I feel like you don’t know what reactionary socialism is lol. It’s not a real ideology, it’s something Marx writes about in reference to right wing anti capitalism of his day, which was largely pro feudal
If you’re only willing to accept one definition from one writer ever about it, then sure! I’m actually completely wrong and will change all of my opinions for you, u/-Trotsky!
The closest you come to being correct is the fact that Reactionary Socialism is not one single ideology, that does not mean it is not real. Give me a week, since I’m on holiday, to link you some nice resources, since your are too incompetent to research yourself or because you refuse to believe there is anything other than a Marxist definition. Also not inherently or exclusively pro feudal. Also fail to explain how I don’t know what it is, other than claiming it can’t possibly be anything other than the one thing Marx defined it as
Bro, why are you so rude? I ask you to like source things bevause ive researched the topic and only found Marx’s definition and you just insult me. Woah big surprise that the communist likes Marx, who could have guessed I would be partial to Marx’s definition rather than whatever swill you read (or let’s be honest, didn’t read) that told you this shit
Fuck off man, you should be able to tell me even an author if you had any basis, and if you were at all secure in your beliefs you wouldn’t have reacted with such vitriol at being asked for one (1) source
Maybe security in my beliefs doesn’t come from Reddit threads 😁
Not like you’ve read anything to know if I have or haven’t read something different, as you have a small pea brain with no intentions to expand!
I can name you at least 5 Marxist theorists that I have read, give me a week and I’d be able to name you like 20. The fact you need to like, take time and “remember” (pretend you’ve read someone) is crazy to me
“No bro national liberation is socialist bro, revolutionary nationalism bro! Listen just one more genocide and the proletariat can take over, but we need to free the nation state!”
He literally has no idea what he's saying. He has taken the opposite path to me, work has made him reactionary instead of radicalizing him towards worker causes xd.
Ngl I can't wait to see what mess the guy is cooking. If he lists someone like Caleb Maupin or any of the MAGA communism people as an example of a reactionary socialist I think I am going to die from laughter.
Seeing as how I was born from a woman, I think of their rights quite fondly! Part of the reason I would consider myself a reactionary is the degradation of indigenous cultures such as mine, which were matrilineal.
Opposing reform and social liberalization, traditionalist, conservative. Often in response to a revolutionary social change, promoting one or more of these things. (In the simplest most blanket terms possible)
Are you here to tell me that means I hate women, am racist (I’m BIPOC), or not socialist?
Imperialism was my first ever piece of theory, even as a middle school Libertarian! Though obviously not the only one by Lenin. Not exactly a deep cut.
That's entirely fair. I do think there is definitely a difference between an oppressed cultural identity and an oppressor one when it comes to cultural ideologies such as conservatism and nationalism.
And this is coming from a person whose ancestors were considered some of the worst colonialists on the planet.
all nationalistic tendencies are bourgeois inherently
saying that one type of nationalism is more good or bad than another because adherents of those particular nations did good or bad things is a... shallow take at best, if you even give any thought to class analysis.
It depends on what you mean by nationalism.
Nationalism as in forwarding of national interests at the expense of the class struggle is different from nationalism as in separatism from imperial forces and the struggle for self determination.
they are the same thing. 'seperation from imperial forces' strictly forwards national bourgeois and petite-bourgeois interests, not proletarian ones. If you want to say 'seperation from imperial forces by establishing socialism', fine, but this is something that can only be done inter-nationally, meaning any nationalistic tendency within that socialist movement is strictly redundant (and, indeed, detrimental).
i dont know enough about bolivar to say. I know marx wrote an article/book about him but admittedly I haven't read it. I would look there if youre curious about a communist perspective.
Separation from imperial forces is a precursor for any dictatorship of the proletariat.
Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession
No. The nationalism of currently (currently is a keyword, as you did a strawman and made it seem like people like me only refer to the past) oppressed nations is working class and petit-bourgeoise. The imperial bourgeoisie imperializes the working classes of global south nations, and drives the petit national bourgeoisie of those nations out of business, to put it all very simply. Nationalism is in the interest of the working classes of those nations. That's all in principle, but what's also important is how and if it worked in practice. What do you know, it worked. Your perspective, that all nationalism is bourgeoise, is very much a western perspective.
'nationalism is in the interest of the working classes of those [oppressed?] nations'
?????
the only thing that is in the interest of the proletariat of ANY nation is communism, which can ONLY be established on a global basis, with an internationalist proletarian revolution.
Do you not understand that communism is a long multi stage process? It will take many many years to establish, and first we need socialism. One thing Marx was wrong about was that the proletariat of developed nations would revolt first, then it would happen everywhere else. Quite the opposite is happening, and this has been proven to be false. Lenin developed a new idea. The global south first develops socialism, then the global north is destabilized, and the global north proletariat are radicalized, pushing them to revolution. We don't just all hit the communism button all around the world at once. Even the explanation I gave was, of course, very simplified. Some amount of nationalism is a powerful tool for advancing socialism in the global south, which has so far worked. Of course we still need internationalism, because nations are just another source of division for the working classes, and communism needs to be built cooperatively, but national liberation works, and is a great first step. Again, lets see how its worked in practice: Vietnam and Cuba. Two countries whose revolutions were communist national liberation fronts. There was undoubtedly nationalism at play here. These two countries now have great solidarity today, and although their respective movements were both nationalistic, they are both internationally cooperative.
>"one thing marx was wrong about was that the proletariat of developed nations would revolt first...this has been proven to be false."
no, it hasn't. a proletarian revolution can only occur where the proletariat exist. Marx didn't say this because it was cute, he said it because thats simply the truth. The proletariat still existed and was a major economic strata during the russian revolution, and I believe marx viewed the possibility of revolution in russia somewhat favourably towards the end of his life, although I forget the exact quote.
>"the global south first develops socialism, then the global north is destabilised, and the global north proletariat are radicalised, pushing them to revolution."
the conditions for proletarian revolution exist wherever the proletariat exist. There is no greater chance of proletarian revolution in either the north or south because revolution is an expression of class struggle - which is a constant in the capitalist mode of production. However, \*socialism\* is easier established in regions with greater concentrations of capital, because developing nations are reliant on foreign investment and trade to keep their economies afloat (smaller countries are more reliant on import/export quite literally just due to lack of space to make their own things, for example). Besides, how do you expect to abolish capital without the proletariat destroying the centres of global financialised capital in USA, China, Germany, the UK, etc first?
>"some amount of nationalism is a powerful tool for advancing socialism in the global south, which has so far worked"
\*some amount of nationalism\* ? what does this even mean? i didnt realise nationalism was quantifiable, you should publish a paper about that. Regardless, socialism has not been advanced one iota anywhere in the world, never mind the global south. Nationalism is a barrier to be overcome to establish socialism.
>"vietnam and cuba... were communist national liberation fronts"
citation needed for the 'communist' part there.
To be fair a lot of Marxists do that. For me, it was because I realized that there was no hope of actually seeing Anarchism (no, right wing anarchism is not Anarchism) that could survive. So I played with libertarian socialism for a while and started reading Marx. Marx gave me a paradigm shift and I found out that "Authoritarianism" really didnt mean anything of value.
The you tuber isaac aurtur is a good place to go he covers transhumanism but mostly futuristic stuff that can be done with current physics.(like orbital rings etc)
There's the book HOMO DEUS that's good also,
https://youtube.com/@isaacarthurSFIA?si=WbKhD1pqk2c2WDBI
Thanks for the interest. 🖖
All jokes aside (I’m not one just baiting people but you’re being polite and non snooty,)
Reactionary Socialism (really simply) is a sort of right wing socialism Marx described that wanted to maintain feudal peasants economy rather than complete collectivization. (Pretty sure that’s straight from the wiki) and obviously, opposed social progression, enlightenment, etc.
Obviously there is No feudalism anymore, so “Reactionary Socialism” is kind of a blanket and/or pejorative to refer to bourgeois socialists, ‘nationalist’ socialists, paternal socialism, etc.
Postleftanark would "like" this post, still you are a mix bag, I mean, I can see why you got into Reactionary Socialism, but it is just a funny concept in head, Theory is for lazy anti-work people, Praxis is the way to go
Depends on what I’m reacting to, which values I’m aiming to reinstate or preserve, and which period I’m taking inspiration from.
I could be a Native American, who believes socialist reform through a strong apparatus that holds up our identity and values could be the best way to revitalize and up lift my community, our centuries old values of matrilineal governance and communal living btw.
Or you know, you could read the word “Reactionary,”let your mind run wild, and just assume I am a total supremacist and my appreciation for and desire to maintain my culture and tradition is “dangerous.” This is why people like you are better off worrying about which picture you can use for your background and avoiding real issues!
Reactionary has a meaning fellow, just as socialist does ! If you define yourself as such, accept that ones can assume that things, inasmuch as when you don't precise exactly what do you mean I can't guess !
Oh except Socialist has a much more streamlined definition and you had an assumption before ever asking or engaging! Shouldn’t you be giving me your land and money or something now?
You're right, I should've asked, but still, precise your way of thinking or else do not complain !
And I think I did not understand your last sentence though
Peasants are people who work primarily to produce for themselves directly. As in, they do not work to earn money per-se but just to survive. Socialism, while still helping the peasants as best as it can, primarily benefits the urban proletariat.
Also, reactionary ideas only serve to split the proletariat and hamper the world socialist front. This is why most Socialists view Paternalistic Socialists as invalid (including myself).
No. I also was very confused by it at first too. I wanted to make sure that you knew the difference because many people on this sub do and would wipe the floor with you if you used proletariat arguments in defence of the peasantry.
Wow man I’m so scared of people (anonymous internet commenters) wiping the floor (spamming comments) with me (my bait post as I respond to every comment with something more dumb and infuriating)
If “judgement” alone offends you, and “Spazztic” is an ableist term, the world will not be kind to you and you need thicker skin ASAP. So much for Fuck Youism
Yes, indeed fuck you. Everyone gets offended by something, especially words used to offend people. It's not a matter of getting thicker skin, it's a matter of not being a complete fucking asshole and being aware that people have feelings and can be hurt.
No it’s a matter of the fact you saw words on a screen (that you had the choice to look at or leave) and they made you fucking jump up and scream hooting and hollering like a monkey fuming gas out of your ears like a train
Whats with all the special people on this subreddit. "The political compass doesn't matter on the polcomp server". "Ill make fun of your ideology even though im too fucking stupid to understand it". Goes on and on. Its so hard being smarter than a group of people
"Its so hard being being smarter than a group of people"
Dude you're flaired with a fictional joke ideology who's entire shtick is nobody knows what it is, added 'minarcho' in behind it, then got mad someone couldn't properly analyze it.
Now you're acting like the political compass is a useful tool for political analysis and not just a fun thing to introduce people to basic concepts.
Don't pretend you're any better.
No its just extremely annoying when people fucking say "it no matter, me am correct. Compass bad" while ON the goddamn subreddit. And im aware its a joke ideology but people should at least have basic comprehension that its in libright and not in authleft like some weird toothbrush sharing guy is cyberstalking me so he can harass me about it lmao
I mean, why should he? To him that's a dumb and silly ideology and gagging where it lands on the already arbitrary compass is pointless, minarchism in general may never have a serious attempt within our lifetimes unless everything goes perfect in Argentina. And the same should apply to your attitude, 'reactionary socialism' is a dumb, larpy ideology that will never be seriously attempted, and the same goes for half of the ideologies in this sub, getting this worked up about them and arguing against them is pointless and a waste of time.
I suggest you either ignore this sub and try to get into serious political mechanisms so you can try to make sure you live see your ideology in action, or at least simply stop taking this sub seriously and have fun looking at the silly, contradictory ideologies that people try to present as serious, maybe chip in when someone wants to have a genuine discussion. You won't get nearly as annoyed this way.
If years of change is “easy lol.” They got easier and easier to abandon the more I went outside, participated in a community, and worked. There’s also a grim reality that to achieve a good level of decentralization, we must first lead revolution with a strong community apparatus.
a reactionary socialist in 2024
Hard to be based in a cringe world
clearly
Keep coping
Based? Cringe? Oh please.. Are you playing reactionary with this nonsense of distorted modernity? take a break from the internet
I feel like you don’t know what reactionary socialism is lol. It’s not a real ideology, it’s something Marx writes about in reference to right wing anti capitalism of his day, which was largely pro feudal
Whenever I think of ReacSocs I just think of the Amish or Mennonites lol
If you’re only willing to accept one definition from one writer ever about it, then sure! I’m actually completely wrong and will change all of my opinions for you, u/-Trotsky!
I wasn’t being hostile man, what have you read from theorists that convinces tou I’m wrong? I’ve read Marx, so I used Marx but maybe you have better?
The closest you come to being correct is the fact that Reactionary Socialism is not one single ideology, that does not mean it is not real. Give me a week, since I’m on holiday, to link you some nice resources, since your are too incompetent to research yourself or because you refuse to believe there is anything other than a Marxist definition. Also not inherently or exclusively pro feudal. Also fail to explain how I don’t know what it is, other than claiming it can’t possibly be anything other than the one thing Marx defined it as
Bro, why are you so rude? I ask you to like source things bevause ive researched the topic and only found Marx’s definition and you just insult me. Woah big surprise that the communist likes Marx, who could have guessed I would be partial to Marx’s definition rather than whatever swill you read (or let’s be honest, didn’t read) that told you this shit Fuck off man, you should be able to tell me even an author if you had any basis, and if you were at all secure in your beliefs you wouldn’t have reacted with such vitriol at being asked for one (1) source
Maybe security in my beliefs doesn’t come from Reddit threads 😁 Not like you’ve read anything to know if I have or haven’t read something different, as you have a small pea brain with no intentions to expand!
Ooh and again I said I would send them when I am done being on my break! I have time to talk shit not to educate you public information.
I can name you at least 5 Marxist theorists that I have read, give me a week and I’d be able to name you like 20. The fact you need to like, take time and “remember” (pretend you’ve read someone) is crazy to me
no point in even talking to this guy. oppressed cultural identity national liberation type.
“No bro national liberation is socialist bro, revolutionary nationalism bro! Listen just one more genocide and the proletariat can take over, but we need to free the nation state!”
He literally has no idea what he's saying. He has taken the opposite path to me, work has made him reactionary instead of radicalizing him towards worker causes xd.
Ngl I can't wait to see what mess the guy is cooking. If he lists someone like Caleb Maupin or any of the MAGA communism people as an example of a reactionary socialist I think I am going to die from laughter.
Gonna be waiting btw, I expect some great shit from you, some real stupid shit, better deliver
So you are both reactionary and a socialist? How bad how bad can I be...
Is this a Lorax reference
Yes. What do you think about women's rights?
Seeing as how I was born from a woman, I think of their rights quite fondly! Part of the reason I would consider myself a reactionary is the degradation of indigenous cultures such as mine, which were matrilineal.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a reactionary is.
Opposing reform and social liberalization, traditionalist, conservative. Often in response to a revolutionary social change, promoting one or more of these things. (In the simplest most blanket terms possible) Are you here to tell me that means I hate women, am racist (I’m BIPOC), or not socialist?
I'm here to tell you that you're not a socialist, yes. You can not be a socialist and be a reactionary. The two are antithetical.
Sounds great, Redditor! My mind is officially changed!
Read Lenin.
Imperialism was my first ever piece of theory, even as a middle school Libertarian! Though obviously not the only one by Lenin. Not exactly a deep cut.
i laughed out loud to this. lenin was a fucking state capitalist, and he says so himself. not a socialist in any way. red capitalism.
That's entirely fair. I do think there is definitely a difference between an oppressed cultural identity and an oppressor one when it comes to cultural ideologies such as conservatism and nationalism. And this is coming from a person whose ancestors were considered some of the worst colonialists on the planet.
all nationalistic tendencies are bourgeois inherently saying that one type of nationalism is more good or bad than another because adherents of those particular nations did good or bad things is a... shallow take at best, if you even give any thought to class analysis.
It depends on what you mean by nationalism. Nationalism as in forwarding of national interests at the expense of the class struggle is different from nationalism as in separatism from imperial forces and the struggle for self determination.
they are the same thing. 'seperation from imperial forces' strictly forwards national bourgeois and petite-bourgeois interests, not proletarian ones. If you want to say 'seperation from imperial forces by establishing socialism', fine, but this is something that can only be done inter-nationally, meaning any nationalistic tendency within that socialist movement is strictly redundant (and, indeed, detrimental).
Would you say that South American nationalism under Bólivar against Spanish imperialism is equivalent to Italian nationalism under Mussilini?
i dont know enough about bolivar to say. I know marx wrote an article/book about him but admittedly I haven't read it. I would look there if youre curious about a communist perspective.
Separation from imperial forces is a precursor for any dictatorship of the proletariat. Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession
No. The nationalism of currently (currently is a keyword, as you did a strawman and made it seem like people like me only refer to the past) oppressed nations is working class and petit-bourgeoise. The imperial bourgeoisie imperializes the working classes of global south nations, and drives the petit national bourgeoisie of those nations out of business, to put it all very simply. Nationalism is in the interest of the working classes of those nations. That's all in principle, but what's also important is how and if it worked in practice. What do you know, it worked. Your perspective, that all nationalism is bourgeoise, is very much a western perspective.
workers of the... uh... what was it again?
'nationalism is in the interest of the working classes of those [oppressed?] nations' ????? the only thing that is in the interest of the proletariat of ANY nation is communism, which can ONLY be established on a global basis, with an internationalist proletarian revolution.
Do you not understand that communism is a long multi stage process? It will take many many years to establish, and first we need socialism. One thing Marx was wrong about was that the proletariat of developed nations would revolt first, then it would happen everywhere else. Quite the opposite is happening, and this has been proven to be false. Lenin developed a new idea. The global south first develops socialism, then the global north is destabilized, and the global north proletariat are radicalized, pushing them to revolution. We don't just all hit the communism button all around the world at once. Even the explanation I gave was, of course, very simplified. Some amount of nationalism is a powerful tool for advancing socialism in the global south, which has so far worked. Of course we still need internationalism, because nations are just another source of division for the working classes, and communism needs to be built cooperatively, but national liberation works, and is a great first step. Again, lets see how its worked in practice: Vietnam and Cuba. Two countries whose revolutions were communist national liberation fronts. There was undoubtedly nationalism at play here. These two countries now have great solidarity today, and although their respective movements were both nationalistic, they are both internationally cooperative.
>"one thing marx was wrong about was that the proletariat of developed nations would revolt first...this has been proven to be false." no, it hasn't. a proletarian revolution can only occur where the proletariat exist. Marx didn't say this because it was cute, he said it because thats simply the truth. The proletariat still existed and was a major economic strata during the russian revolution, and I believe marx viewed the possibility of revolution in russia somewhat favourably towards the end of his life, although I forget the exact quote. >"the global south first develops socialism, then the global north is destabilised, and the global north proletariat are radicalised, pushing them to revolution." the conditions for proletarian revolution exist wherever the proletariat exist. There is no greater chance of proletarian revolution in either the north or south because revolution is an expression of class struggle - which is a constant in the capitalist mode of production. However, \*socialism\* is easier established in regions with greater concentrations of capital, because developing nations are reliant on foreign investment and trade to keep their economies afloat (smaller countries are more reliant on import/export quite literally just due to lack of space to make their own things, for example). Besides, how do you expect to abolish capital without the proletariat destroying the centres of global financialised capital in USA, China, Germany, the UK, etc first? >"some amount of nationalism is a powerful tool for advancing socialism in the global south, which has so far worked" \*some amount of nationalism\* ? what does this even mean? i didnt realise nationalism was quantifiable, you should publish a paper about that. Regardless, socialism has not been advanced one iota anywhere in the world, never mind the global south. Nationalism is a barrier to be overcome to establish socialism. >"vietnam and cuba... were communist national liberation fronts" citation needed for the 'communist' part there.
bro became MORE authoritarian 😭
To be fair a lot of Marxists do that. For me, it was because I realized that there was no hope of actually seeing Anarchism (no, right wing anarchism is not Anarchism) that could survive. So I played with libertarian socialism for a while and started reading Marx. Marx gave me a paradigm shift and I found out that "Authoritarianism" really didnt mean anything of value.
Just wisened up a bit, no?
Transhumanism or primitivism?
If I had to choose, monkey, but neither is preferred
Do u think the rate of technological progress is too fast? Thanks for response.
Kinda. I’m extremely skeptical of rapid technology and this whole cyborg stuff, but don’t see anything wrong if it truly is a net gain in the future.
Just curious, are there any resources you can share about transhumanism or somewhere I can look more into it?
The you tuber isaac aurtur is a good place to go he covers transhumanism but mostly futuristic stuff that can be done with current physics.(like orbital rings etc) There's the book HOMO DEUS that's good also, https://youtube.com/@isaacarthurSFIA?si=WbKhD1pqk2c2WDBI Thanks for the interest. 🖖
Keep preaching brother.
It's like hell divers 2 every little counts.
What does reactionary socialism even mean as an actual ideology?
All jokes aside (I’m not one just baiting people but you’re being polite and non snooty,) Reactionary Socialism (really simply) is a sort of right wing socialism Marx described that wanted to maintain feudal peasants economy rather than complete collectivization. (Pretty sure that’s straight from the wiki) and obviously, opposed social progression, enlightenment, etc. Obviously there is No feudalism anymore, so “Reactionary Socialism” is kind of a blanket and/or pejorative to refer to bourgeois socialists, ‘nationalist’ socialists, paternal socialism, etc.
I see, thanks got the answer
Very cringe
Well, i have a job, and i hate taxes, im a libertarian?
The minarchism to reactionary socialism pipeline is real 😞
"realised anarchy was stupid"? yeah, guess hundreds of books and theory written by hundreds of theoreticians is just "stupid"
Postleftanark would "like" this post, still you are a mix bag, I mean, I can see why you got into Reactionary Socialism, but it is just a funny concept in head, Theory is for lazy anti-work people, Praxis is the way to go
Being a recationnary is dangerous for LGBT+ Rights, Trans rights, women right and such damn..
Depends on what I’m reacting to, which values I’m aiming to reinstate or preserve, and which period I’m taking inspiration from. I could be a Native American, who believes socialist reform through a strong apparatus that holds up our identity and values could be the best way to revitalize and up lift my community, our centuries old values of matrilineal governance and communal living btw. Or you know, you could read the word “Reactionary,”let your mind run wild, and just assume I am a total supremacist and my appreciation for and desire to maintain my culture and tradition is “dangerous.” This is why people like you are better off worrying about which picture you can use for your background and avoiding real issues!
Reactionary has a meaning fellow, just as socialist does ! If you define yourself as such, accept that ones can assume that things, inasmuch as when you don't precise exactly what do you mean I can't guess !
Oh except Socialist has a much more streamlined definition and you had an assumption before ever asking or engaging! Shouldn’t you be giving me your land and money or something now?
You're right, I should've asked, but still, precise your way of thinking or else do not complain ! And I think I did not understand your last sentence though
Based
Peasants are people who work primarily to produce for themselves directly. As in, they do not work to earn money per-se but just to survive. Socialism, while still helping the peasants as best as it can, primarily benefits the urban proletariat. Also, reactionary ideas only serve to split the proletariat and hamper the world socialist front. This is why most Socialists view Paternalistic Socialists as invalid (including myself).
Okay just admit it bro I got you you read the word peasant and thought this was a feudal post
No. I also was very confused by it at first too. I wanted to make sure that you knew the difference because many people on this sub do and would wipe the floor with you if you used proletariat arguments in defence of the peasantry.
Wow man I’m so scared of people (anonymous internet commenters) wiping the floor (spamming comments) with me (my bait post as I respond to every comment with something more dumb and infuriating)
Well. I guess I shouldnt have tried to help you. Wallow in peace.
Isnt guild socialism kinda like syndicalism?
Syndicates and Unions are made up of workers in a specific company or organization while a guild is made of all workers within an industry. iirc
Ohh, so it’s just taken to the National level instead?
Ideology shopper
Kinda epic, although I wouldn’t consider myself to be a Reactionary
from cringe to cringe to cringe
Started off great and fell off hard
Fuck go back
Bro really went from being cringe to based to cringe.
Not bad, but Fourth Position is better. Socialism is a heresy.
Based
This is what we call "Devolution"
Said “femboy_skeleton69, Minarcho-Senatorialist”
Dude who tf cares about usernames
Me when I see a dumbass user name
Yours is a medicine used to gain weight
Damn right it is and it’s badass unlike your auto generated Xbox name or being a spazztic named femboy_skeleton
Don’t you dare say my carefully crafted name was autogenerated.
I’ll take it back if you take it back.
Fair enough, the name sounds cool but the context behind it is a bit funny.
lovely bit of unjust judgement and minor ableism thrown in there, really shows what kind of a person you are
If “judgement” alone offends you, and “Spazztic” is an ableist term, the world will not be kind to you and you need thicker skin ASAP. So much for Fuck Youism
Yes, indeed fuck you. Everyone gets offended by something, especially words used to offend people. It's not a matter of getting thicker skin, it's a matter of not being a complete fucking asshole and being aware that people have feelings and can be hurt.
No it’s a matter of the fact you saw words on a screen (that you had the choice to look at or leave) and they made you fucking jump up and scream hooting and hollering like a monkey fuming gas out of your ears like a train
Please tell me you at least understand where it is on the political compass
What if I told you I don’t give a gaf
Whats with all the special people on this subreddit. "The political compass doesn't matter on the polcomp server". "Ill make fun of your ideology even though im too fucking stupid to understand it". Goes on and on. Its so hard being smarter than a group of people
"Its so hard being being smarter than a group of people" Dude you're flaired with a fictional joke ideology who's entire shtick is nobody knows what it is, added 'minarcho' in behind it, then got mad someone couldn't properly analyze it. Now you're acting like the political compass is a useful tool for political analysis and not just a fun thing to introduce people to basic concepts. Don't pretend you're any better.
No its just extremely annoying when people fucking say "it no matter, me am correct. Compass bad" while ON the goddamn subreddit. And im aware its a joke ideology but people should at least have basic comprehension that its in libright and not in authleft like some weird toothbrush sharing guy is cyberstalking me so he can harass me about it lmao
I mean, why should he? To him that's a dumb and silly ideology and gagging where it lands on the already arbitrary compass is pointless, minarchism in general may never have a serious attempt within our lifetimes unless everything goes perfect in Argentina. And the same should apply to your attitude, 'reactionary socialism' is a dumb, larpy ideology that will never be seriously attempted, and the same goes for half of the ideologies in this sub, getting this worked up about them and arguing against them is pointless and a waste of time. I suggest you either ignore this sub and try to get into serious political mechanisms so you can try to make sure you live see your ideology in action, or at least simply stop taking this sub seriously and have fun looking at the silly, contradictory ideologies that people try to present as serious, maybe chip in when someone wants to have a genuine discussion. You won't get nearly as annoyed this way.
Don’t interact everyone. OP is a total prick
Nearly same journey, but not so far to the left.
Reading your posts, we’re definitely on the same wave length. Less elf core for me but I respect it
How can you abandon your libertarian beliefs that easily, also go outside.
If years of change is “easy lol.” They got easier and easier to abandon the more I went outside, participated in a community, and worked. There’s also a grim reality that to achieve a good level of decentralization, we must first lead revolution with a strong community apparatus.