Political rants

You're looking at the core principles of Anarcho-Communism and saying this isn't Anarchy so it's a contradiction. Anarcho-Communists aren't Anarchists. We're also not just Communists but you didn't know the difference between the 3 ideologies to make a solid case for that. Pure Anarchy has all the freedom and none of the protections of a society, to me it's as far left as a person can go and it's too far. The principles of Communism are great but without Democracy you get concentrations of power that lead to gulags or unyielding poverty like in Venezuela. You assumed I was antigovernment despite me warning you and AspieChu twice that not even all Anarchists are that rigid. That said we are not a monolith and there are some Anarcho-Communists that lean more into Anarchy, and you should absolutely call them out on their BS if they start claiming they can have any kind of societal function without some form of government. So look my guy, I'm starting to get worried that if I push back too hard this will go from rant to debate and I'll get in trouble. I don't think I could convince you of the merits of Anarcho-Communism anyway, and that's fine, if Capitalism is your jam that's cool, just don't forget to look for any flaws so you can always make it better.

@twobananasshyofapumpkinpie We debate here as well, so. I'm actually following along and aleph has made good arguments. I see the contradictions as well so if you want to explain how anarcho-communism works, feel free. I've actually been reading up on Cherokee ancestoral law because I was wondering how the tribe used to settle disputes. (I figure it's the closest thing that I can actually relate to anarcho-communism.) Only in the last few years were they able to win a case vs the government where they are now considered a sovereign nation from the US. They have to figure things out. If law is broken on tribal land, police and sheriff now have to get clearance through the tribe to do the work they were doing all this time. I'm sure they have some sort of agreements with established towns and communities that already had courts and police, but this all happened when I moved away. Not being surrounded and submerged in the culture anymore, I'm not following it as much as I would if I was still in Oklahoma.

There were chiefs and councils. It was a matriarchal society, so things left behind were given to wives and mothers and in disputes, favor was shown to women. Most property and possessions were communal. For killings/murders they had Blood Law which means the family of the deceased could demand the life of the murderer or of the murderer's family. Clan heads could delegate someone to die or volunteer themselves. So there were some laws, some forms of governing. I definitely need to find more sources on the topic.

Thank you, I really wanted to defend my position further but not at the cost of making trouble for everyone else. I'll finish clarifying after I make dinner. Though I don't know anything about how the Cherokee operate. The Wampanoag tribe I used to be apart of is further north east from the Cherokee's original lands.

@twobananasshyofapumpkinpie This may come as a surprise, but most people here are very good at keeping the political arguments inside of the political arguments section. Kind of an unspoken rule that you do not bring those differences into other areas of the forums.

You say my political stance is contradictory...what I'm trying to convey to you is that feeling of confusion isn't because I'm being contradictory. You don't have a solid grasp of Anarchy, Communism, Anarcho-Communism and how they aren't the same or just a random mash of each other. I guess I'll start at the beginning. At the base of every leftists preferred political/economic model/ideology (Except pure Anarchists) is Socialism. Socialism is a critique of Capitalism, in that it points out Capitalism's flaws and seeks to improve upon them. Though we mostly have that in common we on the left don't agree on almost anything else. If we aren't correcting misconceptions from centrists, punching fascists or trying to improve the conditions of our local communities through direct action, we're arguing with each other. Either about the flaws in our preferred political/economic models/Ideologies, calling for solidarity to better oppose the far right and fascists, or about the best way to undermine the stranglehold Neo-liberalism has on the country. We learn from these arguments though and change our minds or try to improve flaws and become more splintered because of it. Which leads me to my first example: Anarchy and those who wave the pure black flag of liberty known as Anarchists. Anarchy is the grandparent of all leftist ideals and those who follow it's teachings are Anarchists. I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST. Pure Anarchists don't believe we should live in societies, that the governments we form and the rules those governments make limit our freedom and will always become corrupt. While I'm sure they'd disagree and give more context, their ideal world boils down to every person for themselves, the only law is there are no laws. A real eye for an eye kind of life in my opinion. But even they don't agree completely. After much debate with other leftists they've splintered into two groups (that I'm aware of). Pure Anarchists and those that don't like the individualist nature of Pure Anarchy. The later looks into things like why governments become corrupt instead of just accepting that they do and acknowledges that cooperation is required at least sometimes. That said I don't follow Anarchists all that much and they can probably explain this better than me and any changes in their ideology. I hope I've made it at least clear that the world they strive for is not one I'd want to live in or support and that I'M NOT AN ANARCHIST. I realize that might leave you wondering where the Anarchy in Anarcho-Communism comes from, but in order to explain that I'll need you to understand Socialism and its sub-category Communism. You'd get a better understand from reading Marx and Engels; The Communist Manifesto or any lecture by Professor Richard D. Wolff, than a wall of text by me but I'll do my best. As I stated previously, Socialism is a critique of Capitalism. It looks at all the ways it fails society and aims to fix those failures. It's biggest critique of Capitalism is how undemocratic it is. Why is it that we'll run everything else in our society democratically but not businesses? Why are we ok with a person who starts a business getting to be in charge of everything and not the people who make the business run? Why are we ok with that person getting to decide how much the workers are worth or if they get to keep their livelihoods on any given day? Why are ok with letting that person on average set their worth as 265 times higher then our own? Why are we ok with letting a person who owns property decide if we sleep in a warm bed or on the streets based on an amount of money that is up to our boss if we make or not? Socialism aims to address those and so many other undemocratic situations that arise specifically because of Capitalism. It's seems I've reached my text wall limit...to be continued.

kids shouldnt be participating or being involved in drag shows, but i wish right wingers held this energy with child pageant shows and taking their kids to hooters

I'll leave the rest of the explanation of Socialism to Second Thought...an actual Socialist. I'm not asking you to take their word at face value, I always encourage people to do more research beyond a video, but everything he's about to say is everything I would have said but more organized and with pictures and a face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpKsygbNLT4&t=957s

Hello Momo, it's been a while, I hope you've been doing well. It's me @DigitalWolf001! I actually mostly agree with your statement. For as long as children can be taken advantage of (for monetary gain or worse) I'd prefer they didn't participate in pageant and drag shows. Though I find it disingenuous to compare drag shows to Hooters as if drag was inherently sexual. They're like a mix between a beauty pageant and a fashion show. Contestants try to be the most glamourous on stage and after they usually trade fashion advice, give make-up tutorials and advertise either their own brand or one that helped them win.

Part 2 of understanding Socialism. It's still easy to understand thanks to the format but it goes more in-depth and covers more topics than the basics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hactcmhVS1w&t=498s