• sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    but they are just tribes. saying “statists make this argument” doesn’t invalidate the argument lol. you’re acting like these tribes didn’t have hierarchies and lineages and privilege based on both. (they did)

    not having a state isn’t the same thing as anarchism. anarchism is an actual and fairly refined philosophy that has to account for material conditions, social and economic reality and shape them with anarchist thought. it isn’t just when no state.

    and i mean no disrespect to you when i say this, but comments like this are why most leftists tend to leave anarchism once they’re exposed to more “authoritarian” socialist theory. the “authoritarians” simply make a much better argument. anarchism sounds great until you’ve really considered the arguments that “statist” leftists make

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      At least by the Marxist definition, these societies virtually all did have states, they were just very small states. They enforced the oppression of women by men (patriarchy) along with other class relations.

    • not having a state isn’t the same thing as anarchism. anarchism is an actual and fairly refined philosophy that has to account for material conditions, social and economic reality and shape them with anarchist thought. it isn’t just when no state.

      yall are giving em toooo much credit but yeah. The marxist leninists are the best anarchists at the end of the day.