It depends, but thankfully, there is a really simple test you can do. Just ask yourself: am I organizing a sports event that in any way excludes boys or girls, or men or women, who happen to be trans? Or people who are non-binary? Well, then simply cancel the event, because it doesn’t deserve to exist and should die. Human rights are more important than selling tickets.

Those won’t require id

This again. In real life, almost every anarchist is communist.

Because I said most anarchists are communists? Anarchists want a stateless classless society. That’s the textbook definition of communism. Have you ever heard of the anarchists Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Makhno? None of them were marxists, but they were, all of them, communists. And they said so. You should try learning some basics about the movement you identify with.

Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class

That’s not what a class is and Critical Theory as a historical ideological project always functioned to defang dissenting voices and produce “compatible leftists”. The Frankfurt school was funded by the CIA.

A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.

It’s not absurd, it’s just hard to imagine in the current historical moment where the strength of reactionary forces means, that it is far off, but necessary in the future.

Anarchism doesn’t oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others

No, but they are right outside the commune loading up their cannons to crush it like the Paris commune. If the defence is successful, it will have forced their will violently on the attackers, who constitute a different class (capitalists). Yes, only on defence, yes that is a legitimate form of organized violence. That’s the point.

And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it.

Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism. It doesn’t always work. There were historical failures and mistakes, as has happened in almost every anarchist project. For example the Spanish anarchists reversed their progress in woman’s liberation to appeal to liberals. It didn’t work. The kurdish anarchists sold out to the US empire and were betrayed by it again and again. Marxists did wrong too. But because of Marxisms principled stance based on material class analysis, it’s much less likely to dissolve, succumb to error or become a tool to reactionary forces.

No, that’s just a misunderstanding about the definition of a state. Anarchists often define it as a monopoly to violence in a territory. This definition has its flaws. Marxists define it differently as anything that can suppress a class.

Anarchism has real enemies. Marxists generally want to work together with Anarchists. Those enemies do not. Their interests are fundamentally opposed to anarchism and Marxism. They constitute a class, because they are defined by their control over exploitative production. Defending against them is suppressing their class interests. Many Marxists are open about an how this struggle is fought. Anarchists will have to fight it too and they will use their own strategies. Whatever those are, if they are effective, than they constitute a state in the eyes of marxists.

Every time I think communists can’t get any fucking stupider, you guys really go the extra mile to prove me wrong

Almost all real life Anarchists are communists too. Did you just insult basically all anarchists that aren’t terminally online?

It’s the opposite: anarchism will never be achieved without ML. Whatever method an “anarchist” society uses to defend against fascism and capitalism is by definition a state. Because any means of oppressing class interests (like capitalist class interests) is by definition a state. You can call it grassroots militias or community defense, but it’s still a state. Whatever we use to defend from reaction will only be needed until the threat is over.

A sufficiently advanced, socialist, ML state will then allow anarchist communes to grow and connect to facilitate the transition to full, stateless communism. Left unity is necessary not just before, but also after the revolution.

Make sure you only use transparent envelopes.

The US moved 7000 of them to a “secure facility” in Iraq after the Kurdish SDF retreated last month. I read the theory, that the fighters will be used against Iran. Who knows what’ll happen to the families.

Yes, obviously it’s not only okay, but such groups are very necessary and should be publicly funded and protected. However almost solely in the specific case of excluding cis men. For as long as patriarchy exists, safe spaces and protection from the structural and individual male violence are needed. They’ll naturally drop away as they become unnecessary, if capitalism, which fuels patriarchy, is permanently defeated.

Yes, and it worked. Those avenues were used to murder the people of the Paris commune.

Why has no one mentioned Foucault yet? I don’t really know much about him (and don’t like the post-structuralism and doomerist tendencies) but he did set out to answer the question "Why does everything look like a prison?" In his book “Discipline and Punish”. E.g. Schools, barracks, offices all tend to have long straight, easy to surveil hallways and so on. He said it’s all part of something he calls the “carceral system” dominating society.

Also, there are some actually beautiful schools in Germany with nice round hallways, organic design, lots of greenery, open spaces, gardens with flowers and vegetables etc. but they cost lots of money for tuition, and are lead by a weird anti science sect with Nazi tendencies (Waldorf).

But it’s weird like you can use things without owning them.

The medieval monks order of the Franciscans claimed exactly that and they gained quite some influence, land, buildings, and even money while claiming absolute poverty (not even collective ownership). It all relied on the claim, that the Pope was the true owner. But that also put the Pope in a difficult position as a merely worldly ruler of questionable morals, whom the Franciscans would deny the power to overrule previous church law. John XXII put an end to that by simply denying ownership of any of the stuff the Franciscans claimed to be “only using”.

No, never personally. But I’m convinced it was meant absolutely literally. The Jesus movement was a hardcore apocalyptic cult drawing many members (like for example Jesus) from older apocalyptic cults like the one of John the Baptist, who was executed for leading a cult. Everyone knew this, so anyone who still joined must have known full well what it entails. It seems fair and consistent with dogma to say, that Jesus went in it with a death wish. But all the other followers must have been pretty hardcore as well. A core tenet of the movement was preparing for the imminent kingdom of God - the end of the world. They are very clear about the kingdom coming within their lifetime, so any possessions would have been superfluous.

And then there’s the material component: the Romans had raised taxes immensely, mostly collecting them in the country but only investing in the cities. The Jesus movement was made up of losers of this process (that’s why cooperators and “tax collectors” are painted by them as the worst kind of sinners). They didn’t have much to hold on to. Too bad their revolutionary tactic came down to simply declaring what ever they wished to happen was about to be caused by devine intervention any moment now.

Freedom of expression in a small village in Bavaria? Sure all those Nazis, Christian conservatives and neo-cons will just be absolutely thrilled to welcome non-white queer non-binary trans people to their October fest and share unhealthy amounts of alcohol with them while dancing to terrible folk music.

Westerners do tend to accept personal guilt, but tend to not accept that other countries can simply be better. This kind of western exceptionalism is an aspect of western cultural hegemony, but as material reality continues to develop the contradictions make themselves more naked and obvious.

I can’t reply to all of your comments, but you’re often so on point, I love it.

Just from this list, Cuba is probably closest though, right?

I’d join. Ads do nothing but damage to society. How much? Well they manipulate people to make suboptimal choices and waste at least as much as the advertisers budget (on average), or they would stop doing it. So it’s at least 775 billion dollars per year. Rising annually. Enough to end world hunger and homelessness.

Depends. What does the pizza index say? How busy are the fast food places surrounding the white house? /s

If I’m physically safe, I think between 8 and 10 depending on my energy level. If I’m threatened or hurt in a fight, still up to 8 at least. We can love our enemies and still fight them with all the force necessary (but no more).