But I’m not trying to prove it doesn’t work. There are successful examples, like the one I mentioned.
If you go back to my original comment, it was in response to someone saying, “The US army won’t drone strike a community meal,” and “the heinous acts were only possible by othering the foreigners.” If you agree that the state does sometimes successfully employ force to stop peaceful community building, then we are in agreement.
You also still seem to be caught up on this “gotcha” of like, “The example that you said used our methods and succeeded used our methods and succeeded! Ha!” Like, yes, that’s what I said. You seem to think that I brought it up as some kind of cautionary tale.
And I pointed out that a lot of society is not practicing prefiguration. Meaning that you can’t currently treat it as a guarantee of safety while you attempt to reach the point where a lot of society is practicing it.
The point being that since prefiguration is the only thing that’s been shown to work, this is what we do. The fact that everyone is not doing it is irrelevant.
It’s completely relevant. The problem is that you’re completely missing the point of the conversation, because you’re too concerned with arguing a point nobody has disputed.
The point is that being right doesn’t stop bullets. The point is that your safety is not guaranteed just because you’re doing a good thing. At no point have I claimed that prefiguration doesn’t work. I’ve been abundantly clear the whole time that it can. It’s like you’ve invented a version of me in your head who you’re arguing against instead of listening to what I actually say.
I don’t understand where you saw me arguing that it can stop bullets. I honestly don’t even know what your point is by now. That revolution is gonna be hard? No shit
I already spelled it out to you several times, but here you go again:
If you go back to my original comment, it was in response to someone saying, “The US army won’t drone strike a community meal,” and “the heinous acts were only possible by othering the foreigners.” If you agree that the state does sometimes successfully employ force to stop peaceful community building, then we are in agreement.
I don’t see what’s unclear about that. You might not have said that being right was a protection against force, but I didn’t think that that was at all clear from what the other person was saying.
There wasn’t really a need for any of this to be an argument. It was just a reminder that it’s not always safe, and not to rely too much on ideology for protection. If you think that’s valid, I mean, that’s what I was saying from the start and I’m not sure what I could’ve said or done differently that would better communicate that.
Yes, my point is broadly speaking about, “Revolution is hard” - in a certain, specific way. Is it not valid to look at the history of people trying to build community power and identify various unexpected dangers they encountered? It’s like, “Hey, be careful, there’s a spike pit after this jump,” “So what? You’re telling me this level has things that can kill me? No shit.” If we both agree there’s a danger there, then I don’t understand what I actually said that you take issue with.
I’m not taking an issue with anything. I just thought you were making a point more salient than “the capitalist state is dangerous and hostile to anarchist praxis” which every anarchist recognizes.
But I’m not trying to prove it doesn’t work. There are successful examples, like the one I mentioned.
If you go back to my original comment, it was in response to someone saying, “The US army won’t drone strike a community meal,” and “the heinous acts were only possible by othering the foreigners.” If you agree that the state does sometimes successfully employ force to stop peaceful community building, then we are in agreement.
You also still seem to be caught up on this “gotcha” of like, “The example that you said used our methods and succeeded used our methods and succeeded! Ha!” Like, yes, that’s what I said. You seem to think that I brought it up as some kind of cautionary tale.
yes and I directly responded to that argument with
Which is my point in that state violence can repress one small community or movement like the BPs but cannot easily do so on widespread prefiguration.
And I pointed out that a lot of society is not practicing prefiguration. Meaning that you can’t currently treat it as a guarantee of safety while you attempt to reach the point where a lot of society is practicing it.
The point being that since prefiguration is the only thing that’s been shown to work, this is what we do. The fact that everyone is not doing it is irrelevant.
It’s completely relevant. The problem is that you’re completely missing the point of the conversation, because you’re too concerned with arguing a point nobody has disputed.
The point is that being right doesn’t stop bullets. The point is that your safety is not guaranteed just because you’re doing a good thing. At no point have I claimed that prefiguration doesn’t work. I’ve been abundantly clear the whole time that it can. It’s like you’ve invented a version of me in your head who you’re arguing against instead of listening to what I actually say.
I don’t understand where you saw me arguing that it can stop bullets. I honestly don’t even know what your point is by now. That revolution is gonna be hard? No shit
I already spelled it out to you several times, but here you go again:
I don’t see what’s unclear about that. You might not have said that being right was a protection against force, but I didn’t think that that was at all clear from what the other person was saying.
There wasn’t really a need for any of this to be an argument. It was just a reminder that it’s not always safe, and not to rely too much on ideology for protection. If you think that’s valid, I mean, that’s what I was saying from the start and I’m not sure what I could’ve said or done differently that would better communicate that.
Yes, my point is broadly speaking about, “Revolution is hard” - in a certain, specific way. Is it not valid to look at the history of people trying to build community power and identify various unexpected dangers they encountered? It’s like, “Hey, be careful, there’s a spike pit after this jump,” “So what? You’re telling me this level has things that can kill me? No shit.” If we both agree there’s a danger there, then I don’t understand what I actually said that you take issue with.
I’m not taking an issue with anything. I just thought you were making a point more salient than “the capitalist state is dangerous and hostile to anarchist praxis” which every anarchist recognizes.