Who would’ve thought that somebody with an account on an anarchist instance has problems with other people telling them what they can and can’t do?

Sure sounds like you’re against moderation. Or are you just a liar who only cares because it’s about shunning Zionism.

So all moderation is wrong? Also you seem to very clearly not understand what anarchism is beyond the infantile “tyranny of bedtime” surface.

The linked definition doesn’t match with you calling the vote/outcome authoritarian.

Authoritarian/authoritarianisn is so widely defined that literally every country, organisation and movement fits it by necessity in class society

Authoritarian is a pejorative used by idiots to avoid grappling with the reality of one class necessarily suppressing another in class society.

Authoritarian is a basically meaningless word already but “people voting for something I don’t like” is an especially idiotic way to define it.

The fact that you can’t process a basic argument about institutional continuity yet feel confident calling someone else stupid is wild. Kids were already in cages, detention capacity was already expanded, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security were getting pumped with funding year after year under Obama, you think that had zero relationship to what came after? Infrastructure doesn’t materialize out of thin air just because you discovered the word “fascism” in 2017. Pretending the machinery was harmless until someone you dislike used it more aggressively just makes you look like you have the memory of a goldfish and no object permanence. Or does it only count when white people get hurt?

Certainly an interesting character but one best kept in their village as entertainment as opposed to holding any serious position

Didn’t she tell the Irish they don’t know what it’s like to have their country partitioned?

You are stupid and you are wrong. Just to preempt it because I know it’s coming: this is not an ad hominem. You’re not wrong because you’re stupid, you just happen to be both.

Who do you think laid the foundations for the ICE Gestapo? Was it perhaps the “Deporter-in-Chief” and his party, who repeatedly approved massive funding increases, expanded detention capacity, normalized local–federal cooperation, and stifled every serious attempt to dismantle the apparatus once it existed?

Hillary bragging about deportation numbers isn’t some abstract endorsement of “targeted and humane” enforcement. She’s boasting about participation in a system that already relied on mass detention, racial profiling, family separation through removal, and routine due-process abuse. The only difference is that under Obama and Clinton it was wrapped in technocratic language and better PR.

Your chauvinist ass is treating racially targeted state violence as acceptable so long as it’s quiet, bureaucratic, and doesn’t visibly impact white citizens or comfortable middle-class communities. Obama-era deportations didn’t feel like “Gestapo tactics” to you because they were overwhelmingly inflicted on undocumented and non-white migrants, out of sight and off camera. Raids, cages, deportation flights, and shattered families were already happening. You just didn’t care, because it wasn’t framed as a crisis for white Americans.

It’s peak liberal chauvinism. Migrant lives are disposable, but the moment enforcement becomes louder or uglier, suddenly it’s a problem.

Also it is objectively, morally and in every other conceivable way correct to hate the Clinton’s, Obama, the Bushes and Reagan alongside basically every high level American politician. They are a cabal of pedophiles who have immiserated the world on an industrial scale for decades.

No capital isn’t a ghost with a name tag, it’s a material social relation: ownership of production, control of investment, wage labor, and the institutions built to defend them. That’s why elected officials who threaten profits immediately face capital flight, media attacks, legal sabotage, and economic strangulation, among other attacks, regardless of their intentions. You keep reducing structural power to personalities because liberalism can’t think past individuals.

Again I beg read Lenin and Chairman Mao, looks into what was done to Aellende Sankara and Lumumba. Until you understand that class power determines the state (not vibes and ballots) you’re just repeating liberal talking points and it’s not worth continuing this.

Of course the state is made up of people, but those people operate inside a pre-existing system of property, law, coercion, and institutions. That system doesn’t change just because you swap officeholders. Under capitalism, the courts defend private property, the police protect capital, the media belongs to capital, and the economy is owned by capital. Anyone entering that structure is forced to govern within those limits. That’s why workers can vote forever and still remain exploited.

You keep saying “just put different people in charge,” but history shows what happens when elected governments seriously threaten capitalist ownership: capital flees, investment stops, media turns hostile, courts obstruct, and imperialist pressure mounts until the project is neutralized or overthrown. That’s not theory, that’s how bourgeois power has observably functioned from its inception . Liberal democracy allows rotation of managers, not transfer of class power.

You’re also reversing cause and effect. Democracy doesn’t shape class relations, class relations shape democracy. As long as private ownership of production exists, the state exists to defend it. That’s why bourgeois democracy always resolves crises in favor of capital. It’s structurally designed to.

Real change only begins when exploitative property relations are abolished and the old coercive apparatus is broken and rebuilt to serve the working masses. That’s when democracy stops being a shell and becomes material, because the people control production, not just ballots.

I beg you to please read Lenin, and Chairman Mao you don’t understand what you’re talking about and they have far more extensive writing on this than I can fit into a debate with you on a message board.

You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.

Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.

And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.

You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.

And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.

You should really read Chairman Mao and Lenin.

A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.

Not true. Starlink are in a very low orbit and regularly (1 or 2 a day) will simply burn up themselves as they fall out of orbit.

Not to be mean, but I think you’re approaching this from a place of pretty immense privilege, where it’s possible to sidestep the fact that the “stability” and social care you’re talking about are materially predicated on the largest, most advanced, and most comprehensive immiseration machine in human history, currently headed by the US and enforced by its hunting dogs.

I understand what you’re saying about intent, but I think you’re putting far too much weight on intent and far too little on material outcomes. From the perspective of people in the periphery, whether harm is done out of malice, fear, or ignorance doesn’t change the harm itself. The status quo imposed by the imperial core is anything but neutral; it is actively sustained through extraction, coercion, and violence, regardless of how polite or well-meaning its defenders may be.

The claim that Liberal voters “aren’t thinking about” neocolonialism doesn’t really mitigate anything. Apathy and ignorance aren’t accidental flaws of the system, they’re systematically reinforced. Liberal politics trains people to narrow their moral horizon to national borders and to treat global suffering as unfortunate but external. Wanting stability at home while refusing to interrogate how that stability is financed is still a political choice, even if it feels passive or unavoidable.

I’m about to make an inflammatory comparison, and before it’s taken the wrong way I want to be clear that I’m not calling you, or Liberal voters, Nazis of any kind.

What I’m pointing to is a similar moral logic to the “clean Wehrmacht,” but applied to liberalism: the idea that all the real harm belongs to the obvious villains, while those who uphold the same system in a more moderate, respectable way are merely ignorant, apolitical, or trying their best. That framing launders responsibility. It treats liberal participation as an unfortunate accident rather than a core function.

From the standpoint of those who live with the consequences of your stability, calling it “misguided but not bad” reads as a refusal to take structural violence seriously.

I am talking about how the status quo of the entirety of the imperial core is built on and sustained by the pillaging and superxploitation of the periphery through imperialism and neocolonialism.

The status quo is bad if you view us of the periphery as equal humans whose suffering matters the same as you.

What party line? It’s the truth? He’s in the Epstein files begging to go “party” on the island. He hit multiple nazi salutes on camera. It’s not a line it’s a statement of fact Elon Musk is a nazi pedophile.

Bad faith is when people point out my idol is fucking evil.

Him being a nazi pedophile is probably what most people take issue with.

The results will be published by the same party that holds them imprisoned

That’s how being arrested works. The state detains you Investigates and then you are put on trial. What is your point with this?