Does this apply to, say, purchasing a house?

No they’re not, they have entirely different interests compared to the average man.

What form(s) of hierarchy do you believe is necessary or helpful, and why?

Can you introduce me to Anarcho syndicalism?

Thanks for the mondragon example and quotations, I’ve saved this for future reference.

I thought anarchism was against hierarchy? Like isn’t that the point of anarchism?

How does a person who organizes logistics differ from a manager?

Please elaborate.

Globally? As in beyond just local-level set ups. Cause they need to be able to do the international logistics to compile all the respective pieces of computers, or smn.

That implies people would be content living under a system that didn’t allow them to get a phone, when modern everyday work and life have become inextricably digitized to a significant extent.

Though I agree in that we don’t need new models every year lol.

Removed by mod

I get this is satire but like idk something about global logistics of moving parts across countries being needed for manufacturing computers. Honestly I guess it’s difficult to understand if I have no clue how computers are made to begin with.

Isn’t that suggesting abolishing the internet and technology? Like primitivism, going back to pre-technological times.

People have jobs far away they need cars for transport to access and entertainment is considered a need, though it doesn’t need to be in 4k lol.

What’s that?

I’m new to anarchism.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you in favour of abolishing the internet?

Removed by mod

But even if you’re running a local system of apps and hardware, you still need to be able to manufacture the parts needed for said electronic devices.

I didn’t think PCB was something people could make themselves, that is cool.

Being able to make enough mobiles for everyone around the world would be significant if we are trying to go for implementing an anarchist model of society globally (or it’s just not viable).

I’ll check out the link.

Ah I figured that community wasn’t as active as flippanarchy, but alright.

That appears to be a whole book, perhaps I can give it a read sometime

Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.

You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn’t an adequate explanation for censorship.

Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.

you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China

Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.

You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I’ve been saying that for a while now. It’s just in the opposite direction.

I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?

Censorship is less transparent in the west.

Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I’d put together.

I am choosing to ignore the term “imperialism” because we don’t share an understanding on the term, and I’m not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.

Though it does seem we are at an impasse.

I assumed you would say China’s suppression and censorship is okay because it’s anti-capitalist and I mentioned why that wasn’t an adequate explanation. One could criticize the state without being a capitalist. It is not reactionary for one to criticize the state, unless you are asking for unconditional acceptance of the state. If criticizing the state is considered to be going against the will of the majority, then majority be damned.

I also assumed you would say the west does the same thing, and I mentioned why that wasn’t really true either. Despite their suppression you can still easily find and access criticisms of the state within their countries whereas this is not the case in China.

In my view it is impossible to have a balanced view of a state if all dissent and criticism is cracked down. Labelling all dissent and criticism as capitalist is a wholly inadequate and frankly infantile response.

On western countries not improving: I would say you’re also not considering their existing state of development; it may be easier to develop undeveloped/less developed regions than it is to develop already developed regions further, I would expect plateaus to be a thing in any country’s timeline of development to occur. Some decades from now when China reaches the same level of development one could see plateaus there too.

It’s not just China though, you approach other socialist countries the same way.

You say China’s problems aren’t static or permanent, but you don’t append such disclaimers or framing to issues outside of socialist regions.

I don’t see China as anti-imperialist, but I’ll drop the words “imperialist” and “fascist” altogether for the purposes of this discussion since we use it to mean different things.

Not everything is always changing significantly, some things can stay the same over time, but to answer the question, I’d say I see state surveillance, suppression of criticism, censorship, and things like that getting worse in China. Though this is kind of something I see happening globally, I’m inclined to believe this is worse in China because it’s already etched into the system at a scale more prolific than in the west.

You can routinely find criticisms of America online but China censors this. You do not personally take offense to this because in your view the capitalist should be suppressed (“communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat”), but I do. I will also say that it is this framing which makes it such that one has to be a capitalist in order to criticize the Chinese state (and thus be censored), but this isn’t true; I’m not capitalist but I would certainly criticize the state. I am staunchly against the notion of a dictatorship altogether, but this is something not everyone is uncomfortable with, I suppose.

My issue is that you don’t frame away the negatives that you mention of non-socialist countries as being part of progress or being actively worked on the way you do for socialist countries.

I don’t see China as being innocent and I retain that China is violent and aggressive when it finds the opportunity, and I’ve seen examples of this prior but I’d have to research to get into that w citations.

You did, as a list of “all things china is actively working on”. It’s the framing away of negatives that makes it not seem as much of a negative whenever you do mention them, however briefly.

Maybe it’s not how the world works, but it does strike me as strange if that’s only the case when it comes to describing socialist countries.

You say you don’t, but you exclusively discuss positivity or progress w.r.t. China and socialist countries. When anything negative is reframed out of the equation, the resulting assessment necessarily becomes unilaterally positive.

Imperialist countries being a drain on the world isn’t something I’m arguing against, although we do not share a common understanding of imperialism.

It’s true that I don’t believe analysis must be through the diamat outlook for it to be rational, though framing away negatives as metaphysical or any other framing that makes them to be other than what they are (i.e. negatives) isn’t something that I find compelling.