Whataboutism at its finest.

Holy shit, this “Putin is controlling Trump” conspiracy theory is getting on my nerves. 🙄

Does Putin try to manipulate Trump? Maybe. Does Trump feel threatened by piss video leaks? Ask Epstein!

Ah, yes. I don’t care about the Iranian people because… Instead of focussing on how much iranian women are allowed not to wear headscarves, I’m rather focussing on how the iranian people suffer under austerity in a plutocratic system which is also under pressure from the imperialist hegemon and it’s vasals. And since the article I posted isn’t entirely made up of the words “Amerikkka” and “sanctions”, but rather goes into detail in how the current protests came about, how the poorer classes suffer under the current system and how international powers try to coopt the movement by trying to astroturf the return of the Schah.

But now, I’ve seen the errors of my ways! All Iranians are A-OK, because women in Teheran are allowed not to wear scarves in youtube videos! Nothing to see in Iran. Amerikka is the big devil! Long live the Ayatollah!

/s

Now you’re just blatantly lying. Read my previous comment, again. They clearly mention and condemn the sanctions. Just because they don’t mention them every sentence doesn’t mean they ignore them.

You’re nothing but an “Amerikkka bad” campist who’s not interested in the plight of the Iranian people.

That sure is a lot of buzzwords. But it’s clear that you didn’t read the article you banned me for.

Or how is this “justifying imperialism and a oppressive sanctions against the Iranian people”?

This horizon faces two parallel threats. On the one hand, it can be appropriated or sidelined by right-wing forces based outside the country—forces that instrumentalize people’s suffering to justify sanctions, war, or military intervention. On the other hand, segments of the ruling class—whether from military-security factions or reformist currents—are working behind the scenes to market themselves to the West as a “more rational,” “lower-cost,” “more reliable” option: an internal alternative from within the Islamic Republic, not to break with the existing order of domination, but to reconfigure it under a different face.

Or this:

In other words, the costs of sanctions are paid directly by the lower classes and the shrinking middle strata.

Or this:

Campist pseudo-leftists reduce the crisis to US sanctions and dollar hegemony, erasing the role of the ruling class of the Islamic Republic as active agents of dispossession and financialized accumulation. Right-wing campists, generally aligned with Western imperialism, blame only the Islamic Republic and treat the sanctions as irrelevant. These positions mirror each another—and each side has clear interests in adopting them. Against both of them, we insist on recognizing the entanglement of global and local plunder and exploitation. Yes, sanctions devastate people’s lives—through medicine shortages, missing industrial parts, unemployment, and psychological erosion—but the burden is socialized onto the people, not onto the military-security oligarchy that amasses enormous wealth by controlling the informal circuits of currency and oil.

What if I told you that the current protests in Iran aren’t about headscarfs?

Although OP actually has no interest in Iranians liberating themselves, if you look at their history (and what they ban).

Depends on the definition of capitalism. The Nazis wanted to manipulate the markets and change the legislative nature of property to benefit the nation.

But that might only have happened in theory. In practice they were really into capitalism.

That’s not completely true, though. Hitler was against “hoarding” capital and if you went against the party or were jewish, they annexed your capital (and most likely gave it to a loyal capitalist).

You make implicit assumptions that are hard to grasp and thus criticise. But I’ll try.

With those definitions, a “state” existing is an inevitability

You didn’t really address the definitions.

Getting any group of humans to all agree on a single set of rules at all times is impossible

I don’t know what people you hang out with, but any game of football manages to get people to agree to a single set of rules.

especially as the community size increases.

If the group gets too large, it can naturally split up into two neighbouring groups. I don’t really see why this shouldn’t work, as long as there’s freedom of association (i.e.: I can/should leave if I don’t agree with the terms of a group).

So there has to be some form of enforcement of the rules

I never said that the rules shouldn’t be enforced. Just that the mandate to enforce the rules shouldn’t rely on a set group with a monopoly of violence.

And as community size increases, it’s also an increasingly bad idea to leave enforcement of the rules up to individuals/the community at large.

So, neither individuals, nor the community. Do you want an elite unit of secret police? O.o

Humans are emotional creatures and will at times respond inappropriately to others who break the rules.

So, there will be agreed upon rules and protocols on how to deal with rule violations. Still no requirement for this not-individual-not-communal police force you want.

And since humans are made of matter, there’s going to be a defined geographical area where a given community has control.

… so?

For the no ruler part, while the internet has made direct democracy possible, there’s still going to need to be a manager of some sort to go about actually implementing the decisions made.

A coordinator is different than a ruler. A ruling subject (i.e. a monarch, or any other state apparatus) has sovereign power over it’s subjects (i.e. it’s "people). A coordinator coordinates tasks.

Does that “manager” (which is a weird coice of words, since managers don’t implement - they manage people implementing) necessarily have the power of command and control over other people?

Your worldview is very hierarchy-focused.

what is the size threshold that separates “community” from “state”?

A state is not defined by the number of people “in” it, but rather of the fact that it wields a monopoly of violence over a defined geographical area and has a people to rule over.

And does the term “self-governance” not imply a set of laws at that community level?

That is true, but there being rules don’t mean that there must be a ruler.

Slopidy slop?

So what are your actual beliefs?

Geez. Buy me a drink first, before you want my life story. /s

Tell me I wasn’t just dead-on about the dime-a-dozen leftist perspective on veganism as something separate from leftism or, at best, as an act of radical environmentalism that one can take or leave because it’s basically fungible to any other act of environmentalism.

Will do: you weren’t dead-on.

Of course anarchism includes critique of consuming animal products. But that doesn’t mean that a boycott is the correct strategy, let alone bullying others to partake in the boycott. Also: the way you phrased it was just whataboutism.

That you wouldn’t gatekeep leftism based on whether people participate on a neo-Nazi social media website?

I’m not here to gatekeep. Just want clarity in political terms.

That’s a lot of bullshit assumptions you utter about a stranger on the internet.

I think your definition of tankie is a bit off. AAFAIK, he opposed the USSR and stated that he didn’t consider it socialist. Don’t know enough about his stance on the war in Ukraine. But that doesn’t make you a tankie.

I’m not really understanding the metaphor. In what way did I tell you “not to use the weapon”? I literally said “vote, if you want to”.

In your metaphor, I’d be saying “don’t put energy into learning how to use a butterknife, if better options are available”.

Yet you participate in society.jpeg

That’s not purity testing, though. The DNC is not leftist. They’re capitalist and some individuals are (arguably) socdems at best.

Just one more election, bro. This time we’ll get on track. Just one more election, bro. This one is the most important one in our lives. Just one more election, bro. /s

Disclaimer: Vote, if you want to (it’s not too much of a hassle for me, so I indulge in some elections, too). But please don’t volunteer for electoral campaigns if there are better options available to get polieically engaged (there always are).

Idk. He’s alright for baby anarchists, I think.

It’s not like Bakunin was too great on everything, either.