communist
@communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
I’m an anarchocommunist, all states are evil.
Your local herpetology guy.
Feel free to AMA about picking a pet/reptiles in general, I have a lot of recommendations for that!
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 2 hours ago:
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 12 hours ago:
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 12 hours ago:
We were taught about political systems in 7th grade, so it’s quite stretch for you to claim people need to read philosophers to understand them.
If you don’t read primary sources then you don’t know what they actually say, this is how you end up being propagandized into believing the absolute nonsense you believe about what anarchists believe.
But i actually have read philosophers, but it wasn’t very big reads and it was long ago, doesn’t take much to recognize when you are confronted with bullshit.
which ones?
OK that’s not anarchy. maybe someone calls it so, but that has NOTHING to do with what anarchy actually means.
Bakunin, proudhon, literally every single founder of anarchist thought would COMPLETELY disagree with you, can you point to a single one that agrees with you?
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 15 hours ago:
Have you ever read a philosopher on democracy? If not, how can you have such strong opinions without doing your research?
Yes, I have, I wouldn’t if I didn’t.
It’s not like Anarchy is some very complex concept, Fundamental political ideologies are not that hard to understand, like theocracy, dictatorship, communism, democracy. It’s all pretty simple, and so is anarchy.
The notion that you think they’re simple is my proof that you are completely unread on them. Explain mutualism to me, I doubt you can.
And of all of the above, democracy is the best we have, but in that context, it’s important to notice that USA is NOT an actual democracy!!! It’s a flawed democracy, and the flaws are very fundamental.
I agree, democracy is by far the greatest system ever created, that’s why I maximize it, I want democracy in the workplace, democracy for every single law, I want democracy everywhere. The flaw is that we don’t actually have a democracy, our democracy lets us elect representatives, but not choose laws that actually benefit us.
PS: Descartes was strongly in favor of anarchy, but even he ended up admitting that it cannot work. That was about 400 years ago, when philosophers were very busy trying to rethink models for how society can work. But the fundamental idea of Anarchy hasn’t really changed since then. If it had, it would be called something other than anarchy.
The notion that descartes couldn’t figure it out and therefore it must be fundamentally flawed is actually legitimately hilarious. that was before even PROUDHON. 90% of anarchist thought hadn’t even happened at that point, descartes was not some god that could figure out every detail of everything.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 23 hours ago:
I stated only facts. You can’t even name an anarchist philosopher you’ve read but have strong feelings about the ideology.
if you want to have a valid, useful opinion on something, do the bare minimum of research.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, however.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
No you have to show it actually works, the idea of anarchy goes back to ancient Greece, and there has never been a functioning society based on it. Because it doesn’t function.
categorically false
So it wasn’t anarchist, it was merely one among many groups, it had a traditional government, and it lasted for only 2 years
You’ve already proven you don’t know what anarchism is or how its defined by saying that because it had a government it wasn’t anarchist.
I’ve read philosophical books about forms of government
there’s a reason we use primary sources to analyze things, which books of proudhon, kropotkin, or bakunin have you read?
Communism works so poorly, while Social democracies seem to be just about the best form of government we have achieved yet. This is in combination with my interest in national economy, and psychology from an evolutionary perspective.
Have you ever considered that maybe people with a lot of resources want these things not to happen, and that’s the primary reason they don’t happen, rather than them being fundamentally flawed?
And yes based on my experiences it’s extremely clear that anarchy is not a realistically functional form of governance. Anarchy for bigger societies is ONLY something countries devolve to, for instance after a war, and things ONLY get better when a proper government is restored. And by better I mean not killing each other, and not die of starvation, and the economy working and access to hospitals and education. All the things we normally take for granted in developed societies.
This has nothing in common with any definition of anarchism or any implementation of anarchism by any of the founding philosophers of anarchism, you don’t even know how to define anarchism, those things “devolving into anarchy” has literally nothing to do with anarchist philosophy, and is just a co-opting of the term.
I’ve presented to you the LACK of anarchist societies of scale as an indication it does not work. This means there is no proof it works, and since the idea and principles are clearly not working even in theory in my opinion, the lack of evidence to the contrary mean I see Absolutely no reason to believe it can work.
How do you know that the reason it doesn’t work isn’t because there’s very powerful people who want it to not work? All evidence seems to point to that, considering they’re always destroyed by outside forces.
You have shown NOTHING to make a plausible argument for anarchy, on the contrary everything I’ve been shown by you and others turn out to be clearly flawed and not support anything that is claimed.
I have, you just are arguing against a strawman, you believe that if there’s a government, it isn’t anarchy, because you don’t know what anarchists actually believe.
Again Anarchy as an idea dates back to ancient Greece for fucks sake, and there is NO society of scale in history to my knowledge that has proven it works even partially. It’s very easy to prove me wrong, because if there is, all you have to do is provide a link to said society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
Many things have been tried for the past 2000 years around the globe, if Anarchy which has been a known theoretical model for all that time actually worked, it should be very widespread by now.
Categorically false, you could’ve made this argument about capitalism during feudalist times, capitalist countries absolutely do dogpile anarchists and communists.
This is so much bullshit. the modern form of capitalism is only 5-600 years old. EVERY society before that cannot have been oppressed by capitalism.
No, but they were then oppressed by feudal lords…
Capitalism also isn’t a form of governance, it’s a method to facilitate economic activity. Which is why ALL democracies are capitalist. Capitalism may suck hard, but we have nothing to replace it with yet.
No, all democracies are capitalist because capitalist destroy democracies that aren’t. The reason all communist countries are authoritarian is because only authoritarians can hold onto power when the CIA, the worlds largest military tries to destroy them.
Anarchy is not an alternative to capitalism, on the contrary. Anarchy as an idea was always about pursuing individual interests. The exact opposite of socialism. To facilitate the pursuance of individual interests, capitalism in a democracy is the best model we know of.
You again don’t even know what that means. Which anarchist philosophers did you get these ideas from? Name them.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
“They are usually destroyed by outside forces”
By significant size, I’d say it needs to be at least 50000 people
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
What do you do if that happens in non-anarchist societies?
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.
Yeah, against the state, but not a government, which in anarchist philosophy are two different things.
What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded?
None, but plenty of government apparatuses would exist with funding through taxes…
Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence.
Usually through rotational authority, again, this shows you haven’t read any anarchist philosophy.
Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.
rotational. authority.
Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you’ve heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.
no anarchist philosophers supported cult-like systems.
It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin’s idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).
Their need to privately fund it only exists in a society that isn’t anarchist. I’m not confusing anarchy, I’ve read my anarchist philosophy, and could talk to you about the beliefs of bakunin, proudhon, and kropotkin, there’s others, but those are the basic ones.
It’s important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.
Sure, it is important, but I don’t see what that has to do with our discussion.
People like to focus on the “I can do…” freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are “I can refuse to have … done to me” freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.
yup, that’s true, don’t know what it has to do with anything though.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.
Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.
Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Anarchists are not against government, they’re against the state, and these are two different things.
They are also not against rules, there’s no power vacuum because power is held by consensus. I don’t think you’ve ever read an anarchist philosopher, based on this take.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Why can’t they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn’t an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
What is it then, define it?
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Anarchism has nothing to do with “no rules”
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
- That’s why you default to a vote in cases where consensus is impossible
- because it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy, please read the work of proudhon, bakunin, or kropotkin before giving your opinions on anarchism.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Also, you list syndicates as an example, which is an anarchist belief.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
In anarchism, usually policing is handled rotationally, like most positions of authority.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Which anarchist philosophers beliefs did you find foolish and young? I’d love a critique!
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job.
The consensus building forum, an example of one of these that you can research are the zapatista councils of good government
A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
This has never been an issue in any anarchist society that has ever existed. They simply set aside a day of the week to allow people to form consensus, they would discuss the issue and anyone that wants to say something about it can, and then there’s either a vote on the matter, or a consensus decision.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Yeah, in zapatista councils if everyone doesn’t agree they leave it to a vote. Outside forces are definitely a problem for sure, but I see no reason to believe it’s an unsolveable one, and it certainly doesn’t mean you aren’t completely strawmanning the anarchist argument.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).
Anarchists are for the abolishment of all unjust heirarchy, not all heirarchy in general, this is also a strawman. In an anarchist society this would often be done with a weekly or monthly randomly assigned rotation, although there are tons of methods.
Please actually bother to take a moment and read the works of proudhon, bakunin, and kropotkin, even a summary, before you talk about your strong opinions about anarchism. You simply don’t know enough to begin to have an argument, I wouldn’t give strong opinions about something I don’t even know the basics of.
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
There are tons, they just are usually destroyed by outside forces
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Maybe you mean general elections on every detail of law, but again, that’s impossible, it’s stupid, it’s a waste of time and resources to have people decide how farmers interact with suppliers and dairy, something 99.9% of all people have no knowledge of.
this is not a problem in any real world anarchist society, what actually happens is building law through consensus, look at the way the zapatistas organize for example.
showing up to the meetings isn’t mandatory, but they have one day off where everyone is allowed to participate, in the event of a tie, they vote, but most decisions are made through consensus.
also I think you vastly overestimate how much laws need to be changed, lawmakers will not endlessly go back and forth about unimportant things. did you know most members of congress in the us don’t even read the bills they sign? How much work is it really to help with making law once a week or so?
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
Anarchists believe in a government with direct democracy, you are arguing against a strawman
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules
They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said “let’s just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes”
- Comment on What do you think of anarchism? 1 day ago:
You don’t know what anarchism is or what it means and are arguing with a strawman.
- Comment on For-profit Pie Adblock (from the founder of Honey) called out for copying uBlock Origin open source code without credit 4 weeks ago:
That’s why we need to start using libre
- Comment on lewd noodles 2 months ago:
Scaleless beardies are one of the most detrimental ones however, that one is very unfortunate for the animal
- Comment on lewd noodles 2 months ago:
If you think about it scales are just keratin, basically hair
- Comment on lewd noodles 2 months ago:
In captivity it’s fine, however some scaleless morphs are detrimental to survival, there are no safe scaleless ball python morphs for example, this is a rat/corn snake, they have one of the benign ones