Did you read the article yet? If anything he just succeeded in making her look kind of bad to most normal brained people without even trying.

I hate marketing but I don't understand what the big scandal is. Did you want him to say "wow I think that's evil" or something? He's a liberal he's not gonna do that.

He's just asking probing questions to understand how a marketer understands and thinks about marketing. Like an interviewer would. He's not making a value statement and saying it's good.

I guess maybe he's just expressing disdain for the interviewee? But out of context it makes the interviewer look worse.

This is obvious if you read the article and *really* obvious on the audio. Idk how Ed read it differently.

He's mocking the idea. He had asked a question about how to market his *charity store.*

His tone in the second part is more mocking the idea. He's talking about his charity store that donates profits to charity.

Industrial Collectivization During the Spanish Revolution Deirdre Hogan Industrial Collectivization During the Spanish Revolution 2003 This page is from Red & Black Revolution (no 7, Winter 2003)

Catalonia is a salient example, although I have my own criticisms. I don't think I'll convince you of that so I won't try, although you might find this account interesting:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/deir...

I can appreciate that you'll give credit where it's due. It's true the Zapatistas have had more difficulty with cartels in recent years but they're restructuring to adapt. I think anarchism can work in an industrial economy and even improve efficiency by cutting out poor managers and rent seekers.

And it hasn't been around very long in the grand scale of history so this means two things: First, isn't a serious argument to think anarchism couldn't have more successful projects just because it hasn't yet. Second, it's naive to think that this 250ish year old social form is here to stay.

I didn't argue that history is teleological or that anarchism is inevitable. I'm not a marxist lol. That's a very unpopular view in anarchist circles. Don't put words in my mouth. I was merely pointing out that liberalism emerged from social forces fighting over the course of centuries

You're not describing the real world. You're refusing to see the cracks all around you. Every example of anarchism existing and people thriving under it is hand-waved away. The failures of liberalism swept under the rug.

Parent to child is not the only way culture and ideas transmit or communities are reproduced... that really shouldn't need to be explained.

I'm not talking about intentional communities.

The birth pangs of revolutionary liberalism took centuries. Some time its age will probably pass. Hopefully to something better. Dream bigger than mass violence for the "greater good" forever, man.

Look you don't have to think anarchism is good but "it doesn't look like a state," and "it hasn't held sway over an arbitrarily large territory for an arbitrarily long period of time yet so it won't" just aren't a real argument.

The Zapatista's have also effectively held discrete territory autonomously within the official borders of Mexico for decades. A bit more than a cult. There are more examples.

Culture and ideas are reproduced through living communities. Anarchists have been experimenting with social form for at least 150 years. It's not going away because people get old lol.

Your precious democracy cannot defend itself!

Is Franco good because he won? Tell me - from which social form did Franco arise from? Idiot.

Form of social organization but what would be the point?

I mean I could get into how anarchist catalonia saw massive productivity gains by cutting out rent seekers and middle men and built one of the worlds first universal healthcare systems in the middle of the civil war while fighting effectively even if outnumbered but all while experimenting in a new

I don't know man i think if your whole argument in the end boils down to it can't work because it doesn't look like a state or isn't a dominant social form yet I think you're kind of a laughably unserious thinker and there's no point talking to you.

Have a nice day.

It exists right now as we are speaking. That's what you are unable to see.

You might as well say the entire history of representative democracy is "and then a dictator took over." We are after all, in the middle of history, and one would be naive to think that democracies will never fall.

This is facilely untrue! Not all social movements (not that social movements can be considered to have single agreed upon aims and means) seek to capture and wield state power. The ubiquity of this is a modern phenomenon seen primarily under representative democracy.

- gains whenever they are. It is a tool of domination. It can be used for ill and it can sometimes be used for good but when your hammer is a hammer you're always gonna use it to hit things.

Social movements were freeing slaves and liberating women from the long arm of state violence at different points in history for hundreds of years before the emancipation proclamation or the signing of the 19th amendment or what have you. Crucially states are at the center of turning back these -

Bro I'm gonna walk you through a little logic puzzle. A causes B, and B causes C. Therefore, A causes C.

I didn't say anarchism (alone) ended slavery. But social movements did. This is not even an unorthodox political science view of social change it's like 101 level lol.

Because it does not resemble a territory on the map with a name and an army.

There is an entire breadth of anarchist social theory about how to foster non-hierarchical social technologies to limit the use of arbitrary violence and the domination of man by man that is being practiced and lived the world over under the shadows of the state that you are completely oblivious to-