all 59 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

👆

that's a very petit understanding of anarchism

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don't give a fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.

    But she can't nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.

    Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.

    The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.

    The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    I think it sounds nice, but it's hard for me to take it seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    They do it in southern Kurdistan. Not sure if you take them seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    How do they manufacture their defensive weapons or communications equipment in harmony with nature? I'm just saying that an-prim isn't a realistic model for the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    Vietcong was able to defend against the raid of the Washington beatling even though they had no industry. Southern Kurdistan is maintaining their position even though they don't produce their weapons. Zapatistas has a stronghold.

    Isn't the most important thing that these bodies actually are able to defend their areas?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    They all have support of industrialized areas. None of them are/were an-prim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Not sure if I understand you correctly. You say that all of them are importing industrial goods? That doesn't imply that they are not anprim.

    Let me know if I misinterpret you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, none of them would describe themselves as an-prim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Does it matter which tags they associate with? As long as they are not doing industry, and living with nature, that's all that matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The Viet Cong and Kurdistanis are "living with nature"? I don't even know what that really means. It also seems to me to be against the spirit (if not the practice) of anprim to simply outsource industry.

    Like I said at first, I think it (anprim) sounds nice but only as a kind of vague ideal. Fun to think about, but I can't take it seriously as any kind of revolutionary aspiration. And again, I don't think any of your examples (which are worth taking seriously, btw) are anything like my understanding of anprim.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    No government can give you freedom🏴🚩

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    No Masters, No Slaves.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (31 children)

    ...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.

    The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    No, it means, no rulers.

    Anomie means no rules

    Edit: at least that's the German word for a society without rules. Anarchy can perfectly integrate social rules, but without rulers. Made by the people in the society they live in.

    Edit 2: auto correct fucked my over quite some times here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Ok, and who gets to decide those rules?

    And don't start with "everyone decides them", I mean practically. Who gets to have the idea of a rule, bring it forth to the group, organize the whole shtick of deciding on it, implement it, inform everyone else how the new rule works, enforce it, and everything else that needs to happen for a rule to exist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Do some reading. There are a lot of solutions. The most obvious, as you brought it up just to dismiss it, is direct democracy. Everyone votes. There are other options too, like a rotating panel of representatives, so no one has lasting g authority and everyone shares in it.

    There are people smarter than both of us who think it's a good idea and have thought of potential solutions. Before you just dismiss things out of hand, you should actually look into what solutions have been thought of before. I promise you your thought isn't unique, and people have considered how it would work. Maybe you can learn from it, even if you don't agree with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

    how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (17 children)

    I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn't hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Direct democracy makes the majority into an authority over the minority. You are also going to have to enforce those laws. That means cops and, more importantly, judges. That is unless you plan to try every single criminal in a national referendum. Or you could put them in front of unsupervised juries, in which case you might as well codify it as legalized lynching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    I love people who are so confident that they're the first people to think of something. You assume you must be correct just because you feel strongly about it. This has all been considered. Here's the Anarchist wiki, for your perusal. You might learn something there if you're actually open to learning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    I love it that you assume I should know or care that there is an anarchist wiki. No, I certainly don't think I was the first to think of anything, and no, you have given me no reason to want to "learn something". I studied philosophy of government in college and have read the anarchy page on Wikipedia, have you done either?

    Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    The fact you first think reading a single wiki page is sufficient, and also mention the wrong page, makes this hilarious. Little a anarchy is not the same as big A Anarchism. Anarchism is the political thought. Yes, I've read it.

    Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.

    Because you have a curious mind and want to be informed. You'd rather know the solutions others have come up with for your hypothetical problems than to think no one has considered it. You'd rather find out you were uninformed and learned something new instead of thinking refusing to learn makes you feel right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    If I don't study conservapedia, it's not because I don't have a curious mind or want to be informed. How is this any different.

    BTW, I went and looked up "Law" on your wiki, and fuck if it didn't confirm that I had it exactly right. The only substance on the page makes it clear that laws and Anarchism are not compatible. The rest is a bunch of hand waving nonsense about community standards.

    BTW: The Wikipedia entry on "Anarchist Law" makes a hell of a better case for it. You should have sent me there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    The prehistoric southern levenant was peaceful for over 10,000 years despite not having any laws or police.

    Source

    Just gonna drop this info here. 👆

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    The prehistoric.... Prehistoric, like "before history"? Like, before anyone would have written things down. That's pretty convenient. Call me skeptical that they had no hierarchies or violence. Especially given that primitive primates today have hierarchies and are known to have "wars" between neighboring groups,

    How did they deal with drunk assholes driving 70 miles an hour past a playground?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I could give you more examples.

    The Indus Valley civilisation was a large scale egalitarian civilisation with a estimated peak population of 4-5 million people.

    The Cucuteni-trypillia civilisation Started out as a peaceful egalitarian civilisation.

    Cayonu started out as a hierarchical civilisation but became egalitarian after the lower class overthrew its rulers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    None of this addresses my point at all.

    Human brains evolved to operate in small societies and, barring extreme circumstances, we do real well in a world where 99% of the population dies within 10 miles of their birthplace. It's when social networks grow beyond 150 or so people that things really start to break down. That's not an issue for ancient societies, but that's toothpaste out of the tube. We aren't going back to that unless the human population falls to a tiny fraction of what it is now.

    I share a dislike of hierarchy and think that we could have a whole lot less of it than we do now. If an anarchist society would actually function in the modern world, it would be a lot closer to my vision of a just society than our current world is. I think anarchist philosophy makes arguments worth making, but actual mass implementation is ridiculous. Frankly, I see it as a way for edgy Internet philosophers to excuse them from actual political activism on fronts that might actually do some good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The fact that you can't make a single point in your own words without linking me to what amounts to propaganda is pretty telling. Nothing I've seen in that wiki has been intellectually honest or even interesting. I have no interest in continuing this kind of conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    What's the difference between this and libertarianism?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    If I am not mistaken, Initially anarchism was called libertarianism, but later libertarianism was co-opted by American pro-market believers and now refers to anarcho-capitalists.

    As for why an-caps are not real anarchists you can read an in depth explanation here. But briefly it is just an oxymoron. Anarchists believe in a world without hierarchies and capitalism is a system defined by the existence of two classes of people(capitalists and working people) and their relationship to the means of production. So there is an inherently hierarchical relationship within capitalism.

  • source
  • parent