Val

saksa comes from saxony, which was historically a major power in the region. (My knowledge comes from CK2)

As an Anarchist I'm irresistibly compelled to respond to this in order to spread propaganda. (Sorry for the ramble I don't know how to write concisely.)

To start I don't use communism, democracy or even socialism to refer to my beliefs. I use anarchy. That's because anarchy in my mind is concrete. no-archy. against hierarchy. Even though anarchy does follow the classical definition of communism, and is socialism, as in worker-owned means of production. These words are unnecessary as anarchy does the trick. And communism has too much bloody history to most people, me included.

Anarchy is not possible in the current cultural space. Anarchy requires a complete transformation of all parts of society, including culture. A lot of your problems come from having underlying archic (hierarchical/capitalist) beliefs. For an anarchist society to succeed these beliefs must be abandoned.

This is because of some of the variants I think are a bit generous in their belief that people won't act selfishly:

This is a comprehensive answer on a popular FAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca215

Anarcho-communism? Sure, if ...

This entire paragraph is based in tribalism. An inherent idea that people belong to distinct groups that compete with each-other. It is one of those archic beliefs that I mentioned. There are many different responses to this but I believe in federation (Thanks to this video: https://youtu.be/lrTzjaXskUU timestamp 36:44). This system envisions the anarchist society not as distinct groups but a large number of intersecting groups. No group would "raid" other groups because they have friends in all those groups. On top of that everyone in an anarchist society should be educated enough to understand that everyone in the society has a role to play and hurting them is hurting the society which is in turn hurting them.

On your opinions on money. It seems you do not understand how an anarchist economy would function. In anarchy you wouldn't buy something, you would order it from the person or co-op who makes those things. Generally used items like food and clothes would probably be available for free, but anything requiring construction would be ordered. This allows you to receive a completely personalized item. Otherwise people would just work for no reason and end up with things they don't need. I don't see any point in producing an item just so it would sit on a shelf somewhere. There might be a small storage for conveyor-produced items in order to reduce order times, but in general retail wouldn't need to exist.

Also due to your usage of "managers wield influence" I can see you haven't read any socialist theory as in socialism and anarchism the managers are responsible to the workers. If they are acting in corrupt ways that's because the workers don't care enough to uncover it and change the manager. And when it comes to "oversee production for their own personal gain" I am left wondering what personal gain would that be. without money there is no incentive to hoard and if that personal gain is abusive then it will be discovered and the manager changed.

Else you're left with a system where you're waiting years to get a car,

The fact that you think cars are a thing in a socialist society again reveals your inexperience. Cars are a fundamentally capitalist construct that have no use in socialist societies.

finite resources but unlimited desires.

The unlimited desires (that I'm interpreting as material as spiritual and mental desires don't need resources) are exactly the thing that anarchy seeks to destroy. It is a poisonous mindset cultivated by capitalism that leads to catastrophe (for example look out the window). It is incompatible with continued existence and the destruction of it in an individual is the first step towards anarchism. It was made with the specific need to fuel the hyper-consumerism of the modern age. You get told from everywhere that you need more stuff. Understanding that you don't is fundamental to all anti-capitalist thought.

I want to suffix this post with a point that if any of this comes across as rude then that was not my intention. The points made reflect my own ideas and opinions and other anarchist will have their own. I hope you consider what I wrote (and again sorry for the rambling.)

Anti-statism. Anarchism is against all hierarchy. Including class.

I mean the entire thing is meant as a joke. No-one is actually going to bother to memorize this abbreviation because it's too long and so arguing about feels part of the joke. Both are equally useless, the abbreviation and the argument.

Ultimately this is meant as fun, and pedantry can be fun. I have often just made jokes about something insignificant because for me that's fun.

The reason why I asked is because for me this comment enforces that "no rules" mindset by implying that voicing your opinion about something or upholding rules is not welcome, which is the opposite of anarchy. Anarchy is everyone having their own rules that grow and evolve to better fit into society, a process that would not work if everyone kept their rules for themselves.

Eg: I think abbreviating an abbreviation to fit inside a bigger abbreviation is fine, but I am also a programmer so I am used to nonsensical abbreviations (look up the full name of GIMP for example).

I think arguing about this is fun, and to me that's what anarchy is all about. FUN.

And now I think about it this argument is not that useless. If this was an abbreviation that was actually used you would want as many people as possible to understand it and for that it needs to make sense to most people.

How is being pedantic in an anarchist community ironic?

Ma väga loodan et sa suudad osad oma mõtted sellese kogukonda postitada. Mul ise praktilisi kogemusi ei ole, ainult väga palju mõtlemist ja teooriat. Samas tahan ma üritada neid mõtteid tegevusse panna, lihtsalt et proovida kas töötab. Selle pärast ma selle kogukonna lõin.

I wonder if the people who downvoted actually listened to the song, or just did it based on the name.

"That's rough buddy."

Left-Right (Left-Right) and Authoritarian-Libertarian (up-down).

I should post a follow-up saying "You don't have to listen to people that have no intention of listening to you".

One needs to listen to a neo-nazi to understand them, help them. The problem is that they won't listen to us because being angry is easier.

That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.