What's the best way to convince anarchists that power and hierarchy aren't inherently bad?
Anarkids act like they understand theory and sociology better than Marxists do. They love getting on their moral high horse by calling everything "oppression". Yet when you actually pick apart their arguments you'll see that they're full of hot air 95% of the time. They talk a good deal about intersectionality and anti-oppression, but when pressed on how to abolish those oppressive structures in society they have no clue.
Marxism, OTOH, is scientific. We understand that political power is necessary to reshape society. We also understand that hierarchies need to exist until we reach the stage of communism, and even then you will still see things like hierarchies of intelligence, talent, beauty, strength, and so on that can't simply be abolished through idealist methods.
But how do you explain this without looking like you're making apologia for oppression? I've tried the Hegelian way of simply saying "the real is rational" but that doesn't get through anarkids' heads very well.
>>2493219>Or, look at the influx of brain rot content on the internetcentralized social media and search engines*, but yeah when you outsource your personal curation out to statistical averages you don't necessarily get something coherent.
Another example being centrists. People represent politics on sliders as a rather unuseful abstraction, someone insists the trick is to set that slider to the middle, and then explaining what that even means or tryning to convert that slider position into actual worldviews results in complete incoherent babbling about extradimensional hypertoruses and the abstract concept of nuanced-ness.
>>2493213I'd be interested in asking an anarchist this question: in a situation of total anarchy, what's to prevent the strong from dominating the weak? I mean physically stronger people dominating weak people, such as disabled people who must rely on wheelchairs to maneuver. There's good reason to believe anarchism would do a bad job of this, and this kind of total freedom can end up turning to its opposite by (ironically, paradoxically) removing structures that
restrain domination, so people are just crushed by the strongest and most ruthless.
There needs to be some kind of authority that can intervene to protect those people from being trampled underfoot, because there are "natural" inequalities between people. The fact is, I have two working legs so I'm faster than someone who doesn't have legs, or can't use them because of a disability. But there have been a lot of strides made by disability activists to pass laws that mandate wheelchair accesibility and things like that.
>>2493239To play devil's advocate, too much of anything can turn into its opposite.
This can be critique of communism as well. OP says that communism allows for a certain amount of inequality, but his goal is to abolish it for a classless society in which there's no economic exploitation, political domination or ideological intimidation at all, but there's a real danger with concentrating basically a theoretically unlimited amount of power in the hands of the state, or a revolutionary vanguard party that controls the state as a path to get there. For example, what is actually stopping this revolutionary state from liquidating people for being enemies of the revolutionary state? That doesn't sound bad, but who defines who is / isn't a communist? It's whoever is at the top, so in practice you have a government that can kill ANYBODY and it doesn't matter if you think you're a communist because Mecha-Stalin of the Future decided that you're not, and you can plead your case, but there's nothing to really stop him. But you believe you need to do this in order to get to a place where there's total equality and freedom.
>>2493241Not to deny it, all autonomists are liberals and natlibs in disguise. Anarchism can only be the movement like ISIS that seeks to spread worldwide or be there none at all. All commody producers all you jewish nigger social conservative succdem communist larpers who believe communist states exist now in under the global capitalist mode of production - you retarded negroes of the world should be lynched.
>>2493244On this site your flag is stood for by "marxist-leninists" (stalinists) and their counterparts.
>>2493238You have a twisted mindset. It's not about lasting in modern age, since modern age won't itself last. We just build networks, wherever capital can disturb them it will, but there's always spaces it cannot reach. Where capital cedes space, we advance, where it advances we dissappear, it's unsymmetrical warfare, guerilla tactics. Point isn't to take it head on, but on all fronts at the same time, since capitalism, as every top down system, have a hard time paying attention to multiple problems at once and can be overwhelmed.
A ruler can only be of a broad assignment, a negro does not rule the field he works, a ruler is the guberment, the ministers, the politicans, the agencies, the party. In the anarchist movement we are mob lynching blackshirts that abtain from voting, if you want to see anarchism look at the fascist movement before ᴉuᴉlossnW decided to engage in elections - imagine it worldwide. Imagine the anti-theism of ᴉuᴉlossnW but worldwide, imagine the futurism, the technophilia and the anti-capitalism outlined in the ICP without ever seizing state power, that is anarchism, it is global terrorism and might makes right, it is futurism, fascism, transhumanism, it is 100% soviet power and 100% bolshevik murdering, it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat it is the abolition of class by the declassed with the forced assignment of destroying all cultures and relics of the past and focusing all of mankind's efforts into one element - the development of the productive forces towards immortality, drugs will aid the minds of the exhausted, creative and aspiring.
>>2493250>>2493254I wouldn't expect anything more from an anarkid, but the romanticization of a brutal jihadi group like ISIS makes me think you have no real principles and are just in it for the spectacle of violence.
>that's exactly how trade and other elements will be done away with, they will be "haram" and the movement will be "ISIS".So, anarchist police. Got it.
>>2493256>It's not about lasting in modern age, since modern age won't itself last. Pessimism much?
>>2493260>So, anarchist police. Got it.Why not? A cop that serves the movement, no contradiction.
Also did you read the rest of the reply? I mean murder every religious person to exist - there is no romanticizing ISIS. ISIS is given as an example since you all wish for an example of anarchism without an example existing, so I give you a clandestine cell system that lives off the name spreading alone.
>anarkidAnd should I call you infantile or baby?
>spectacleISG or Debord reader? Either way a worthless word that can only be a display of liberalism. Red army commander Trotsky said it best - it is a problem that can only be resolved by blood and iron, and Tukhachevsky obeys, we have to do it to you harder, and as long as it takes to exterminate.
>>2493284Yes pull the trigger on yourself and let them watch big tough guy. Baby bolsheviks haven't had the chance to live out such fantasies since 91.
No honest anarchist cares about buzzwords like authority. If leninists can murder themselves that would be the most convincing way to prove the state can wither on its own.
>>2493298Punks can call themselves anything they want, liberals think of anarchism as an aesthetic. The matter is that police in the present serve the bourgeois order, not the movement against the present state of things nor the movement of the declassed. Punks release "prison abolition" and "police abolition" leaflets yet present no solutions, they are simply gesturing because they cannot be anarchist in essence, only deluded activists with individualist aspirations. The real movement of anarchism is smaller than the name it carries, but only it can affect the social order - not those who play pretend in its name.
See China and the maoist movement for example - did they not wish death to all landlords? Why come they have landlords now? Because it serves their bourgeoisie state.
TL;DR Sloganism / the police don't serve the movement in the present.
>>2493297Catalonia deserved to be destroyed for collaborating with the bourgeous republican state, catalan nationalist retardation, markets and commodity production along with other factors. Syndicates without a proper communist movement to use is a dead end, they possess no class consciousness.
>>2493304They have no solutions because they aren't anarchists, anarchists don't mind labor camps and such. Modern leninism is a circus for socialdemocrats larping as bolsheviks, don't get me started on jokes.
>>2493213If Marxism-Leninism was implemented tomorrow it would last.
If anarchism was implemented tomorrow it would crumble within a very short amount of time.
Why do you think the CIA cares more about overthrowing Marxist countries than it does going after anarchists?
>>2493968Dengism = ( Maoism = Anarchism + Marxism ) + Stirnerism
Sectarianism comes when you try to demerge the synthesis soup.
>>2493968common anarkiddie L
common dengGODS W
>>2493963FACT #1: dengism is built on the basis of maoism
FACT #2: maoism is built on the basis of ML
FACT #3: you are coping
>>2493966>the most advances (sic) socialist country would be FranceLeast delusional western left social chauvinist.
>>2493213Because you see hierarchy in a different way than anarchists understand.
Ultras, for exemple, can argue withouth "making apologia for oppression".
so: undestand what we're saying and why we're saying it, don't just assume the party you defend was right because you were told so.
>>2494168Capitalism also did that.
>>2494440>Man it's so funny those people are reduced to use this kind of argument since they accepted the existence of the bourgeoisie, commodity production, private property, wage labor and all of the staples of capitalism even though capitalist countries do productive force building and poverty reduction well enough, actually Marx SAYS THIS in the manifesto.yeah,lifting people out of poverty isn'tbad, the thing is that this is a capitalist way of measuring things, since yeah, capitalism also made more people less poor, most people do not live like a peasant nowadays.
>>2494505it's a good thing, i'm not saying is bad, but if we're discussing ways to achieve socialism, than yeah, it doesn't matter.
>>2496188This is true, succdems astroturfed anarchism and liberals turned it into a punk aesthetic to be monetized and present bourgeois freedom, anarchism was about order not trashy clothing and shitty houdini leaflets, western "anarchists" and ukrainian "anarchists" are nationalist and reactionary bastards who only use the word anarchism for the military chic.
https://libcom.org/article/war-anarchism One of the first false tendencies to try to shove itself into anarchism was Tolstoy's religious retardation, a complete contradiction and bastardization that still demands to be taken seriously when used to justify bullshit like "anarcha-islam", "pagan anarchism" and other identity politics built on feudal and pre-feudal doctrines, the way they shove this shit and then pretend its all "queer friendly" and "compatible with science" is that they have to modernize it and claim its subjective or metaphorical as to butcher the original archaic meaning that was more than clearly opposed to basic "egalitarian" values such as gay rights, womens rights and has been responsibile for stagnation and persecution of scientists for a millenia. Its all been accepted because of the decadant populist class traitors and those who have no principles but rally under "popular fronts",
I don't have a solution to this yet, but neither do fraudulent marxists who have been subjected to the same issues and opened up to them. One possible solution would be a program that can be implemented across federations alongside a set of principles to be upheld, of course many federations may object to it but we have no reason to be merciful to them just because they think of themselves as "anarchists" if in principles they are not.
>Anarkids act like they understand theory and sociology better than Marxists doWe do more than you can ever comprehend.
As this anon
>>2496458 pointed out humans have lived most of their existence relativity hierarchy free only during the dawn of civilization did that change. And its arrogant to assume that it will remain the same. For communism which is common ownership of the means of production and are consequently done away with hierarchies are done away with. Any thing less is at best revisionism and at worst capitalist apologia.
>We also understand that hierarchies need to exist until we reach the stage of communism, and even then you will still see things like hierarchies of intelligence, talent, beauty, strength, and so on that can't simply be abolished through idealist methods.All
socialist states have either dissolved, returned back to capitalism or at best continued on with state socialism. And the so called state socialism has more in common with capitalism, with overseers, production quotes delivered on high, than any actual socialism that Marx or Kropotkin proposed. The organizational structure of these countries does promote communist ideas instead it promotes subservience to the state and the party. When the worker goes to voice his concerns through voting its he can only vote for party members and if there is a non party member hes only allowed to run because the party says so. This one example how these states like that of capitalist states produce frustration and apathy and because of the lack of the political voice the worker has. In a society run were workers run the means of production and there is only bigger councils for the transportation of goods and other related activities; the worker is at greater liberty to change the running of his factory through general factory meetings than, relying on the party system do it for him even if they do so. Hierarchy's only perpetrate themselves they do no disintegrate naturally, they must be forcefully destroyed.
And not to mention the glorious leaders
dictators these countries all tend to have that even capitalist countries have a better track record with.
>>2497530NTA
>doesn't the need to coordinate production and distribution of goods and resources on a global scale require some form of coercion? Uncoordinating federations which refuse to engage in planning are attempting to recreate wealth inequality and continue with a market economy, any "coercion" is simply defending against exploitation.
>how do you know that local democratic organizations production extend globally to democratic organizations?I really don't understand why so many anarchists want a democracy when democracies enable populism to simply vote away any principles. Anarchism should be programmatic.
>>2497530Maybe there isn't any need to produce and distribute goods and resources on a global scale. Maybe having a centralized global industrial society is not the preordained ultimate destiny of the human race, it is just a phase.
General systems collapse theory states that human societies tend to grow in complexity until they become unsustainable, at which point they collapse and people revert back to simpler ways of living, in a repeating continuous cycle similar to the concept of boom and bust times in economic theory. Our current complex hierarchical society will eventually collapse and the big central power structures will fragment into lots of decentralized power structures and we will be back to the "bust" part of the cycle.
>>2493213Don't care about the topic of this thread
I am trying to name all the people in the picture
From left to right:
1. Stalin 2. Mao
3. ? 4. ? 5. Ho Chi Minh 6. Kim Il Sung 7. Some zoomer? 8. Boleslaw Bierut
9.? 10. ? 11. ? 12. Matyás Rákosi 13. Valko Chervenkov ? 14. Georghe Georghiu-Dej
15.? 16.? 17. Enver Hoxha 18. Todor Zhivkov?
>>2497530Yes and no
<On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchist-federation-basic-bakuninWith the advent of the internet goods and services can be coordinated to where they are needed out the intervention of the state where needed with out the intervention of government. Hell this already true under capitalism.
I feeling I'm explaining communism to liberals, you and all like muh human nature. And its like you people are marxists but you don't seem to actually agree with Marx. An anarchist society is no different than highest stage of communism that marx thought of. All the difference is time of the implementation. And that's where I consider Marxists to be idealists as they naively belive the state to be capable of its own dissolution. Rather than in reality through its own structure reproducing it's own existence. Just like with capitalism those living under a state are inclined to view it as natural because it's the only way of organizing they know of, and anything else is considered a fantasy.
>>2493952anarchism lasted for less than a year
USSR lasted for 70 years
>>2497835>non-idealistI don't know what you mean by that, but the workers aren't allowed to organize their farms and factories outside the state. The system is set up so that the idea of self abolishing is a pipe dream, case in point the Soviet Union. The bureaucracts had a higher standard of living
especially the top level ones than your average soviet citizen and because of that just like the capital there is a material interest in keeping the status quo. For an average soviet citizen to get anywhere they had to join the party and not just that but also tow the party line or risk expulsion. From there they had make the right connections to get conformable jobs, and that means not going against the bureaucracy and brown nosing higher level bureaucracts. And it was the same higher level bureaucracts that wanted and benefited off of Perestroika and eventual liberalization of the Soviet Union because they had the connections and the money to buy off the state assets and convert them to captial. That's how the post Soviet nations got there oligarchs.
>>2497879>I don't know what you mean by thatarent you the one who called marxists idealist? you just gave an economic explanation.
so how does anarchist state abolition differ from this? where are the anarchist not-states? we have yet to see a situation in which this has happened and in fact we seen in most cases the return to capitalism.
what is the non-idealist anarchist theory for how to get rid of the state and keep it gone?
Not necessarily an answer to OP, but having been on the far-left for my entire adult life, and having run in anarchist, ML, and Trotskyist circles, I can confirm that the reasons for why people become anarchists is like night and day when compared to the reasons people become Marxists.
A lot of anarchists tend to become anarchists out of their own personal trauma. I’m serious. In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something). So many anarchist comrades of any gender have CPTSD or other neurodivergent or mental health issues. Lots of former addicts too. They literally believe the entire world is their enemy because others have screwed them over so badly. Surprisingly though, the vast majority of anarchists happen to be white or white-passing/functioning. In American anarchist circles you’ll usually have the one or two token Hispanic comrades and in Canadian anarchist circles you’ll have the one or two token indigenous comrades. But overall, anarchist spaces are full of young white people who have very severe issues with trauma and who become anarchists mostly due to said unresolved trauma.
On the other hand, most of the Marxists I know (mostly MLs and Trots) became Marxists out of their desire to understand how capitalist society works. They usually start out as intellectually inquisitive and go from there. It’s not so much a personal thing but rather a desire to collectively work together for tangible solutions. Marxist circles tend to attract more people of colour, immigrants, and genuine working-class people because it presents them with a logical and intellectual explanation for why things are as fucked up as they are, and a scientific way for dealing with said fuckery. Plus, Marxist revolutions have a decent history of success whereas every anarchist revolution inevitably falls apart after a few years. That provides real inspiration to the oppressed rather than sheer fantasy.
Plus, if you ask a Marxist how they envision the future, they will usually cite real-world examples. Ask an anarchist the same thing and they will give you a very vague response and denounce you as an oppressor if you ask for them to elaborate. Anarchism is always argued with emotion, it seems.
>A lot of anarchists tend to become anarchists out of their own personal trauma. I’m serious. In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something). So many anarchist comrades of any gender have CPTSD or other neurodivergent or mental health issues. Lots of former addicts too. They literally believe the entire world is their enemy because others have screwed them over so badly.
I can't speak for other people, but anarchy was something that already made sense to me from the beginning when I was a young child - the idea that people can make decisions as a group without some leader or higher authority figure. Authority figures don't make sense to me and never did.
To envision an anarchist world all you have to do is envision what the world was like before the Neolithic Revolution, how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years before they figured out how to grow crops and domesticate animals and build permanent agricultural settlements. Small tribes where everyone knows everyone and can govern themselves through direct arbitration and no central governing body. Obviously such a thing is not very feasible for a modern nation state with a population of hundreds of millions, or even a city with a population of a few thousand. Permanent human settlements eventually grow too large and complex to manage their affairs without some kind of hierarchy beginning to form out of necessity. Anarchy isn't a means, it is an end - anarchy was the original form of human governance that existed in a time when our species was so primitive that all humans across the Earth were more or less on equal footing. Technology fucked all that up because technology doesn't develop uniformly, it develops sporadically and randomly all over the world and it disrupts power dynamics and gives people advantages that they didn't have before and our technological progress has always vastly outpaced our social progress.
But eventually civilization could reach the point where maybe our social progress can finally catch up, or maybe some combination of technological and social progress could once again make it no longer necessary for humans to live in giant cities or have nations or borders or to treat land as property, humans would return to their rightful place as children of the earth rather than suzerains of it, just go find a spot somewhere and throw your Dragon Ball Z capsule house on the ground and you're all set. And when huge complex cities of millions of people are no longer necessary for humans to live and meet their needs, government will also cease to be necessary and tribal living and anarchy will return. And we'll be a lot happier because that's what our brains evolved for, humans were not meant to live like ants in an ant colony, we're a tribal species and we always have been.
>>2493213The simplest accurate argument against anarchism is just that an anarchist society will be easily conquered by a non-anarchist society, so it doesn't matter how good anarchism is in theory. There's a reason why the majority of history's dominant institutions - militaries, governments, churches, corporations - are based on hierarchy. It's because hierarchy works to make an organization powerful. Not too much hierarchy, of course - you want ideas to be able to flow from the bottom to the top so that the organization does not start to stagnate and behave stupidly - but still a large amount of hierarchy compared to anarchy.
A theoretical society that cannot actually be implemented without being conquered within weeks or months unless it hides in deep mountains or jungles like a prey animal evading predators is pretty much useless except as a thought experiment.
>Marxism, OTOH, is scientificMaybe Marx was, I don't know, haven't read him. Marxism as a movement is not particularly scientific. Marxists tend to have a remarkable talent at not learning from empirical observation. So do people who have all sorts of other ideologies, of course, but in any case it's clear to me that Marxism is not distinguished as a movement by any unusual degree of being scientific.
You don't. The anarchist's position is not a rational one, but an emotional one borne out of cowardice and the most willful and strident ignorance. Anarchists aren't worth convincing.
The thing you should think about is why you want power or why you are imposing authority to rule others. I know your argument because it's a child's belief; that authority is "just-so" and can be dictated without purpose or any actual wellspring of authority beyond the display of violence. Power is only useful if there is a moral argument for it. If the goal is to rule because you insist on it, no one has any reason to ever regard that. It does not require a great intellect to see how pointless such a world is.
If we weren't stupid, the political question would have a limited purview, and private life would not be state business. This doesn't prevent the government from establishing or facilitating sharing of the wealth, for the best interests of those involved and so we're not stuck in an interminable cycle of struggles and opportunism. We all know people like you do not want that; that for you this is about some impetuous and idiotic barking. All you do is managerialism. I really wish stupid people like you weren't allowed to lead. You're the inheritors of the cowardliness of the anarchists.
Is it too much for you to offer a single good reason why anyone should follow you? Are their personal interests in security and having food to eat met? That is the most basic condition of any socialist society. You can't have anything if people are starving or live with a knife at their throat. Managerialism insists on the knife at the throat, and only feeds the people the barest minimum while depleting anything else they would have to live for. Once sufficiently emaciated, managerialism kills off the surplus population without fail. It can't not do this. It doesn't matter if the managerialism is the eugenic creed or some other, equally ill-considered form of managerialism.
What you think of as "politics" is just a managerialist credo to justify some shitty power grab. You aren't ruling men. You're barking conceits at people and insisting anyone else should respect it. Until you can speak again of sharing the damned wealth, you don't stand for anything. The positions of communism in any form anyone should want are lost.
I've seen so much sniveling from internet Marxists about basic shit that is first year political knowledge or even something you would have learned in high school, if not for this complete garbage-tier education that insisted on turning the world into the shitshow we see today.
>>2507933>But the small tribal society would be soon conquered by big hierarchical societies, since the latter would be much more powerful. The small tribal society can exist in theory, but in practice it cannot exist for any long period of time. The only exceptions are if it becomes a vassal of some strong society, in which case it stops being actually anarchist, or if it ekes out an existence somewhere on the periphery where it is not worth conquering.This is why I don't think anarchy can happen on a widespread scale until some major technological development causes a major paradigm shift in the way humans live. For instance, imagine we develop pre-fabricated self-sufficient "smarthouses", you just unbox it somewhere with access to sunlight and water and watch it self-assemble and you've got a multi-bedroom house with electricity, plumbing, etc. When you're done with it, you just pack up your belongings and push the button and it disassembles itself and goes back in the box. The whole off-the-grid weirdo Slab City-type subculture I think would go nuts with something like that, there'd probably be like a whole mass exodus of people fed up with city life moving out into anarchist enclaves and communes in the middle of nowhere in their self-sufficient mobile homes, having drones deliver whatever random shit they might need to their doorstep.
>>2507955Hierarchy in society exists for purposes. It is not arbitrarily defined nor can it be if it is to be functional. The arrangement of political offices of increasing rank can only persist if it is functional, and all of these offices incur an inherent cost. The primitive society couldn't arbitrarily start barking orders and declare that they have consuls and the whole apparatus that Rome built. Also, freedom from that Roman system was usually the reason why tribal societies fought against the Romans bitterly, while the people of the East usually didn't fight for long and fared little better than the primitive Gauls or Germans. Considering the Germans survived and eventually broke the Empire, despite their society being predominantly tribal and lacking any of the sophisticated hierarchy the Romans have, you probably should reconsider the shit coming out of your mouth.
Today, hierarchy is diffused on purpose, because doing this obscures any center of power that a resistant population would attack to free themselves. If you could assassinate POTUS and the justices on SCOTUS to change the world, everyone and their mother would want a shot at President Retard. If you're up against a faceless and cruel machine whose informants are crawling everywhere, with an unnerving ability to foment discord and turn people against each other, it is much more daunting. All of the ways this can be done were known to the Romans, and the smart Emperors were able to win power because they commanded the Roman mob and knew how to keep the Legions loyal. Every government, no matter how despotic, rules by making sure the subordinates are placated and set against each other, and by systematically shutting out those who are not in the political class.
>>2493213That decentralization leads to mob based violence and dismissal/cancel culture. That dencentralised systems typically end up far more authoritarian and arbitrary in dishing out said authoritarian violence, than central managed control systems.
Look at how CHAZ descended into vigilante and decentralised authoritarianism and then murder almost immediately. Look at the Cultural Revolution, people were given largely complete grassroots democratic freedoms and instantly used them to carry out petty grudges, vendettas, and petty hooliganism.
https://thepointmag.com/politics/dismissal/There is a 99% chance that any form of "anarchism" will turn out to be mob violence directed by the hands of charismatic narcissists and sociopaths. Look at the result of pretty the vast majority of Anarkiddie communes from the 60s-90s, they pretty much all became sex abuse farms controlled by a charismatic/strong willed cluster B who used their charisma and aura to gain yesmen to bully everyone else.
>>2507823>A lot of anarchists tend to become anarchists out of their own personal trauma. I’m serious. In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something).I mean, no shock here, Punk and Anarchism has always been the culture and ideology of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Every time I get dragged to a punk gig or squat by BPDs I know, my eyes can't help but roll out of my fucking head by how 99% of people there check off every BPD diagnostic criteria in the most stereotypical way imaginable.
Unique IPs: 56