I understand anarchists are opposed military drafts. But also oppose fasism. So how would Hitler be defeated without the allied forces? Would accepting the draft be seen as supporting US imperialism? Would rejecting it be seen as standing by while facists conquered Europe?
Like just decided to quit their job and purely lived off either the kindness of strangers or not so legal methods?
Like just decided to quit their job and purely lived off either the kindness of strangers or not so legal methods?
I get this from mostly libertarians who think that communities and collective don't exist. They're just individuals who do stuff together. As if somehow a group of people collectivly coming together to achieve something is not a collective?
No one is claiming that WT explicitly said 1975 was defintally gonna be the end. The problem was WT hyping people up for it and called people selling their homes ands quiting their jobs "a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end" - Our Kingdom Ministry May 1974. Then they gaslight people into thinking "they were just going ahead of the organistation."
Russel literally said "...the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership..." - The Time Is at Hand (1889)
He was quite explicit. WT just learned to be less explicit after 1914 and 1925.
Yet JWs will ignore these facts just to cope. But good job PIMIs you managed to beat a strawman. You must be so proud.
Any fucking any topic
"20 whatevers vs 1 egoist"
And it's just Stirner constantly asking them "why do you let that value hold authority over you" With the debater getting endless frustrated
It'd be the most entertaining shit ever
Seriously Jubilee make it happen.
So Tom Scott's video on chained libaries, made me realise of funny they were used to stop theives steal books because they were expensive. Even protestants did this. But according to WT, the reason was for some more nefarious reason
Like WT article here completly simplifes history to "The Catholic Church is evil and doesn't want people to read the bible themselves." But history is for more nauanced than that. I'm not catholic myself. But I do care about presenting history in an accurate way.
So first of why did the church keep the Bible in Latin? Many people in the Middle Ages were illiterate and all books were written by hand. The whole concept of people having there own personal bible they could read and study in their own language made no practical sense.
Instead Catholic practise is set up so even people who could not read could understand God's word. Through sermons, feastivals, religious artwork. Catholics view traditon as just as important as scripture.
In the time of Martin Luther however, you had the printing press and higher literacy rates due to urbanization. People getting their personal copy of the Bible was a lot more do able. And So Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Did the church ban people from translating the bible? No. They just banned unauthorized translation out of fear of them causing herecy. This entire article I shared is full of historical inaccuracies made to make out as if people were executed for translating the Bible which is not the whole story. The Catholic Church authorized pleanty of Bible translation before the reformation.
In Catholism, catholic tradition is meant to help interperate scripture. This is what Luther challenged. And isn't much different than WT being needed for JWs to interperate scripture for them.
In Catholism, your interperation doesn't align with Catholic tradtion. You're a heretic.
If a JW's interperation doesn't align with WT teachings. You're an apostate.
I've seen people argue that Luffy is an anarchist because of his rejection of authority. I think that's a bit simplistic.
Both anarchism and egoism often get reduced to "I want to do whatever I want with no one stopping me." In reality, both philosophies are much more nuanced.
Anarchism is primarily concerned with power in society. It questions coercive and hierarchical institutions and seeks to replace them with voluntary association, mutual aid, and self-organisation. It's not just about fighting tyrants; it's about creating social arrangements where people don't need them in the first place.
You can even see anarchistic elements in the Straw Hats. Luffy is the captain, but he doesn't rule through coercion. His crew follows him because they choose to, not because they're forced.
However, if you read Luffy as primarily an anarchist, some of his actions become difficult to explain. He has no interest in abolishing monarchy as an institution. He has helped restore kings to power. He doesn't travel the world trying to end every system of domination. He fights tyrants, but he doesn't have a political programme.
This is why I think a Stirnerite reading is more compelling.
Max Stirner's egoism isn't primarily about society. It's about the individual. Where anarchism asks, "Who has power over society?", Stirner asks, "What has power over my will?"
For Stirner, the problem isn't just being ruled by governments. It's also being ruled by abstract ideals—Justice, Morality, Duty, Humanity, or any principle you obey simply because you think you must.
Egoism doesn't reject values. It asks whether those values are genuinely yours.
This difference can be seen in Ennies Lobby. Dragon opposes the World Government as part of a revolutionary movement. Luffy doesn't declare war on the World Government because he has concluded that states are unjust. He declares war because they took Robin. His motivation isn't "Justice demands this." It's "I want to save my friend."
The same pattern appears throughout the series.
Luffy wants to find the One Piece, but he also wants adventure. That's why he rejects shortcuts that would rob him of the journey. He loves his crew, so he would never sacrifice them simply to reach Laugh Tale faster. His goals don't override the rest of what makes life meaningful to him.
This is why I think Luffy is better understood through egoism than anarchism.
That doesn't mean egoism and anarchism are incompatible. Historically, many egoists have also been anarchists, including Stirner's later influence on egoist anarchism. But they're answering different questions.
An egoist can become an anarchist. But Stirner would still ask:
"Are you an anarchist because it's what you truly want, or because you've made Freedom and Equality into ideals you feel morally obliged to serve?"
Luffy, by contrast, rarely appeals to abstract ideals at all. He simply lives according to his own will. He doesn't need to justify his actions by appealing to Justice or Duty. He helps people because he wants to. He fights because he wants to. He sails because he wants to.
A side from the question of why any state, even one ruled by the proletariat would relinquish power.
I've come a historical theory that whether communists or fascists take over the state, I think relies on the circumstances of an economic colaspe. In Russia, people could unify behind their hatred of the Tsar. A clear visible enemy people could fight. In Cuba you had colonial powers, another clear visible enemy to fight. In Weimer Germany, no clear visible enemy. In that state, "The Jews are to blame" had way more emotional weight that explaining socioeconomic theory to people. Fascists could grab the narrative and seize power.
Today we see in Europe the rise of in populrity of far right parties. They can sucessfully grab the narrative and blame migrant for all our problems. Leftist have to give people a full lecture on socioeconomic theory in order for people to understand the real problems.
Then there's anarchists. They don't have to fight some narritive war to win. We get people to self-organise before any economic collaspe. People see for themselves how much better self-organisation is without the need to read any anarchist theory. As communal relationships grow, people become less distrustful of their neighbours and less suceptable to fascist ideas.
So I've asked marxist-lenninist on why they choose communism over anarchy.
The main response I get is that anarchist communities break up over in-fighting or outside forces. And that communist states have the ablitly to last decades by opposing and suppressing counter revolutionary forces and defending againsts outside forces inorder to achieve their goal.
I understand that the anarchist objection to this is that in many cases innocent people get labled counterrevolutionary and imprisoned just for disagreeing with the government's plan. The need to suppress people at all runs counter to anarchist ideals.
But in achieving an anarchist world is needing to supress the counterrevolution by force really the only way? Do anarchist see many communes being broken up by either in-fighting or outside forces as a huge challenge?
I ask them why not solar punk where nature and technology live as one. And what about modern medician.
I first got the response I thought I get "a lot of diesease is spread by civilisation" but when I pressed them about infant mortality, autoimmune diesease, hereditary disorders. I get "survival of fittests is good actually, letting people dies is ok.
Is this what anarcho primitivists actually think or this sub misrepresenting them. Please tell me "we should just let people die" isn't what they actually think
What are people on here communists and not anarchists?
I just want to here the perspectives of people on here?
