what I have seen, what is called "anarchism without adjectives" is more of an appropriation than a rejection of adjectives. I have witnessed "an"-caps and individuals who hold similar ideologies label themselves "anarchist without adjectives" merely because they wouldn't oppose mutualists creating a market socialist system or communists creating a commune down the road from them, and assume that holding this view gives them a free pass into social anarchist spaces. It's hardly limited to market anarchists though. I know of social anarchists who use the "without adjectives" label who presuppose what a future society would look like before norms, customs, and so forth have been decided upon. Personally, I feel that it's impractical to go into activism which takes on such a huge long-term goal of complete social revolution without a clear-cut set of values. You're going to have to create new institutions and forms of exchange, which will ultimately lead to new social relations and new paradigms, so putting your finger in the air and going whichever way the wind blows seems very naive and unthoughtful. Agnosticism doesn't appear to be a good idea, especially now that actions and new paradigms are needed more than ever."
π: 1 β©: 0