your conditions are too specific. what the US did to Iraq, Vietnam, Korea,… is already bad enough. But these dont qualify because they arent neighbors of the us, and the intentions arent exactly what you listed. still, these are already bad enough.
deleted by creator
i doubt the effort would be actually equal. dont know about ny, but where im from, the double standard is blatant
reminds me of that film where someone puts LSD into the water of some military base. Then everyone chills and start rolling in the grass, smelling flowers or smt.
looking at these is disturbing me a little
organizing work is extremely valuable, but that doesnt mean that it takes hard work to do…
I see, so you see it not an actual state we may achieve, but rather the negation of present authorities and systems.
So as long as an organization is truly democratic, it can be considered anarchist?
For example, if one person likes to make coca cola but as a side effect he pollutes a river that the rest of the group wants to keep clean. The group may decide democratically to force him to not make coca cola. I would call this a goverment-like organization, even though it does not need to have a leader to fulfill its goal.
That’s the [any country] National Motto!
…i suppose
excuse my ignorance, but ive always wondered this about anarchism: Seems to me that people gather and organize themselves to reach common goals. How can these organizations not become governments? is that actually possible?
escalations are escalations, justifiable or not.
you’re tripping. third world countries arent some lawless wastelands full of hopeless zombies like you seem to imagine.
dont blame me for the opinions of someone else. Just note how hipocritical you sound by dismissing criticism of the us while criticizing russia. Why not both?