Greetings everyone. I'm curious if there is any theory beyond marxist national liberation concept to explain how EZLN and PKK in AANES, at least to my knowledge, created a non-syncretic but sort of organic blend of inernationalism and patriotism, if those terms are appopriate. I find marxist explanation to be either too essentialistic (like in Stalins treatise on nationalism) or too strategic and insincere (like oportunistic support for third world nationalists)

I for one am sympathetic to patriotic sentiments among colonized people but I haven't really found a good theory to explain ideas of belonging, identity and folklore and how they are afirmed without the nation state? Given what Palestinians are tragically going through now I believe a non state solution is the only just one for Palestinian people, but how to explain belonging to a "people" without resorting to nation-state building and ethnic nationalism? I'm from the Balkans so this question is of vital importance for liberation of Balkan and Slavic peoples as well.

Do Zapatistas and PKK rightfully call on sentimets towards homeland and a particular people?

What is criteria to allow for such respect for particularities without loosing the sight on universal struggle?

What does libertarian theory have to say on the concept of nation? Is nation a relevant term in Zapatista and PKK theory?

What is at the basis of combined ideological duty to your "people" or "nation" and at the same time towards multiethnic, multicultural community, or is the nation-state the key problem preventing the unity of those two?

Is there anarchist/communalist/libertarian socialist theory on nationhood beyond simple rejection?

When people say socialism has killed one billion people I think it's actually the fact that cannot be debunked. But then I realize it's the eastern culture that caused the Komer Rouge massacre because those people are not enlightened and hence have nothing to do with socialism. Can I say that the failure of socialism is actually a failure of the eastern civilization but not socialism?

There's also Libertarian socialism. Are we not all simply idealist anarchists, pretty much the same as the right libertarians in a world not controlled by corporate overlords?

Why is libertarianism so fractured when we all want the same thing?

Edited to expand, no change to actual message

That's what I just read a second ago at least.

The idea of democratic centralism from Lenin is that socialism needs a vanguard party that has to democratically select decisions but then centrally carry them out so everyone is on the same page with what needs to be done.

This comes off as a bit authoritarian since party leaders get to direct how the plans are carried out and what plans are valid but I was wondering what everyone else thinks of it?

Are there other ways to ensure that socialism isn't smothered before it actually developes as a movement in a country?

I'd like to learn more about specific ideas for implementations of left libertarianism and I'd also like to read about criticisms of them.

I've always been more of a reader and theory nerd than anything. I have protested in the past through groups like YDSA but ultimately I wasn't as active as I should and could have been. Protests, canvassing and mutual aid are probably not enough.

I'm a recent college grad so I did that stuff at my school. I'm back home now but I don't know any activist orgs in my area cause all my friends were through uni lol.

I did some looking and it seems that groups like Food Not Bombs aren't particularly active? I tried signing up but the latest their schedule went was March 2024.

I'd like to get more involved with libsocs or mutual aid organizations in my area and start organizing. I don't know that many lib socs here and I'd like that to change. Community is more important than ever.

So if anyone is in Chicagoland (I don't want to be more specific on the internet, especially given recent events), I'd love to connect.

Hell I'd love to do a theory reading circle or something if nothing else. But a 2nd trump term is going to be bad. And I want to be part of the move to help people when shit hits the fan.

Hey all, so I know you've probably seen me here & there. I got banned from 2 other Libertarian subs, r/Libertarian, & r/LibertarianMemes or whatever they're called. I've considered myself a centrist Libertarian up to this point, leaning capitalist. The moment my mom told me I had until December 31st to find a new place to live, I began to panic. I don't have money to afford rent. I don't have any capital worth more than 200 dollars total. Then the election came. I'm a Trans Woman in one of the two states that didn't have a single blue county, Oklahoma, so you can imagine how I felt once Pennsylvania got called. I work 2 jobs & only get 400 dollars after all car bills are paid, & that normally goes to rent. I've been looking into land in rural areas of blue states into building a shared income shared debt commune based around an adapted form of Mutualism. Now, as I said prior, I've considered myself a capitalist Libertarian up to this point. Mostly a live & let live, get the government out of my life, & any business that wants to take my rights away, take away it's existence. This form of Mutualism that I've processed seems best for me now

• Each person gets land. Personal property to do whatever with. Living, leisure, doesn't matter, nobody gets a say except the person in charge of the land

• People are encouraged to develop their own businesses & keep them self sustained. Selling outside the community to aid funds

• 100% of all checks are deposited into a bank or safe, where every single transaction is made public, so it's be digital payments, to keep a trail

• All bills are paid for the citizens. Shared income, shared debt

• Each citizen would be given a weekly budget best for wherever the commune is

• Citizens can buy private property, but with a supermajority agreement, so can the commune for public use

• Everything leftover is repaid to citizens fairly, but the commune keeps 5% of leftover funds to keep Everything running. Roads, and the such

There's likely other things about how it would run, but that's the basic bits I remember

Stay safe Americans. These next 4 years will be rough

Now that trump is planning to put rfk jr in charge of medicine my anxiety has skyrocketed to inhuman levels, even though my psychiatrist told me that his policy is only going to focus on food, I'm still worried he's going to try and ban adhd meds (I take adderall) and he'll try to get us to go to these wellness farms, why are people saying this is a good thing when it's very obviously unconstitutional?!

'First they came for the socialists'.....aw fuck!

Project 2025 is coming.

- What if the Nazis had social media where we all self-identify?

We make is easy for them. We don't wear Maga hats, we post our hats online instead. Go back ten years and some of my tweets could be considered seditious. These would not go well at trial...and even worse at one organized by patriotic kangaroos.

I believe we're fucked if we think 'leftism as usual' is gonna cut it.

Debate club is over, for me at least.

The existential threat is now very real.

If you're not thinking of self-defense scenarios that let you legally walk away, then I think you may be underestimating the threat that is coming. Remember to record incidents with your phone...bring all the evidence of your innocence you can.

My plan remains:

- give $1,000 in Bitcoin to the ACLU on Jan 6th

- buying a sailboat and piss off for the next four years in the Caribbean. I'm retired and can do it, so I will. I was planning to go sailing anyway, this just puts a hard GTFO date - Jan 6th 2025.

In the meantime, this leftist and non-believer is going dark.

Good luck...but we both know it ain't about luck, it's about planning and executing to the plan.

See you in the FEMA camps if this all goes wrong.

I don't understand this stupid idea that "leftists are back because of the infighting they're having in their circles,". I've heard this thesis SO many times, in anti-leftist and even leftist circles. But no one asked a question, do we actually need a "leftist unity"? What I'm saying is that these people imagine Libertarian Leftists (basically actual leftists) going hand-in-hand with tankies, authoritarian "communists" who call for gulags and praise dictators. Like, for what reason are we SUPPOSED to be in "unity" with them. I totally see eg more Reformist (Democratic Socialists, Liberal Socialists) leftists collaborating with Libertarian Socialists (Anarchists), Council Communists, and similar, to achieve the common goal while also remaining diverse. The ideas of "Authoritarian left" are alien to us, they want a police state with a dictatorship, they're trying to justify genocide, and economically aren't even socialist (What do they have is State Capitalism). When I explain this to the "leftist infighting"-people, they are saying to me "sEe WhAt i MeAn?!?! INFIGHTING!". This is a completely braindead take. Like, No one has ever said the same shit about rightists. Where's the Rightist Unity? Why are you constantly infighting? Why are liberals not in unity with fascists? Sounds weird? It sounds similarly weird for a leftists when one talks shit about some mythical Leftist unity, without elaborating why is it even SUPPOSED to be a thing.

It baffles my mind, who the fuck even started this idea of a leftist (or to be more accurate leftist & tankie) unity? Why is it presupposed that we should go hand-in-hand with those self-decribed "leftists", who advocate for red tyranny? Is it a burden for us leftists, to be forever associated and tied with them? It is clear that they want to institute oppressive regime, and Libertarian leftists (usually) advocate for freedom, without the state, capital, the police, be it under the rule of fascists, liberals, or tankies. What unity are we even talking about? I would take a step further and say they aren't leftists at all! So, of course we need a leftist unity, but as the tankies aren't leftists, they're not in our team. And anyone who is going to talk shit about the "Leftist unity/infighting" let think with their head. This term, "the Left", is used to refer to almost any kind of ideologies, even liberals, according to Americans for example, are leftists. And those who call for Leftist unity oftentimes include tankies under that label. And the other point is, the Right is not united as well. Even this Trump vs Harris beef is a perfect example of rightist infighting. It works either way, people are different, people have various political views, not all of them are similarly okay, it is a known fact.

Rant over :)

I consider myself a leftist, but also I believe that religion should be fought against by the government. I think this mainly because I consider the act of spreading religious belief by parents to children, who are biologically incapable of rational and independent thinking, coercive and extremely immoral. I think this is such an important problem that it should be addressed with government policy aimed at fully preventing it, which would in practice means a complete prohibition of child baptisms, taking children to church, religious clothing, text and symbols worn and displayed at home and attempts at convincing children that religion is true.

Is such policy compatible with libertarianism considering that even though it is an infringement pm some freedoms it's preventing a very immoral act?

I've made a post about this before on r/Anarchy101, asking about the difference between true anarchy and direct democracy, and the answers seemed helpful—but after thinking about it for some time, I can't help but believe even stronger that the difference is semantic. Or rather, that anarchy necessarily becomes direct democracy in practice.

The explanation I got was that direct democracy doesn't truly get rid of the state, that tyranny of majority is still tyranny—while anarchy is truly free.

In direct democracy, people vote on what should be binding to others, while in anarchy people just do what they want. Direct Democracy has laws, Anarchy doesn't.

Simple and defined difference, right? I'm not so sure.

When I asked what happens in an anarchist society when someone murders or rapes or something, I received the answer that—while there are no laws to stop or punish these things, there is also nothing to stop the people from voluntarily fighting back against the (for lack of a better word) criminal.

Sure, but how is that any different from a direct democracy?

In a direct democratic community, let's say most people agree rape isn't allowed. A small minority of people disagree, so they do it, and people come together and punish them for it.

In an anarchist community, let's say most people agree rape isn't allowed. A small minority of people disagree, so they do it, and people come together and punish them for it.

Tyranny of majority applies just the same under anarchy as it does under direct democracy, as "the majority" will always be the most powerful group.

Where do you draw the line between the two, and why?