I have no interest in critiquing “authoritarianism” (or in other words, the existance of a state) per se, as an idea of an entity above society and separated from it, independent of class struggle.
The notion of state as inherently authoritarian is curious. Maybe read into anarchist critiques of ancaps (which aren’t anarchists but neo-feudalists), the anarchist insistence on organisation and structure being necessary (Anarchism is Order is age-old doctrine), or, well, Kerry Thornley (which I already quoted): Nobody gives a damn about a state who busies itself with things like providing public transportation, general infrastructure, safety nets, conflict mediation, suchlike.
The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.
Nah what it shows is that I’m an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.
What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?
Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don’t want to lose your cricket club?
Removed by mod
The notion of state as inherently authoritarian is curious. Maybe read into anarchist critiques of ancaps (which aren’t anarchists but neo-feudalists), the anarchist insistence on organisation and structure being necessary (Anarchism is Order is age-old doctrine), or, well, Kerry Thornley (which I already quoted): Nobody gives a damn about a state who busies itself with things like providing public transportation, general infrastructure, safety nets, conflict mediation, suchlike.
Nah what it shows is that I’m an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.
Removed by mod