The writer jokes about people misunderstanding "anarchist" as chaos, when it actually shows understanding of social order. They criticize authoritarians and pseudo-anarchists (ancoms), saying both lack real knowledge of how social order works. True anarchism, they say, relies on understanding how society naturally organizes itself, unlike the false ideas pushed by those with childish views.
it's so funny when normies and reactionaries react to me having 'anarchist' in my bio and think it means it's a statement of nihilism or something. (which is incompatible with anarchism.) it's a statement that i understand the constituents of social order far better than you do.
i often wonder why authoritarians are so behind well-ordered humanity. there's almost no saving them from their childish views of social order. they literally do not understand it on a fundamental level. it's 'great power pulls the levers', like some dumb Simpsons character.
there is no substantive analysis of how, say, authoritarian institutions within themselves can be stable and coherent if social order is not generically possible and, indeed, probable. we create social order as easily as we breathe:
the problem is evil social orders: such as authoritarian ones, which render life not worth living. even technocrats who are attentive to grassroots movements and bottom-up social forces are under the spell that a nearly magical, top-down meta-institution organizes it all.
it is embarrassing. it's made even worse when ancoms — that is to say, pseudo-anarchists who should be chased away from our movement as soon as possible: market anarchism is the /bare minimum/ for serious anarchist thought — give the false impression that we're utterly retarded.
as ancoms, much like authoritarians, do not have sufficiently complete socioeconomic thoughts to justify the fantastical delusions they want to impose on society. Thomas Hodgskin got sociology and economics right in the early 19th century; everyone else is just catching up.
it's so funny when normies and reactionaries react to me having 'anarchist' in my bio and think it means it's a statement of nihilism or something. (which is incompatible with anarchism.) it's a statement that i understand the constituents of social order far better than you do.i often wonder why authoritarians are so behind well-ordered humanity. there's almost no saving them from their childish views of social order. they literally do not understand it on a fundamental level. it's 'great power pulls the levers', like some dumb Simpsons character.there is no substantive analysis of how, say, authoritarian institutions within themselves can be stable and coherent if social order is not generically possible and, indeed, probable. we create social order as easily as we breathe:the problem is evil social orders: such as authoritarian ones, which render life not worth living. even technocrats who are attentive to grassroots movements and bottom-up social forces are under the spell that a nearly magical, top-down meta-institution organizes it all.it is embarrassing. it's made even worse when ancoms — that is to say, pseudo-anarchists who should be chased away from our movement as soon as possible: market anarchism is the /bare minimum/ for serious anarchist thought — give the false impression that we're utterly retarded.as ancoms, much like authoritarians, do not have sufficiently complete socioeconomic thoughts to justify the fantastical delusions they want to impose on society. Thomas Hodgskin got sociology and economics right in the early 19th century; everyone else is just catching up.
it's so funny when normies and reactionaries react to me having 'anarchist' in my bio and think it means it's a statement of nihilism or something. (which is incompatible with anarchism.) it's a statement that i understand the constituents of social order far better than you do. ... i often wonder why authoritarians are so behind well-ordered humanity. there's almost no saving them from their childish views of social order. they literally do not understand it on a fundamental level. it's 'great power pulls the levers', like some dumb Simpsons character. ... there is no substantive analysis of how, say, authoritarian institutions within themselves can be stable and coherent if social order is not generically possible and, indeed, probable. we create social order as easily as we breathe: ... the problem is evil social orders: such as authoritarian ones, which render life not worth living. even technocrats who are attentive to grassroots movements and bottom-up social forces are under the spell that a nearly magical, top-down meta-institution organizes it all. ... it is embarrassing. it's made even worse when ancoms — that is to say, pseudo-anarchists who should be chased away from our movement as soon as possible: market anarchism is the /bare minimum/ for serious anarchist thought — give the false impression that we're utterly retarded. ... as ancoms, much like authoritarians, do not have sufficiently complete socioeconomic thoughts to justify the fantastical delusions they want to impose on society. Thomas Hodgskin got sociology and economics right in the early 19th century; everyone else is just catching up.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
