Hell yeah! Well done!

Why do these supposed Bezos masks have hair on them, though? Heh.

Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.

I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.

It's not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don't realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.

I know. Instead of doing what we know needs to be done, let's come up with an over-complicated geoengineering solution that we absolutely do not have the capacity to manage or even predict the outcomes of!

Definitely what the RICO Act was sold to us as being designed for. /s

Fuck the police. Fuck the state.

It's not. Gates' "charity" does an incredible amount of damage, and also destroys a lot of positive change that would otherwise be happening. For example, he was instrumental in ensuring an open-source COVID-19 vaccine didn't get released, in a way that potentially denied access to COVID vaccines to millions—perhaps billions—throughout the Global South, in the interests of protecting the profits of big pharma. His diversion of education improvements into private and charter schools is pretty infamous for destroying attempts to improve public education...all so that education can be repurposed into creating good, obedient, unthinking workers for capitalist industry. And a lot of his "food programs" and "vaccination programs" throughout Africa have done a great deal of damage to the general public trust in such programs, while arguably doing as much harm as good materially as well.

You might want to do your homework. Here's a start:

• Maybe Bill Gates’ Billions Don’t Make Him an Expert on Hunger in Africa
• Gates Ag One: The Recolonisation Of Agriculture
• Bill Gates's vaccine monopolism is a global health disaster
• Prisons and Slavery: How Bill Gates, the Gates Foundation and Microsoft Profit From Racism and Human Suffering Part 1: The Prison Connection
• Prisons and Slavery: How Bill Gates, the Gates Foundation and Microsoft Profit From Racism and Human Suffering Part 2: The Prison – School Connection
• Behind the Bastards: The Ballad of Bill Gates, Part 1
• Behind the Bastards: The Ballad of Bill Gates, Part 2

Yes. My company decided to shut down the local office to save money (kept by the bosses rather than being distributed to us, of course). So some of us became remote indefinitely.

Generally, I love it. I can "commute" in my PJs, and avoid spewing a lot of carbon into the climate just to ship around my sack of flesh. I can take breaks throughout the day to tend my garden, and play music to help myself think. I don't have to worry about packing a lunch, or wasting time and money and social energy eating out in the middle of the day. Hell, I can go take a nap when I don't have any meetings scheduled and feel the need.

However, it does take its toll. Not having a direct, face-to-face, human connection with folks throughout the day harms the associations that build solidarity. And finding ways to do one-on-ones and continue organizing the workplace is proving next to impossible. So I'm honestly not sure it is worth it at this stage of labor struggle. In a more ideal world—once we've won a few crucial victories over capital (and perhaps state)—I see no reason why many of us couldn't work from home, and even move those jobs that require more direct, physical labor closer to those homes.

It's good...so long as we follow the advice of that last section: "Prosecute Them All". If it's used instead to distract from the ongoing crimes of other parties and other politicians—such as the fascist currently at the helm—then I couldn't care less, and I think we shouldn't allow ourselves to be distracted by it while there are much more important things to focus on.

The worst of Trump's crimes—the ones that did serious, material harm to working-class people—aren't being touched by this, just as they weren't touched by the farcical impeachments the Democrats facilitated. And that's because they, themselves, are happily engaged in the same crimes, as they have been all along.

Sure, bring out your popcorn or whatever when you're relaxing at home and have nothing better to worry about. But during the day, put all the energy you can into what we MUST do to turn things around: put an end to state warfare, ongoing climate destruction, and the state violence and repression that keeps us from making progress on everything else.

Also:

And that brings us to the real double standard here. Trying to overturn an American election is the kind of crime the Justice Department takes seriously. Extrajudicially slaughtering scary Muslims in a foreign country, even ones with US citizenship, is not.

Attacks carried out on marginalized communities—carried out just like the Jan 6 Washington DC attack was, but in cities and towns everywhere else on a monthly basis at least—also are not taken seriously. Jan 6 was one of MANY, but only when the halls of power see a tiny inkling of a (pretty pathetic) threat does it matter to politicians and their liberal fans. Not okay.

EDIT: sigh. Blockquotes broken by some Lemmy update.

"One man's wild dream." Bleh. Flowery words for yet another bunk propertarian sea-steading project. I mean, he was literally planning to mine the shit out of the ocean floor and sell away more of the ecosystem to the capitalist market in order to create his Utopia. At least there was some acknowledgment of that at the very end.

Very glad the opportunistic scientific exploration happened along with it, though.

In IDK like the 2015-2017 timeframe some really edgy people started taking over in /r/metanarchism (the private sub where moderation decisions are made for /r/Anarchism). They formed a clique—a cult, really—and managed to force out anyone else who weren't part of it, totally ignoring even the rules they'd setup themselves for how people were to be banned. Their notion was basically that you had to subscribe to and promote the most violent possible solutions to every situation, and if you didn't jump on board enthusiastically, you weren't a "real anarchist". It was basically the most dark aesthetics of anarchism without any of the actual philosophy.

There were whole drama wars about it, where the people they banned congregated in /r/LeftWithoutEdge, /r/AnarchismOnline, and other subs, and in response the edge cult setup /r/LeftWithSharpEdge, trolled those subs their victims fled to, and harassed people with things like bloody cannibalism fantasies about their victims. Those are the folks still moderating in /r/Anarchism, and they have at least a couple moderators in subs like /r/LateStageCapitalism as well.

One of the most prolific and obsessed trolls is the guy who setup Raddit. He was caught having whole conversation trees with himself in order to fake participation on the site and set its tone. A number of times he declared he was "stepping back" from moderating it and would just run the server...and then didn't.

Given the horrendous history of /r/Anarchism's moderation and the fact that Raddle is a direct continuation of that garbage, I'd say it's both no surprise and no loss. Let them go honeypot and jackboot themselves into oblivion. The unfortunate thing, of course, is that they've controlled a forum with a very obvious name for half a decade, and can shepherd a lot of unknowing users into their cesspit with them. But there's probably not a lot that can be done about that.

With regard to direct action, I don't think general discussions of, or even encouragement of, illegal or violent activity should be discouraged. It's when you get to talking about specific acts, specific targets, and actual planning that it should be disallowed (and people should know better than to discuss that shit online anyway). Like, encouraging people to shoplift, generally? To defend their communities? To engage in anti-fascist action? Why not?

I think some folks here are going way too far with suggestions like "[don't] go beyond recommending safe/legal ways to resist the system" (@ProdigalFrog). If we're stuck in that liberal mudpit, IMO there's no point in having radical spaces (like I hope this is/can be) at all.

Many anarchists criticism of private property rests on the idea that it is the root cause of the capitalist’s legal right to appropriate the fruits of their employees’ labor. The article shows that it is not. It is the employment contract that is to blame for this violation.

Those are the same thing, though. The author is really putting a lot of stake into the separation of owning capital vs. renting it, and trying to make both of those things distinct from decision making. But ownership is fundamentally about decisions and control. Rent changes that very little. You rent a home, and perhaps get a tiny measure of control over the decisions regarding it, but the landlord retains ultimate decision-making power (buying, selling, renovations, kicking you out, etc.), and capitalism is 100% geared toward ensuring that stays true even in the most wild scenarios we can conceive of regarding tenants' rights under capitalism. And the same remains true of owning a "company"—and, of course, the means of production that are a part of it and keep you from just walking next door and creating a new one if you don't like how the capitalist runs things (yes: this is the part—the enforced scarcity—that makes "owning a company" actually worth something, so it is fundamental to the system).

if you don't think that ownership and control are intrinsically linked, think long and hard about what it would mean to "own" something but not be able to make any decisions regarding it (including where anything produced by it goes). WTF does that "ownership" mean? It's like donating to an infrastructure project to get your name put on a sign by some stretch of highway: it means absolutely fucking nothing.