▲ -2 ▼ Bakunin? Kropotkin? Never heard of them... (crazypeople.online) submitted 11 months ago by hamid@crazypeople.online to c/memes@lemmy.ml 28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 24 points 11 months ago (12 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) I don't understand anarchism at least in the context of reading about half of this web page, which basically just repeats the notion that a true radical can not vote because that reinforces capitalism, "well both sides are bad" and the individual can not rule over the many. Truly, in principal I agree with what this is saying. But to spark a revolution, the government needs to become so much worse than it currently is. I don't think anarchism has actually happened and been sustained, tell me if I'm wrong. If Anarchism was on the cusp of succeeding and it was all those democrat voters which caused it to fail I would completely understand not voting. Rather Anarchism gives permission to the right to continue there slaughter. While in the same way voting in an election gives the magical president that capitalism works, (But still holding a net vote towards a better outcome) not voting in an election has the same president that capitalism doesn't work. Because a non voter is the same as a centrist when the choice to vote or not to vote is actually the "vote" someone should make. Nobody hears you. Truly, as an anarchist are you homeschooling your children? Would you go to a public hospital? Sorry to do the "Communism =/ Iphone" but the government has good things, and increasing those good things are, good. Is this kind of Anarchism a kind of Accelerationism where you let the state continue to make living conditions worse on principal that this is the system capitalism created? I believe in using every resource available to make everything better, and I won't hold those further left than me from succeeding because the enemy is the right, but I also want leftists to come together and agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago You are right, my politics are basically just vibes. I think my politics are mostly just common sense which is this current system isn't working how do we fix it. I acknowledge that the system isn't broken, it's working as intended. You live in Mexico, don't you have a progressive leader right now? This at least improves living conditions temporarily. I heard one of her policies was enforcing the minimum wage increase to be above the increase of inflation. This is a policy that I personally wish would be implemented in my own country. I would vote for someone like this. I think fighting for a political system which will likely never come in your lifetime is admirable, but unrealistic. I personally fight for a system wherr the government gives every person the minimum requirements to live. Free food, housing, healthcare, water, electricity, transport, and education. This will make people not need to work under corporations, which will then make corporations meet the need of the worker or fall. I also fight for no government donations, this will make politicians have less alterior motives, making policy better. That's all I need within my lifetime is a government which makes the health and wellbeing of an Individual as best as it could be. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago A policy here and there may change that's the whole point... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) I think voting is useful tho If there are decent options, votes can show support for it, regardless of a win or loss. The results would signal that there is decent support on it or became a part of awareness on issues or points. Not dismissing other parts on direct action and the fact that there is no right to recall in elections(Not USAmerican or EU-ian. Do you have right to recall?) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Sorry, no. Was responding to the article that you shared permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago Also, that is an argument for not voting in NZ, which is even stupider than not voting in the USA, since NZ has MMP and a reasonably large left party in the form of the Green party... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago also: not voting is essentially refusing to work with other leftists permalink fedilink source parent [+] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -7 points 11 months ago (4 children) Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you're involved in any kind of direct action. The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don't think that's a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier. I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the "reasonable politician", not the radical that they promised to be. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 child) Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things. Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago* (1 child) a very cheap one Basically 1 billion dollars for 2022-2023 alone in Australia https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/cost-of-elections.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 1 point 11 months ago "Very cheap" in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) I don't understand anarchism at least in the context of reading about half of this web page, which basically just repeats the notion that a true radical can not vote because that reinforces capitalism, "well both sides are bad" and the individual can not rule over the many. Truly, in principal I agree with what this is saying. But to spark a revolution, the government needs to become so much worse than it currently is. I don't think anarchism has actually happened and been sustained, tell me if I'm wrong. If Anarchism was on the cusp of succeeding and it was all those democrat voters which caused it to fail I would completely understand not voting. Rather Anarchism gives permission to the right to continue there slaughter. While in the same way voting in an election gives the magical president that capitalism works, (But still holding a net vote towards a better outcome) not voting in an election has the same president that capitalism doesn't work. Because a non voter is the same as a centrist when the choice to vote or not to vote is actually the "vote" someone should make. Nobody hears you. Truly, as an anarchist are you homeschooling your children? Would you go to a public hospital? Sorry to do the "Communism =/ Iphone" but the government has good things, and increasing those good things are, good. Is this kind of Anarchism a kind of Accelerationism where you let the state continue to make living conditions worse on principal that this is the system capitalism created? I believe in using every resource available to make everything better, and I won't hold those further left than me from succeeding because the enemy is the right, but I also want leftists to come together and agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago You are right, my politics are basically just vibes. I think my politics are mostly just common sense which is this current system isn't working how do we fix it. I acknowledge that the system isn't broken, it's working as intended. You live in Mexico, don't you have a progressive leader right now? This at least improves living conditions temporarily. I heard one of her policies was enforcing the minimum wage increase to be above the increase of inflation. This is a policy that I personally wish would be implemented in my own country. I would vote for someone like this. I think fighting for a political system which will likely never come in your lifetime is admirable, but unrealistic. I personally fight for a system wherr the government gives every person the minimum requirements to live. Free food, housing, healthcare, water, electricity, transport, and education. This will make people not need to work under corporations, which will then make corporations meet the need of the worker or fall. I also fight for no government donations, this will make politicians have less alterior motives, making policy better. That's all I need within my lifetime is a government which makes the health and wellbeing of an Individual as best as it could be. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago You are right, my politics are basically just vibes. I think my politics are mostly just common sense which is this current system isn't working how do we fix it. I acknowledge that the system isn't broken, it's working as intended. You live in Mexico, don't you have a progressive leader right now? This at least improves living conditions temporarily. I heard one of her policies was enforcing the minimum wage increase to be above the increase of inflation. This is a policy that I personally wish would be implemented in my own country. I would vote for someone like this. I think fighting for a political system which will likely never come in your lifetime is admirable, but unrealistic. I personally fight for a system wherr the government gives every person the minimum requirements to live. Free food, housing, healthcare, water, electricity, transport, and education. This will make people not need to work under corporations, which will then make corporations meet the need of the worker or fall. I also fight for no government donations, this will make politicians have less alterior motives, making policy better. That's all I need within my lifetime is a government which makes the health and wellbeing of an Individual as best as it could be. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago You are right, my politics are basically just vibes. I think my politics are mostly just common sense which is this current system isn't working how do we fix it. I acknowledge that the system isn't broken, it's working as intended. You live in Mexico, don't you have a progressive leader right now? This at least improves living conditions temporarily. I heard one of her policies was enforcing the minimum wage increase to be above the increase of inflation. This is a policy that I personally wish would be implemented in my own country. I would vote for someone like this. I think fighting for a political system which will likely never come in your lifetime is admirable, but unrealistic. I personally fight for a system wherr the government gives every person the minimum requirements to live. Free food, housing, healthcare, water, electricity, transport, and education. This will make people not need to work under corporations, which will then make corporations meet the need of the worker or fall. I also fight for no government donations, this will make politicians have less alterior motives, making policy better. That's all I need within my lifetime is a government which makes the health and wellbeing of an Individual as best as it could be. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago A policy here and there may change that's the whole point... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) I think voting is useful tho If there are decent options, votes can show support for it, regardless of a win or loss. The results would signal that there is decent support on it or became a part of awareness on issues or points. Not dismissing other parts on direct action and the fact that there is no right to recall in elections(Not USAmerican or EU-ian. Do you have right to recall?) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Sorry, no. Was responding to the article that you shared permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Sorry, no. Was responding to the article that you shared permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Sorry, no. Was responding to the article that you shared permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago Also, that is an argument for not voting in NZ, which is even stupider than not voting in the USA, since NZ has MMP and a reasonably large left party in the form of the Green party... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago also: not voting is essentially refusing to work with other leftists permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -7 points 11 months ago (4 children) Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you're involved in any kind of direct action. The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don't think that's a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier. I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the "reasonable politician", not the radical that they promised to be. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 child) Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things. Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago* (1 child) a very cheap one Basically 1 billion dollars for 2022-2023 alone in Australia https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/cost-of-elections.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 1 point 11 months ago "Very cheap" in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 child) Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things. Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 child) Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things. Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago* (1 child) a very cheap one Basically 1 billion dollars for 2022-2023 alone in Australia https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/cost-of-elections.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 1 point 11 months ago "Very cheap" in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 1 point 11 months ago "Very cheap" in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved permalink fedilink source parent