#it's more anti-authoritarian and anti-fascist

[branmer]

so the latest hot take i saw on twitter today is that andor is bad and should scare you because it's /checks notes/ anti-capitalist art made by a capitalist company and that means disney doesn't consider anti-capitalism a serious threat. genuinely how do people live like this, how do they enjoy anything

[bittershins]

andor is the root for my star wars interest since like. February. But also fault cannot be denied re: mark Hamill gender envy

[ceilidhtransing]

I see a lot of very well-meaning people warning others off various ideas because “that's how fascism starts” and while they're generally coming from a sensible and sympathetic place, when it comes to an analysis and understanding of fascism, it's sadly just incorrect.

“Taking away people's free speech is how fascism starts!” “Deciding your enemies aren't human is the first step of fascism!” “Removing the ability to protest against the government is how fascism begins!”

I want to be very specific here because all of these things - clamping down on people's expression, dehumanising your enemies, restricting the freedom to protest - are all bad. It's good to point out that they are bad! And they are indeed all things that are frequently seen in fascist regimes. But in terms of being “how fascism starts”? Sorry, no.

Fascism is important to understand because of how much of a threat it poses, and one of the things that's so vital to get about it is that it is an actual ideology. It has an underpinning of beliefs. Horrible beliefs; patently irrational beliefs; shifting, amorphous, internally contradictory beliefs; but beliefs nonetheless. And a lot of the things that people call “the first step of fascism” or whatever follow from those beliefs, not the other way around. Fascism is not just the sum of all the horrible consequences of fascism; fascism is the starting point from which those consequences flow. You're not a fascist because you, I don't know, send thugs to beat up anti-racist organisers or something; you send thugs to beat up anti-racist organisers because you're a fascist.

That's the thing I think people don't grasp sometimes: a lot of the things that are really horrible about fascist regimes proceed as the fairly “logical” (within a fascist mindset) conclusions from existing fascist beliefs. You don't start with “taking away people's freedom of speech” or whatever and then somehow reverse-engineer a complex ideology of racial superiority, eugenics, extreme conservatism and hardcore totalitarianism; you take away people's freedom of speech because, well, if you were someone who believed all that stuff, you obviously feel totally justified in using the violence of the state to clamp down on “unpatriotic defeatists” and “race traitors” and the like.

[There is some element of nuance here in that there are people who gladly throw their weight behind fascism not because they're committed to the ideology but because, on a far more basic level, they just want their enemies to shut up, they just want to be able to feel superior, they just want to enact cruelty against minorities they hate - they basically are just in it for the authoritarianism. On the level of the individual, especially when it comes to such a hate-filled and hate-fuelled ideology, it can be very difficult to distinguish between “hate that springs from an ideology” and “an ideology that you use to justify and channel pre-existing hate”, and often it's a bit of both. It's also true, though this is less related to the precise point I'm making in this post, that once a fascist state has established itself, a fair chunk of the people who enact atrocities will be people who could honestly kinda take or leave the ideology but who, for any of a huge variety of reasons, conform to the expectations of the totalitarian state. But I find that analysis of these two groups - people who gleefully support fascism as an outlet for a far less ideological desire to feel “on top” and enact cruelty against those they feel deserve it, and people who aren't all that ideologically motivated but who go along with the crimes anyway - becomes a lot more relevant when we're talking about already entrenched fascist regimes. With some exceptions, they're largely the result of a fascist movement already having gained a fair amount of power and prominence. These aren't your day-one, committed-to-the-cause, ride-or-die fascists who are the movement's early momentum and driving force; they're your year-one, great-now-i-can-be-violent-with-impunity fascists, your year-two, i-guess-there's-something-in-it-for-me fascists and your year-three, it's-not-worth-resisting-so-i-may-as-well-go-along fascists.]

A lot of well-meaning and politically reasonable people often seem to fail to grasp that fascism isn't just a generic Evil Force that wants to do generic Bad Authoritarian Things for the sake of it. It's not a means that you can take and apply in the interests of any cause; it has very distinct ends in mind. You don't hit level 5 in “restricting free speech”, level 7 in “suppressing dissent”, and level 10 in “hating your enemies” and boom now you've gained the Fascist achievement. Fascists have an ideology and they have things they want to achieve and the things they do are geared towards achieving those things. I feel like there's a reluctance a lot of the time to acknowledge that they have an ideology, and instead a desire to call it “just hate” or whatever, because yeah, it is a deeply hateful ideology and I think some people feel that to call it an ideology gives it a respect it doesn't deserve; it makes it seem like an idea we should take seriously. And obviously we shouldn't - it's a totally nuts and extremely dangerous ideology - but understanding it is nowhere near sympathising with it or promoting it.

Saying that xyz bad thing “is exactly how fascism starts” not only gets fascism completely backwards, it also dilutes antifascism more generally by being way too broad in how we define fascism. Restricting free speech, taking away the right to protest, dehumanising your enemies etc are all things that can and do exist outside a fascist context - not every authoritarian government is fascist; not every person who sees their enemies as less than human is or will become a fascist. (And this isn't to say this is any better; it's just that there are ways of being total dogshit that aren't specifically fascism.)

On top of that, it makes it harder for people to recognise fascist beliefs when they don't, on the surface at least, seem to come along with those Bad Authoritarian Things. Fascists don't initially advertise themselves to non-fascists as “we're going to initiate a totalitarian police state in which dissent is crushed and our enemies are in either mass graves or torture prisons!” I mean, one of the most popular dogwhistles of the current far-right is “protect free speech”, by which they mean “protect our ability to spread fascist propaganda and by the way as soon as we have any power we do not intend to protect anyone else's speech”, but obviously they don't say that out loud. Being so focused on Bad Authoritarian Things as “step one of fascism” can mean you miss fascism when it's dressed up in a more presentable way.

And while I don't think I don't have to go into this one in much depth, it's worth pointing out that it also tends to lead to a lot of very dumb “both-sides”ism and false equivalencies, a lot of “but isn't saying you want to crush fascism just as bad as fascism”-type takes. I have seen people reply to social justice posts about dignity and equality for marginalised groups with stuff like “but refusing to listen to people you disagree with is just how fascism starts!” I don't think this requires much explanation. No the hell it isn't. “I don't know how it happened; one day I was telling racist Uncle Jerry to shut up and now three years later I'm an officer in the secret police swearing allegiance to our Supreme Leader!” Yeah, no.

Specificity is valuable and necessary in antifascism. Vague scattergunning about how any statement or action that seems a bit authoritarian or hardline or intolerant is “how fascism starts” betrays an ignorance of fascism and really doesn't help us.

[wilwheaton]

The GOP wonders why young people (and others) don't want to vote for them. Some wise scribe assembled this list.

1.) Your Reagan-era “trickle-down economics” strategy of tax breaks for billionaires that you continue to employ to this day has widened the gap between rich and poor so much that most of them will never be able to own a home, much less earn a living wage.

2.) You refuse to increase the federal minimum wage, which is still $7.25 an hour (since 2009). Even if it had just kept up with inflation, it would be $27 now. You’re forcing people of all ages but especially young people to work multiple jobs just to afford basic necessities.

3.) You fundamentally oppose and want to kill democracy; have done everything in your power to restrict access to the ballot box, particularly in areas with demographics that tend to vote Democratic (like young people and POC). You staged a fucking coup the last time you lost.

4.) You have abused your disproportionate senate control over the last three decades to pack the courts with religious extremists and idealogues, including SCOTUS—which has rolled back rights for women in ways that do nothing but kill more women and children and expand poverty.

5.) You refuse to enact common sense gun control laws to curb mass shootings like universal background checks and banning assault weapons; subjecting their entire generation to school shootings and drills that are traumatizing in and of themselves. You are owned by the NRA.

6.) You are unequivocally against combatting climate change to the extent that it’s as if you’ve made it your personal mission to ensure they inherit a planet that is beyond the point of no return in terms of remaining habitable for the human race beyond the next few generations.

7.) You oppose all programs that provide assistance to those who need it most. Your governors refused to expand Medicaid even during A PANDEMIC. You are against free school lunches, despite it being the only meal that millions of children can count on to actually receive each day

8.) You are banning books, defunding libraries, barring subject matter, and whitewashing history even more in a fascistic attempt to keep them ignorant of the systemic racism that this nation was literally founded upon and continues to this day in every action your party takes.

9.) You oppose universal healthcare and are still trying to repeal the ACA and rip healthcare from tens of millions of Americans and replace it with nothing. You are against lowering the cost of insulin and prescription drugs that millions need simply to LIVE/FUNCTION in society.

10.) You embrace white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and other groups that are defined by their intractable racism, xenophobia, bigotry, and intolerance. You conspired with these groups on January 6th to try to overthrow the U.S. government via domestic terrorism that KILLED PEOPLE.

11.) You oppose every bill aimed at making life better for our nation’s youth; from education to extracurricular and financial/nutritional assistance programs. You say you want to “protect the children” while you elect/nominate pedophiles and attack trans youth and drag queens.

12.) You pretend to be offended by “anti-semitism” while literally supporting, electing, and speaking at events organized by Nazis. You pretend to hate “cancel culture” despite the fact that you invented it and it’s basically all you do.

13.) Every word you utter is a lie. You are the party of treason, hypocrisy, crime, and authoritarianism. You want to entrench rule by your aging minority because you know that you have nothing to offer young voters and they will never support you for all these reasons and more.

14.) You’re so hostile to even the notion of helping us overcome the mountain of debt that millions of us are forced to take on just to pay for our post K-12 education that you are suing to try to prevent a small fraction of us from getting even $10,000 in loan forgiveness.

15.) You opened the floodgates of money into politics via Citizens United; allowing our entire system of government to become a cesspool of corruption, crime, and greed. You are supposed to represent the American people whose taxes pay your salary but instead cater to rich donors.

16.) You respond to elected representatives standing in solidarity with their constituents to protest the ONGOING SLAUGHTER of children in schools via shootings by EXPELLING THEM FROM OFFICE & respond to your lack of popularity among young people by trying to raise the voting age.

17.) You impeach Democratic presidents over lying about a BJ but refuse to impeach (then vote twice to acquit) a guy whose entire “administration” was an international crime syndicate being run out of the WH who incited an insurrection to have you killed.

18.) You steal Supreme Court seats from democrats to prevent the only black POTUS we’ve ever had from appointing one and invent fake precedents that you later ignore all to take fundamental rights from Americans; and even your “legitimate” appointments consist of people like THIS (sub-thread refuting CJ Roberts criticisms of people attacking SCOTUS' legitimacy).

19.) You support mass incarceration even for innocuous offenses or execution by cop for POC while doing nothing but protect rich white criminals who engage in such things as tax fraud, money laundering, sex trafficking, rape/sexual assault, falsifying business records, etc.

20.) You are the reason we can’t pass:—Universal background checks—An assault weapons ban—The ‘For the People/Freedom to vote’ Act or John Lewis Voting Rights Act—The ERA & Equality Act—The Climate Action Now Act—The (Stopping) Violence Against Women Act—SCOTUS expansion.

21.) You do not seek office to govern, represent, or serve the American people. You seek power solely for its own sake so you can impose your narrow-minded puritanical will on others at the expense of their most fundamental rights and freedoms like voting and bodily autonomy.

22.) Ok, last one. You are trying to eliminate social security and Medicare that tens of millions of our parents rely on and paid into their entire lives. And you did everything to maximize preventable deaths from COVID leaving millions of us in mourning.

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/e8DBZLH

[beyond-crusading]

Thinking about the scene where Paul enlists the Southern Fremen in Dune part 2. I really love this scene, and, let's not kid ourselves, there's an element of power fantasy to it.

But there's something much sinister going on there. Paul specifically screams "I am Paul Muad'Dib Atreides, Duke of Arrakis". The mere fact of calling the planet Arrakis instead of its original Fremen name Dune, and the fact that he claims to be the legitimate Duke of the planet because he's the heir of House Atreides is an insult to Fremen independence. What he was allegedly fighting for this all time...

There's a consistent theme in this scene of Paul refusing to follow Fremen customs, like when he refuses to kill Stilgar and speaks anyway. Paul is doing that on purpose. He asserts his dominance by showing Fremen rules don't apply to him. He can dismiss anything he dislikes about their culture and remake it according to his will.

This scene shows simultaneously the crowning of Paul as a Fremen Messiah and the death of traditional Fremen culture. Paul is pursuing by other means what the Harkonens started.

What Paul is asking of (or rather demanding of) the Fremen, is that they join him in a revolution. But not a revolution towards more freedom, justice and equity. A revolution meant to create a society based around the supreme power of a tyrannical leader. And that's a central component of fascism.

Which can make us question the ethics of Villeneuve's film. This scene shows the birth of a fascist movement in a very epic and heroic light. The intended message of the film is clearly anti-authoritarian, but cinematography leaves much room for misinterpretation.

[anexperimentallife]

The US far right has been working on their plan since AT LEAST the 1960s, when I was a kid listening to evangelicals talking about their plan to take over the US, and eventually the world. It's called "Christian Dominionism," and it's a fascist ideology which goes hand in glove with the GOP's plans.

Although it was not expressed so much to the world at large, this plan was OPENLY and FREQUENTLY discussed in far right circles. We kids, if we asked about it, were told that it was "God's Will." Ask any exvangelical about it, and they'll confirm. (Part of why I know so much about these dangerous and deluded folks is I WAS ONE OF THEM in my youth.)

And where has that plan gotten them? Well, the GOP recently released a hundreds of pages long document filled with their intentions if they win--including a nationwide abortion ban and a repeal of anti-discrimination laws, among other things.

Trump has already signaled his intent to create a military dictatorship if elected, by repealing laws against using the military against US citizens on US soil sp he can deploy them against dissenters, etc., and if the GOP pick up a few more congressional seats, he can do it. The GOP has already pushed to repeal presidential term limits, and Trump has indicated he'd like to be president for life.

So I'm amazed at all the people who think withholding their vote and letting the GOP win is going to somehow fix things and "push the Dems left."

You wanna know how to push US politics leftward? You're not gonna like it, because it takes actual work beyond stomping your foot and pouting and performatively showing everyone how "pure" you are by refusing to vote.

You have to start the same way the far right did (and again, they've been OPENLY talking about and pursuing this plan since I was a kid in the 1960s, AT LEAST)--they started by getting the most extreme right wingers they possibly could into any position they could. Positions like school board member, police chief, sherrif, city prosecuter, city council member, municipal judge, mayor, governor, hell, fucking dog catcher.

They encouraged far right extremists to become police officers and military personnel and work their way up the ranks to the point at which even the famously-racist FBI reported that major city police departments across the nation were pretty much taken over by members of white supremacist organizations.

In formerly reasonable churches, right wingers pushed for the hiring and training of more and more right wing pastors and mire right-wing theology.

More affluent right-wingers bought local papers and broadcasters, and as their political power grew, they changed laws to make it easier for a single entity to control the news--until now a mere handful of entities own nearly every major media outlet in the US.

And then they used every victory as leverage for the next one, and worked their way up. I mean, there's more, like the capitalization on economic and social anxiety and their inentional exacerbation of same so they could take advantage of it, but that's intertwined with the rest.

Essentially, they got this far because they put the work in.

If the US left is going to turn things around (and if it's not already too late), we've got to do the same, but it takes RESEARCHING and PROMOTING your local and state candidates, attending city council and school board meetings, and shit like that. It's actual fucking work to fix a country.

And then, after you've done all that--and after you've shown up to primaries to try to get any non-authoritarian leftist candidate you can nominated--then you vote for the leftest folks you're able to in the general. If there are no remotely leftist candidates, you vote for the centrist or right winger who will do the least damage.

Again, that's what the US far right has been doing for decades. Taking action. Wherever possible, taking new ground, but when they couldn't do that, ceding as little ground as possible. If they couldn't win, they made damn sure to do everything in their power to try to keep actual decent human beings from winning.

Actually doing the work doesn't have the emotional satisfaction of a grand gesture, but it definitely shows who is serious about making a difference and who would rather let everything burn than sully their imagined purity by voting for anything less than perfection.

Listen, Trump is not going to end the genocide in Gaza--in fact he increased tensions between the Israeli occupation and Palestine. And the GOP will never be persuaded. Hell, they want to let Russia take Ukraine and declare open season on asylum seekers.

The Dems suck. But the GOP is far, far worse, and will do MORE damage, and kill FAR MORE innocents. And if allowed to do so, will make it even harder to change the system than it is now. They've already PUBLICLY ADMITTED that their only chance of victory is keeping people from voting. Don't play into their hands.

Under current circumstances, you know what the Dems are going to do if Biden and a bunch of other Dems lose for not being pure enough? You think they'll be all like, "Oh, no! The left sure taught us a lesson by handing the country to the GOP! We'd better shift to the left!"

No. They're going to sip champagne in their multi-million dollar mansions and have meetings about how they need to move FURTHER RIGHT to win elections, because the left doesn't vote.

And if the US becomes a military dictatorship, most of the high ranking ones will simply take their fortunes and leave.

Yup, it'd sure teach ol' Joe a lesson to force him to spend the rest of his days sipping cocktails on the Riviera.

Look beyond the single battle and think strategically. That's how the GOP keeps gaining power. And refusing to act strategically is why the left is losing. We cannot take the hill we want right now. But if we lose the hills we've already taken, we risk losing the entire goddamn war.

So fucking vote. Work to get every leftist you can in any office you can. And if you can't do that, support the one who will do the least harm.

And if it takes voting for that shitbag Biden to keep Trump and the GOP out, hold your fucking nose and pull the goddamn lever.

[qqueenofhades]

it's concerning what people are saying and thinking is activism. I've unfollowed someone who unironically reblogged something that said death to israel. how is that going to help? if anything that's just making a more hostile environment. support palestine but maybe cool it about what you say about israel considering why it exists in the first place

There are a few reasons for this, and the first is that the western left is so absolutely goddamn terrible about recognizing its increased and violent radicalization. I can't tell you how many posts I've seen to the effect of "the far right wants to kill everybody but the far left just wants healthcare for everyone uwu." First, by their own extremely warped and constantly biased perception, that would actually make the mainstream Democratic Party "far left." The party might disagree about how exactly the actual mechanism for better/more equitable healthcare should be implemented (etc. etc. if you oppose instant Medicare for All with no other transition period or hybrid options, YOU ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS A FASCIST!), but that's now a central and uncontroversial plank of official Democratic party policy. But since as we know, BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME!!!, clearly that can't be what the self-defined "far left" actually wants. Witness how we've had several days of intense and valedictory social media approval and worship of a mentally ill person's violent and public suicide, because it was done for the "right reasons." This person should have been given help and support, yes, and we never know what's going on in anyone's head. But if I was someone also contemplating suicide, this whole "it's the right thing to do and you should just burn yourself to death and announce it's for the Right Cause and you will have legions of adoring admirers" would be hella hard to resist. This is going to directly cost more lives.

We point out all the time that the far right has become a fascistic death cult of authoritarian personality, but the online far left is now absolutely just as willing to make "you should die and/or kill yourself and others for Ideology" a central part of their platform. We've had endless rhetoric about how the violent Glorious Revolution is the only answer and society is irretrievably broken. This is casual, constant, inescapable radicalization, and it's presented as the only way to "do" leftism. So of course the rhetoric gets increasingly insane and genocidal (while insisting that all they want is to "stop the genocide"), and it's more and more normalized. We've had people reblogging posts that are almost entirely lies, because they "want to highlight" one sentence or half-truth they agree with (and apparently decided the best way to do this was to uncritically amplify the misinformation, rather than making their own post and trying to push back on it). We've had people admitting they're afraid to lose friends or be attacked on social media because the Groupthink is so pervasive and violently radicalized. This is not normal and this needs to fucking stop.

Secondly, and this is inescapable especially in regard to this particular conflict, the western left is absolutely steeped in antisemitism through and through, and it has no desire either to examine that or even think it should. It has become absolutely mired in the "antisemitism is a Good and Necessary and Correct belief to have and it's not actually a prejudice, it contributes to social justice because all Israelis and/or all Jews are evil settler colonialists constantly genociding innocent Hamas and/or Palestinians." This is why, as I keep saying, it's not that hard to support Palestinian self-determination, statehood, dignity, freedom, and a stop to the indiscriminate slaughter of Gaza, while not actually thinking that the way to do this is just to be wildly antisemitic at all times and calling for the genocide of Israel to be substituted for the genocide of Gaza. That does not actually reduce the net amount of genocide in this world!!! I thought you wanted to stop it, not turn it loose on another group of people who "deserve it more!" JESUS CHRIST!!!

On that note, even if you don't agree with every single premise or point it makes, a lot of people on this website (and on Twitter, but yeah, uh, good luck with that) need to read the following article in order to understand, as I keep saying, how deeply virulent antisemitism has become an unquestioned tenet of virtuous faith among the western left. Content warnings for some very graphic depictions/discussions of violence, including sexual violence, but that's not an excuse. If you've found yourself posting or agreeing with any version of the "Jews/Zionists/Israelis are all collectively responsible for this while evilly torturing innocent non-Jews" thesis statement, READ IT. Y'know, read it anyway. Try to get the first and most basic grip on the fraught and violent history of antisemitism, which is quite literally the oldest prejudice in the world, and how that interacts with and negatively informs the way in which supposedly well-intentioned western leftists are reacting to the current situation. As I said in an earlier post, I don't care if your "good intentions" (the road to hell is paved with, etc. etc.) are solely about stopping the current slaughter directed against Palestinians. That does not excuse you from the consequences of the lies you spread and the genocidal violence that you advocate as a "better" or "more correct" kind of genocidal violence then that already taking place. So. Yeah.

If you run into a paywall, you can remove it by disabling JavaScript on the page (this can be done with most ad-blockers), or someone has also helpfully provided the full text as a pdf in this link. Read it.

[communistkenobi]

actually one thing that has been very elucidating while reading academic scholarship on anti-vaxx movements post-Covid is that a lot of seemingly “apolitical” or non-fascist participation in anti-vaxx and vaccine skeptical protests/demonstrations/social media activity is the result of decades of neoliberal governance - everyone is a ‘critical consumer citizen,’ a subjectivity that produces a public who is deeply invested in ‘shopping for alternatives’ and ‘getting the best deal,’ meaning that mass vaccination programs and mandates, even when universal and socialised, are viewed with suspicion by the public. These people are then primed to listen to the fascists who lurk among these movements, even if they’re a minority. I think one of the larger, more devastating takeaways of the pandemic is that our current situation in North America - low vaccination rates, high infection rates, lots of Covid variants - is the direct result of decades-long neoliberal projects to gut public infrastructure and turn everything into a privatised consumer product. Public goods like universal vaccination programs are therefore seen not as such but as authoritarian, anti-competitive disruptions of a free and open marketplace. To call it a PR disaster would be massively underselling it, but the public appears to have disappeared, replaced instead with an infinite mass of individuals in a market who all have to come to their own decisions about every aspect of their life, even at the cost of everyone around them. what a miserable place we’re in

[stxr-bxy]

Getting into the goth subculture

ok just to clarify, nobody asked for this but i’m making it anyway

here are some great influences for the goth music subcultures

i’ve been hyperfixated on pretty much every one except metal and grunge at one point or another so i think i’m pretty qualified to make this statement.

also some of these artists are problematic so please do your research before you promote them! also i don’t support any of their actions, they just have good music that’s very influential to the scene.

anyways…let’s get started

- siouxsie and the banshees are a really great band to start out and they’re one of the most popular goth bands. they have about 12 albums and 2 compilations. they had many members at different times but notable members are siouxsie sioux (lead vocals), jon klein (guitar), steven severin (bass + keyboards), budgie (drums), and martin mccarrick (keyboard + strings)

- another great goth band is bauhaus, they are one of the pioneers of gothic rock and are often credited with making the first goth song. they have five studio albums. members include daniel ash (guitars + saxophone + lead vocals + backing vocals), peter murphy (lead vocals + backing vocals + guitar + keyboards + melodica + congas), kevin haskins (drums + keyboards + piano + backing vocals), and david j (bass + keyboards + percussion + lead vocals + backing vocals).

- another great band to start off with is the cramps (i recommend their album psychedelic jungle). many people think of the cramps as more psychobilly or punk-ish but they are also considered gothabilly and have gothic elements. they have at least 8 (i’m not sure) studio albums, 2 EPs, 2 live albums, and 4 compilations. members include, Lux interior (lead vocals + harmonica + percussion), Poison Ivy (lead guitar + rhythm guitar + bass), Slim Chance (bass), and Nick Knox (drums + percussion)

in order for a band to be goth they must play either gothic rock, post-punk, ethereal wave, cold wave, dark wave, death rock, visual kei, gothic pop, gothic metal, gothic symphonic metal or another gothic subgenre.

some more goth bands include…

- the cure (post-punk)

- sisters of mercy

- christian death (death rock)

- she wants revenge (gothic rock)

- alien sex fiend

- sex gang children

- lebanon hanover

- type o negative (gothic metal)

- o.children

- joy division

- london after midnight

- bat nouveau

- horror vacui

- the danse society

- strawberry switchblade (gothic pop/synth pop)

- depeche mode

- cocteau twins

- switchblade symphony

- fields of the nephilium

- twin tribes

- the march violets

- xmal deutschland

- clan of xymox

- pink turns blue

- rosetta stone

- plastique noir

- mephisto walz

- corpus delicti

- 13th chime

- specimen

- skeletal family

- molchat doma

- drab majesty

- altar de fey

- inkubus sukkubus

- strawberry switchblade

- the birthday massacre

- killing joke

- this cold night

- japan

- the birthday party

- paralysed age

- the scary bitches

- scarlet’s remains

- mareux

- she past away

- bloody dead and sexy

- rose garden funeral party

- mephisto walz

- this cold night

- cold cave

and more!

edit: just a note. you do not need to dress goth to be goth. goth fashion is optional. if you choose to dress goth but don’t listen to goth music you are just alt. the only way to be goth is to agree with the beliefs behind it and listen to the music (you can also listen to other genres in addition to goth).

some beliefs of the gothic/alt community are:

- there is beauty in darkness, pain/sadness, and the macabre

- rejection of conservatism

- rejection of conformity

- anti-war

- anti-racist

- anti-fascist

- anti-authoritarian

- pro-LGBTQ

- pro-choice

- anti-capitalism

- and other leftist or anarchistic beliefs

also…

if you agree with the beliefs but nothing else you are just a leftist/anarchist

if you listen to the music or dress goth but don’t agree with the beliefs you’re not alt and/or you are considered a “poser”. right-wingers cannot be alt because they contradict eachother.

if you listen to goth music you are goth

if you agree with everything you are goth

[self-loving-vampire]

“What I’m really calling for is something like tech Zionism,” he said, after comparing his movement to those started by the biblical Abraham, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), Theodor Herzl (“spiritual father” of the state of Israel), and Lee Kuan Yew (former authoritarian ruler of Singapore). Balaji then revealed his shocking ideas for a tech-governed city where citizens loyal to tech companies would form a new political tribe clad in gray t-shirts. “And if you see another Gray on the street … you do the nod,” he said, during a four-hour talk on the Moment of Zen podcast. “You’re a fellow Gray.” The Grays’ shirts would feature “Bitcoin or Elon or other kinds of logos … Y Combinator is a good one for the city of San Francisco in particular.” Grays would also receive special ID cards providing access to exclusive, Gray-controlled sectors of the city. In addition, the Grays would make an alliance with the police department, funding weekly “policeman’s banquets” to win them over. “Grays should embrace the police, okay? All-in on the police,” said Srinivasan. “What does that mean? That’s, as I said, banquets. That means every policeman’s son, daughter, wife, cousin, you know, sibling, whatever, should get a job at a tech company in security.” In exchange for extra food and jobs, cops would pledge loyalty to the Grays. ... Everyone would be welcome at the Gray Pride march—everyone, that is, except the Blues. Srinivasan defines the Blue political tribe as the liberal voters he implies are responsible for the city’s problems. Blues will be banned from the Gray-controlled zones, said Balaji, unlike Republicans (“Reds”). “Reds should be welcomed there, and people should wear their tribal colors,” said Srinivasan, who compared his color-coded apartheid system to the Bloods vs. Crips gang rivalry. “No Blues should be welcomed there.” While the Blues would be excluded, they would not be forgotten. Srinivasan imagines public screenings of anti-Blue propaganda films: “In addition to celebrating Gray and celebrating Red, you should have movies shown about Blue abuses.… There should be lots of stories about what Blues are doing that is bad.” Balaji goes on—and on. The Grays will rename city streets after tech figures and erect public monuments to memorialize the alleged horrors of progressive Democratic governance. Corporate logos and signs will fill the skyline to signify Gray dominance of the city. “Ethnically cleanse,” he said at one point, summing up his idea for a city purged of Blues (this, he says, will prevent Blues from ethnically cleansing the Grays first). The idea, he said, is to do to San Francisco what Musk did to Twitter. “Elon, in sort of classic Gray fashion ... captures Twitter and then, at one stroke, wipes out millions of Blues’ status by wiping out the Blue Checks,” he said. “Another stroke … [he] renames Twitter as X, showing that he has true control, and it’s his vehicle, and that the old regime isn’t going to be restored.”

To be expected from libertarians that they're more tolerant of conservatives, cops, and fascists than progressives.

[supremechancellorrex]

I was mulling over Harry Potter recently and I think one of the reasons it doesn't really appeal that much to me is the worldbuilding is not my cup of tea. In the context we are given wizards and witches are far too powerful to be hiding from Muggle nations. Wizards have the capability to mind control, memory wipe, easily create Muggle-repelling charms over entire locations that confuse and disorientate, as well as have teleportation, portkeys, Floo powder, spatial magic, invisibility, etc. Wizards sharing a planet with Muggles is positively Lovecraftian, like Cthulhu being just next door and closer.

With basic evolutionary patterns, Darwinism, the fact wizards can be disappointingly human and their leanings to fascist elements in their history (so many Anti-Muggle Dark Lords), they'd have wiped Muggles out by the BCE period, or at least not be hiding from them in a way that's the equivalent of the United States hiding from Monaco. It wouldn't take that many wizards, and in the book we are provided no evidence of our Muggle tech being able to withstand something as dynamic, tricky and reality warping as magic.

Power Dynamics

"They can strike anywhere at any time before anyone knows it."

The power dynamic from what we are shown in the books are very wonky and infinitesimally so unequal one begins to wonder if owls hide from slugs. Perhaps if JK Rowling had depowered wizards more by incorporating clearer weakness and faults in the magic system, such as perhaps no apparition (I mean, they already have portkeys, Floo powder, brooms, greedy wizards), more limits to the mind control like showing Muggles can fight it off, made wards and Muggle-repelling charms more fragile (maybe have that they can only be set up in certain geographical places either choking with magic or idk related to runic stuff and ley lines), as well as perhaps indicate that the average shielding charms can't withstand heavy kinetic onslaught from a heavy duty weapon like an AK-47, etc., it might have felt more understandable why the Muggle World and Wizarding World have the relationship they do.

Because, in the canon, we are given no concrete reasons why the wizarding world chooses to hide other than Muggles being a bother, probably asking for cures to cancer or something. In the canon, we are never presented with any Muggle technology that justifies the Wizarding World being under threat if the Statute of Secrecy breaks. We can speculated, but we can speculate either way depending on our mood. You'd think this would be more defined since the conflict centralises on Wizards and Muggles (including their offspring) existing.

Ethical Concerns For Mugs

"With this rep, I guess we deserve to be mindwiped whatever our consent."

Regarding certain implications in the books, there are a number of ethical concerns that don't feel they're given the weight and attention they deserve considering the themes. One is the overuse of memory charms, a mental violation which are hinted to cause brain damage. Considering how much wizards obliviate and violate Muggles' minds as well as cover up their deaths, that's practically fridge horror. Wizards, both good and bad, also often subvert Muggle democracy and freedom of information, and are quite authoritarian and devil-may-care about this. The Harry Potter narrative never really fully tackles this or shows any real critiques or changes in regards to the Statute of Secrecy and Muggles.

Considering the over all message of the books is anti-authoritarianism, anti-fascism, freedom and even saying Muggles aren't 'lesser' beings, these actions contradicts the themes and kind of makes all the wizards look pretty morally bankrupt when they continue to do this even after the 17 Years Later epilogue. In all honesty, this actually impacts the characterisation of our protagonists in a way I don't particularly like, especially since Hermione is Minister For Magic for a period of time.

Muggles & It's Just Fantasy

"Hi boring people we're fighting an entire conflict over, just passing through."

Suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing and so is the way a writer earns it. I think it would be more okay if Harry Potter was a purely separate fantasy world similar to Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, but the author has Muggle society (aka our 'logical' world) develop the exact same way despite sharing the planet with the logic-breaking magical world since the dawn of time and evolution. With all the factors shown in HP, these powerful, reality-warping wizards would fuck up our history and society so much we Muggles would either be dead or coughing out live elephants every time we ate a salad on a regular basis.

Over all, I feel the Muggles need to be more of a threat and have more going for them to explain why the wizards are hiding from them. Otherwise a wizard could teleport around the land of Muggles and just put Muggle-repelling charms on the British Parliament, all the nation's hospitals, police stations, banks, etc. and just watch the chaos. Okay, next stop, the Nuclear power stations and missile silos. By the Muggle world existing it intrinsically forces reality into a fantasy that doesn't want it.

[theoutcastrogue]

A story about a wall

This wall is in my old neighbourhood, and it didn’t always look like this. When I was a kid, it was painted grey and was always covered with graffiti – not art, just words and phrases and maybe a symbol. The majority of these, I’d say about ~60%, were football-related.

[rival team fans] you are cunts

[neighbourhood] belongs to [our team]

[rival team fans] we fuck your mothers

suck our cocks [rival team fans] faggots

And so on. Another ~20% were anarchist.

free [political prisoner]

down with the state

anarchy forever

fuck the army

And so on. Another ~10% were otherwise political. The names of big and small political parties (and some MPs) showed up at election season, not scrawled with spray but painted professionally with rollers in huge letters. Sometimes a union urged people to join a strike or rally. Very very rarely a fascist graffiti would show up, but it would get defaced immediately. There were a lot more anarchists than fascists back then.

And the rest was about love and/or lust.

[name] I love you

I miss you so much

[name] when will you let me fuck you?

the ass is hell / and the cunt a well / and he who ass never tried / goes to Hades blind

And so on. Defaced graffiti was a big part of the wall. People spared no spray cans crossing out each other’s messages, and at times it all looked like the deranged scrawlings of an eldritch abomination, you couldn’t make out a single word.

And here’s a very important detail about that wall: it’s facing an elementary school.

My school, to be exact. Small children (i.e. we) would go out to the schoolyard at recess, look across the street, and see what I just described. Needless to say, a lot of adults were quite displeased with this situation. But what could they do? The mayor would send a cleaning crew once in a while, but 5 minutes after they left someone would inaugurate the freshly painted wall, and a day later it would be full again. Walls in cities be like that.

AND THEN, long after I was gone from the school, someone had a stroke of genius. They said, we’re not gonna paint the wall that awful monochrome grey again. Instead, we’ll cover it in street art. BUT, we won’t ask street artists to pitch their ideas. We will ask the children of the elementary school to come up with the designs, draw them themselves or pick them from wherever they want. We’ll hire a crew to paint what they chose. And we’ll make sure everyone knows that the children picked the street art. Which heartless bastard will spray over that?

AND IT FUCKING WORKED. The football hooligans, the anti-authoritarian rebels, the politicians’ stooges, the unionists, the lovers, the assholes: no one had the heart to spray over that. The street art went up, and stayed up. It didn’t get defaced, it didn’t get covered, it’s still there. (Not quite unblemished, there are still margins where football fans do their thing, but it’s a very small percentage of the total surface.)

yeah, that part looks like the old wall

So while the street art itself on that wall is not particularly jaw-dropping, its origin story is just crazy. I’m sure that the children weren’t given totally free rein to pick designs, and that teachers and/or the city council made the final choice. And it’s probably they who picked the theme – bicycles. All neat and proper and kid-friendly. Still, one little rascal managed to slip this past:

“Till theft give us parts”, i.e. bicycle parts, get it? (DON’T JUDGE THE PUN, IT WAS A LITTLE KID.) And it makes me so happy.

[wilwheaton]

The GOP is now a radicalized, weaponized authoritarian cult that is marching towards minority, anti-democratic rule. I realize that's a lot of words to basically say a modern fascist movement. This description might be dismissed by centrist stenographer of power as hyperbole, but I'd retort that those people are willfully ignoring all the signs that are blinking red and storming the US capitol wearing MAGA hats. MAGA is a monster fed and created by a conservative movement that forfeited its better judgment for the sake of short-term power in the form of Trump. However, Frankenstein's monster has swallowed its creator. The man who is the leader of the GOP is now a 4 times indicted, twice impeached vulgarian with 91 criminal counts against him who incited his mob against a free and fair election. Despite his litany of carnage, or, more accurately, because of it, his base is further drawn to him as their warrior avatar who will deliver them vengeance, retribution and victory.

Experts on Judge Chutkan and Trump: "Despite her encouraging words, she has yet to take action"

[loneberry]

September 11, 1973: On the 50th Anniversary of the Coup in Chile 

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the coup d’état in Chile, when a fascist junta led by dictator Augusto Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende. For those of us who are on the left, the story should be familiar by now: Allende had charted a ‘Chilean way to socialism' ("La vía chilena al socialismo") quite distinct from the Soviet Union and communist China, a peaceful path to socialism that was fundamentally anti-authoritarian, combining worker power with respect for civil liberties, freedom of the press, and a principled commitment to democratic process. For leftists who had become disillusioned with the Soviet drift into authoritarianism, Chile was a bright spot on an otherwise gloomy Cold War map.

What happened in Chile was one of the darkest chapters in the history of US interventionism. In August 1970, Henry Kissinger, who was then Nixon’s national security adviser, commissioned a study on the consequences of a possible Allende victory in the upcoming Chilean presidential election. Kissinger, Nixon, and the CIA—all under the spell of Cold War derangement syndrome—determined the US should pursue a policy of blocking the ascent of Allende, lest a socialist Chile generate a “domino effect” in the region. 

When Allende won the presidency, the US did everything in their power to destroy his government: they meddled in Chilean elections, leveraged their control of the international financial system to destroy the economy of Chile (which they also did through an economic boycott), and sowed social chaos through sponsoring terrorism and a shutdown of the transportation sector, bringing the country to the brink of civil war. Particularly infuriating to the Americans was Allende’s nationalization of the copper mining industry, which was around 70% of Chile’s economy at the time and was controlled by US mining companies like Anaconda, Kennecott and the Cerro Corporation. When the CIA’s campaign of sabotage failed to destroy the socialist experiment in Chile, they resorted to assisting general Augusto Pinochet's plot to overthrow the democratically elected government. What followed was a gruesome campaign of repression against workers, leftists, poets, activists, students, and ordinary Chileans—stadiums were turned into concentration camps where supporters of Allende’s Popular Unity government were tortured and murdered. During Pinochet’s 17-year reign of terror, 3,200 people were executed and 40,000 people were detained, tortured, or disappeared, 1,469 of whom remain unaccounted for. Chile was then used as a laboratory for neoliberal economic policies, where the Chicago boys and their ilk tested out their terrible ideas on a population forced to live under a military dictatorship.

It shatters my heart, thinking about this history. I feel a personal attachment to Chile, not only because my partner is Chilean (his father left during the dictatorship), but because I’ve always considered Chile to be a world capital of poetry and anti-authoritarian leftism. The filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky asks, “In how many countries does a real poetic atmosphere exist? Without a doubt, ancient China was a land of poetry. But I think, in the 1950s in Chile, we lived poetically like in no other country in the world.” (Poetry left China long ago — oh how I wish I’d been around to witness the poetic flowering of the Tang era!) Chile has one of the greatest literary traditions of the twentieth century, producing such giants as Bolaño and Neruda, and more recently, Cecilia Vicuña and Raúl Zurita, among others. 

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the coup, the Harvard Film Archive has been  screening Patricio Guzmán’s magisterial trilogy, The Battle of Chile, along with a program of Chilean cinema. I watched part I and II the last two nights and will watch part III tonight. It’s no secret that I am a huge fan of Guzmán’s work, and even quoted his beautiful film Nostalgia for the Light in the conclusion of my book Carceral Capitalism, when I wrote about the Chilean political prisoners who studied astronomy while incarcerated in the Atacama Desert. Bless Patricio Guzmán. This man has devoted his life and filmmaking career to the excavation of the Chilean soul. 

Parts I and II utterly destroyed me. I left the theater last night shaken to my core, my face covered in tears. 

The films are all the more remarkable when you consider it was made by a scrappy team of six people using film stock provided by the great documentarian Chris Marker. After the coup, four of the filmmakers were arrested. The footage was smuggled out of Chile and the exiled filmmakers completed the films in Cuba. Sadly, in 1974, the Pinochet regime disappeared cameraman Jorge Müller Silva, who is assumed dead. 

It’s one thing to know the macro-story of what happened in Chile and quite another to see the view from the ground: the footage of the upswell of support for radical transformation, the marches, the street battles, the internal debates on the left about how to stop the fascist creep, the descent into chaos, the face of the military officer as he aims his pistol at the Argentine cameraman Leonard Hendrickson during the failed putsch of June 1973 (an ominous prelude to the September coup), the audio recordings of Allende on the morning of September 11, the bombing of Palacio de La Moneda—the military is closing in. Allende is dead. The crumbling edifice of the presidential palace becomes the rubble of revolutionary dreams—the bombs, a dirge for what was never even given a chance to live.

[barely-coherent-anarchist]

left unity? why do you support hierarchy and authoritarianism while you yourself are an anarchist?/genuine question

basically, while i don't support those things, nor do i think that anarchist and non-anarchist leftists should just ignore all ideological differences, i do believe that, on issues where both of our goals are aligned, we should work to form a united front in order to achieve these goals.

imo, right now, considering the social, political, economic and ecological crises we are facing as a species, its just not productive for the left to be focusing on infighting instead of fighting the causes of said crises.

that's not to say that we shouldn't critique leftist theoretical standpoints, provided its in good faith of course, just that even if said unity is only applicable for single issues (e.g. anti-fascist direct action), having more people working in unison to achieve a goal would be a far better way to do so than having 10-20 different organisations constantly at eachothers throats.

idk if i explained that well i literally just woke up lmao

above: a few screenshots of similar perspectives i found.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?

No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they embody the principle of authority. For, as Emma Goldman argued, “it is not only government in the sense of the state which is destructive of every individual value and quality. It is the whole complex authority and institutional domination which strangles life. It is the superstition, myth, pretence, evasions, and subservience which support authority and institutional domination.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 435] This means that “there is and will always be a need to discover and overcome structures of hierarchy, authority and domination and constraints on freedom: slavery, wage-slavery [i.e. capitalism], racism, sexism, authoritarian schools, etc.” [Noam Chomsky, Language and Politics, p. 364]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships as well as the state. Whether economic, social or political, to be an anarchist means to oppose hierarchy. The argument for this (if anybody needs one) is as follows:

“All authoritarian institutions are organised as pyramids: the state, the private or public corporation, the army, the police, the church, the university, the hospital: they are all pyramidal structures with a small group of decision-makers at the top and a broad base of people whose decisions are made for them at the bottom. Anarchism does not demand the changing of labels on the layers, it doesn’t want different people on top, it wants us to clamber out from underneath.” [Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action, p. 22]

Hierarchies “share a common feature: they are organised systems of command and obedience” and so anarchists seek “to eliminate hierarchy per se, not simply replace one form of hierarchy with another.” [Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 27] A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually) remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and exploitation. For example, in his classic article “What Do Bosses Do?” (Review of Radical Political Economy, Vol. 6, No. 2), a study of the modern factory, Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater control over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective exploitation.

Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom have virtually none.

Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover, for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and authoritarianism is state-like, or “statist.” And as anarchists oppose both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to dismantle all forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist. This applies to capitalist firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure of the capitalist firm is extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in nature:

“a fascist system… [is] absolutist — power goes from top down … the ideal state is top down control with the public essentially following orders. “Let’s take a look at a corporation… [I]f you look at what they are, power goes strictly top down, from the board of directors to managers to lower managers to ultimately the people on the shop floor, typing messages, and so on. There’s no flow of power or planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. The structure of power is linear, from the top down.” [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 237]

David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company and the state well when he writes:

“Most factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the bottom are privates, the supervisors are sergeants, and on up through the hierarchy. The organisation can dictate everything from our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large portion of our lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require us to see a company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it can forbid us free time to engage in political activity; it can suppress freedom of speech, press and assembly — it can use ID cards and armed security police, along with closed-circuit TVs to watch us; it can punish dissenters with ‘disciplinary layoffs’ (as GM calls them), or it can fire us. We are forced, by circumstances, to accept much of this, or join the millions of unemployed… In almost every job, we have only the ‘right’ to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and we are expected to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft.” [“For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social self-management”, Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193–4]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its forms, including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support archy — which an anarchist, by definition, cannot do. In other words, for anarchists, ”[p]romises to obey, contracts of (wage) slavery, agreements requiring the acceptance of a subordinate status, are all illegitimate because they do restrict and restrain individual autonomy.” [Robert Graham, “The Anarchist Contract, Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 77] Hierarchy, therefore, is against the basic principles which drive anarchism. It denies what makes us human and “divest[s] the personality of its most integral traits; it denies the very notion that the individual is competent to deal not only with the management of his or her personal life but with its most important context: the social context.” [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 202]

Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has a hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. This is for two reasons. Firstly, under capitalism workers are driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty) to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the economic conditions workers face by creating “massive disparities in wealth … [as] workers… sell their labour to the capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value.” Therefore:

“To portray the parties to an employment contract, for example, as free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious inequality of bargaining power which exists between the worker and the employer. To then go on to portray the relationship of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as the epitome of freedom is to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social justice.” [Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70]

It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action and organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working people and allows them to assert their autonomy (see section J).

Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state system must be considered as “anarchy.” In a modern democracy no one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We are free to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed forces, states even) all because they are “voluntary.” As Bob Black argues, ”[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.” [The Libertarian as Conservative, The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 142] Anarchy is more than being free to pick a master.

Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise you just become a “voluntary archist” — which is hardly anarchistic. For more on this see section A.2.14 ( Why is voluntarism not enough?).

Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures (i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly anarchistic.

We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists, apparently wanting to appropriate the “anarchist” name because of its association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called “anarcho” capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), “anarcho”-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see Section F)