- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://piefed.blahaj.zone/c/politicalmemes/p/392491/do-you-agree
Do you agree?
You must log in or # to comment.
George Carlin said it, and it’s true. Rights don’t exist. We’ve gotten to the level where things that used to seem protected are now violated, and pointing to the laws that say they are rights doesn’t do anything. Once checks and balances disappeared, the ones in control could do whatever they want, especially when everyone else is still trying to use the rules that aren’t being acknowledged or enforced to “fight” back.
Yup its almost word for word of his bit
I read it thinking,“Does this guy really think he’s the only one who watched Carlin and is now trying to pass it off as his own idea?”
a lot of the countries that signed up to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption
have made it almost impossible to take those rights away
pretty good huh? lets continue enforcing these rights, right?
almost impossible my ass.
Might makes right in this world.
This take isn’t even controversial, it’s just true. Same with the privileges temporarily given by the supreme court, same when they called people “essential workers” when they meant “expendable human capital”.
the controversial part is the OP calling this anarchist. anarchists advocate for rights that arise from mutual respect and social cooperation.
100% facts
A call for human rights that can’t be taken away by the first idiot is not anarchism, it’s the most basic common sense and logic upon which a good society should be built.
And if we want to have actual rights, then we must build a system in which no one has the power to take them away to begin with.
So, they had me up till here. But what I think they’re trying to describe is a dual-power relationship between the state and labor, by which the powers of the state are checked by the power of working people. That’s an idealistic vision of the future, but it isn’t a proven strategy. Just the opposite - its a strategy riddled with more failures than successes.
A call for human rights that can’t be taken away by the first idiot is not anarchism
The belief that we can build a system to self-perpetuate civil rights is at the heart of the anarchist ideology.
But the promise of an immaculate statutory framework that denies any individual or coalition power is a false one. Power is a consequence of social relationships and control of physical capital by individuals. There is no established structure that can prevent a cartel of insiders from seizing control of critical infrastructure. They don’t even have to be particularly powerful. Any sufficiently motivated Houthi brigade can shut down the Suez Canal. Any sufficiently popular social media platform can derail a positive social movement (witness what happened to Occupy Wall Street or BLM or the Hong Kong Democracy protests or the disintegration of the Yugoslavian government).
Civil Rights can only ever be aspirational in a world where a local monopoly on violence undoes in days what a community spent generations building.
Noticing shit libs coming here arguing against anarchism because we dont try to stop problems they have, that it is not proven we would have, by making them worse.
Pointing out potential pitfalls by saying ‘you could have a lesser version of this problem that a greater version of plays a large role in defining our whole shit’ and then just not engaging with any response because they’re just here to justify shit they know is vile and doesn’t even work for the thing they’re using to justify it.
Its like the whole ‘what about violence?’ ‘why is this violence happening?’ ‘totally unjustified, appeared from nowhere, has no cause, you can only kill it or accept it, not prevent it. Except by violence.’ ‘so it violates thermodynamics?’ ‘No it’s just people being shitty!’ Argument. Super fucking done and not looking to have it again in literally every thread on left politics.
And the weird double standard, where were reckless and bad unless we have pre-planned every aspect of a system that is fundamentally about including and nurturing agency rather than imposing a predetermined thing, and done so in a way that solves literally all their problems while making it so they never have to think, they must oppose us and we’re just dreaming impossible dreams.
Is there a way other than blocking users to stop seeing their bullshit? Like a thread block? Or a thread server block?
They don’t have a “good” president, only “less evil”.
They don’t mind if the “less” turns right every day, and it’s so bad they’ll accept someone who’ll bomb and invade some other country again if they could go back to how things were, which is getting away with abhorent shit abroad and claiming to be the ‘greatest country’ ever.
Anyone who wants to be made president should on no account be allowed to do the job
Rights don’t exist.
Violence exists, and it’s all that humans understand.
So if you want to pretend you have rights you need to be ready to use violence to defend that belief.
Lemmy. Does not. matter.
LW has like 3k regular real users max. Nothing here matters.
Lemmy. Does not. matter.
Feels like I’m reading a recap of “Twitter isn’t Real” circa 2016.
And then people began to manipulate social media in earnest, and what was posted on these sites became frighteningly prophetic relative to what would happen IRL.
A “twitter” is a bird, and it’s a well established fact that birds aren’t real.
Twitter in 2016: 3.25e6 monthly active users
Lemmy.world: 1.45e4 monthly users, many of which appear to be reposting bots or duplicates.
Twitter in 2016 had politicians and companies and shit on it, lemmy has the sort of dregs that think what linux distro you use matters.
You matter, and you’re here, so lemmy matters
Keep telling yourself that.
If you want to change the world you have to go and actually hang out with the unwashed masses
my mass is unwashed as I’m writing this
Givin’ mine a lil shampoo as we speak
I 100% believe you
How do you build such a system though? Every system is eventually exploitable. The US system of checks and balances was actually a pretty solid attempt, but it eventually fell to corruption. The USSR was a noble attempt, but it eventually fell to corruption.
How do you construct a system which has the authority to prevent corrupt individuals from oppressing others, but doesn’t oppress people itself?
USSR was still a state, so of course it didn’t work. You need to eliminate power structures
You can’t eliminate power structures. You can eliminate existing power structures, but all you’ve accomplished is removing checks on new upstart power structures: warlords, mafiosos, charismatic demagogues.
All power ultimately rests upon the threat of violence. Eliminate the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence, and you find yourself under the dominion of those who have the savvy to concentrate forces of illegitimate violence.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say we can never reach sustainable anarcho-communism, but it’s not something we’ll see in our lifetimes. Premature attempts are going to result in “anarcho”-capitalistic neofeudalism.
Power structures can absolutely be eliminated. By taking away the ability for anyone to carry out the threat of violence, and removing harmful institutions like the state and capitalism
How exactly do you take away the ability for anyone to carry out violence? How do you take away my ability to punch you? To beat you with a steel pipe? To get my friends together to beat you to a pulp?
Literally, I’m curious. How do you take those abilities away?
You could start by trying to resolve any conflict that would lead to that in the first place. But if you mean do it just because you feel like it then the community could require you to make reparations or something like that. If that still didn’t work you could be kicked out of the community
Right, but that’s a power structure. The community has the power to require reparations or kick you out.
Not necessarily as a community would have power split equally among all.
How do you build such a system though?
With a constitution that’s can’t be modified without a referendum
How do you construct a system which has the authority to prevent corrupt individuals from oppressing others, but doesn’t oppress people itself?
By fighting corruption instead of building a society on top of it
With a constitution that’s can’t be modified without a referendum
Bruh, the last time my country’s constitution got changed was through a referendum that made gay marriage impossible.
Which country? was the referendum fair or rigged?
There’s a precondition for a democracy to work which is a fair voting process, this includes free and non monopolized access to information. I don’t think it’s hard to write a constitution that is not fixed and that still grant essential rights to people.
Croatia. Completely fair, the referendum was the hottest topic in all media for weeks if not months and absolutely everyone who had an opinion on the matter could vote. Do you actually think most people out there aren’t still homophobic as hell?
I don’t know much about croatia but i’m sure mass media are rigged there just like in any other european country
By fighting corruption instead of building a society on top of it
But how? How do you enforce the fight against corruption without a system which itself is vulnerable to corruption?
You don’t have to enforce it, you should not promote it and not making rolemodels out of corrupted people. Have you ever heard of kids being teach in school that corruption is bad? Me personally never
You were never taught that corruption is bad? I was. I was also told not to lie, cheat, steal, harm others, etc. I think most people were, and yet we still have crime. D.A.R.E. told entire generations of kids that drugs are bad, and yet people still use drugs.
How do you prevent people from promoting corruption and making role models of the corrupt? That requires some method of enforcement, otherwise you might as well be wishing on a star.
You were never taught that corruption is bad? I was. I was also told not to lie, cheat, steal, harm others, etc.
I personally don’t recall being taught about corruption specifically. I was teach about being a good boy in elementary school but after that i don’t recall any class about how to be kind and good.
and yet people still use drugs.
People are taught that drugs are bad but not much is explained about the underlying problems that make people do drugs, such as trying to cope with high competitive standards since childhood.
How do you prevent people from promoting corruption and making role models of the corrupt?
We live in a corrupted society, i think the starting point would be to fix education (which is already “enforced”) in such a way that it doesn’t promote corruption of any sort
