Perfectly true.
But anarchism hasn't exactly been very productive over the last century when it comes to providing alternatives, has it?
masquenox
joined 3 months ago
Fair enough.
Gee, you think there might be cinnamon in there?
I don't think they spelled it out loudly enough for me.
Shouting down fascists is child's play in comparison to their liberal cousins.
Both the top and bottom one is just plain old liberalism - not "conservatism" or neoliberalism.
You need to make those eye-holes bigger.
Graeber is dead wrong on this. It wasn't the antiwar movement in the US that caused "Vietnam Syndrome" - being militarily defeated by a nation the US viewed as "inferior" did.
And it also wasn't 9/11 that overcame "Vietnam Syndrome" - the invasion of Panama and the first Gulf War did that.
If the antiwar movement in the US achieved anything, it was to provide the US military with a pretext - ie, somebody to blame - for extracting themselves from a war they had decisively lost.
Only man?
Gross.
.world is a festering mess of liberalism, you say?
Colour me surprised.
The only people that regularly say that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist are stirring shit,
Israel doesn't have a right to exist.
More democratic structures mean more discussions, votes, etc.
And what's the problem with that?
It’s also susceptible to outrage campaigns and similar.
That works well in anti-democratic societies - you have no proof that it will even be possible to do such in ones that can actually be called democratic with a straight face.
This is all great - but lots of organizations and movements are doing direct action of all kinds. Can you seriously tell me that this represents a functional political movement that would be capable of surviving and thriving if a convulsive revolution were to kick off tomorrow?