- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
Like omg, I should not have to do emotional labor for you, just read the pamphlets I gave you. I don't care if you think "they're more like tomes with multiple volumes than pamphlets" and "I can't understand this gibberish" it's all explained in scientific detail there. What you're saying doesn't even make sense when capitalism is gone and replaced by trans liberation, like your praxis literally does not correspond to the post-capitalist queer reality. You are showing signs of sluggish schizophrenia and revisionism right now.I don't really understand what the anarcho-commies expect Boner to do if they don't want him to call the cops? Just lie down and take the L? More to the point, how do they even expect to enforce rules in their queer communes if they don't have bobbies? Maybe they just assume everyone is a perfect uwu smol bean who would never consent-accident another person or steal or lie...
That's only the libertarian anarchists/anarchocapitalists/libertarians in general/etc. (And select left-anarchists, typically farther back in history, although there are some today like those who publish at the Center for a Stateless Society who adopt this position.) Most anarchocommunists do not subscribe to the non-aggression principle because they've never heard of it (the main version has been in libertarian/liberal theory aka fascist propaganda) and if they had they couldn't because then the community (IT'S NOT A STATE SHUT UP) can't redistribute all the goods and labor while outlawing individual talents or skills by force as they envision.So basically there's this thing called the NAP (Non Aggression Principal) that most forms of anarchowhatevers agree on. The basic explanation of the NAP is "If you don't fuck with me I won't fuck with you, if you do fuck with me I am perfectly within my rite to absolutely annihilate you".
I don't know how trannies factor into it but most anarchowhatevers ideal world involves every single human being on the planet being in a constant Cuban Missile Crisis against every other human being on the planet waiting for some retard to make the first move.
Because "right-anarchists" (libertarians) don't demand the violent elimination of capitalism and permanent suppression of anything that sounds like capitalism (division of labor, trade, reducing scarcity, freedom to pursue your own goals, etc.) their position is more nuanced because they believe capitalism/the market/etc. solves what you suggest would be the state of waiting for others to move first. You don't have to use force, you can peacefully trade instead which increases the cost of actually resorting to force. (I would suggest also that most believe there are moral limits to how much force you can respond with, such as not being allowed to murder someone just because they trespass. Others disagree of course.)