hi.
And so people can see the alt text I had to compile for this: A meme based on the meme of the parent comment. That’s based on a scene from King of the Hill. Peggy says “I told my readers to harness the cleaning power of amonia, with the whitening power of bleahch.” Hank, horrified, says “Peggy that’s the recipe for mustard gas” except the end of the text is changed to "that’s the recepe for A meme from lemmy that refrences a scene from king of hill where Peggy says: “I t”
You missed left 4 dead.
“Vote with your wallet” is not ancap propaganda. “Abolish all money” is.
Edit: read it wrong. In my defence cap and com do sound pretty similar. And I think when I read this comment I forgot they existed which is what those oxymorons deserve.
No thanks. I like my theory to be from the current century. You know the one where we have stuff like the internet, imminent climate disaster and the hindsight of the soviet regime.
Also starting a cooperative is no individual solution. It’s a first step towards establishing a collective economy. Which could fuel the collective spirit and start a political movement.
I actually don’t care about the pay. As long as I can buy food and pay my bills I don’t care. I would be willing to work for less than minimum wage if it meant I could have a say in my workplace.
And honestly it doesn’t even need to be a tech syndicate. I would be willing to work for any syndicate, and most areas have some kind of IT.
Except tidal. That one comes from the moon.
No need to apologise for both taking your time and your assumptions:
I appear to have run out of things to say as I don’t really wish to delve into the situation in america. Just hope you stay safe.
It’s been fun talking to you. May we meet again.
My main reason is ideological. Why should I waste my precious time working in a job that doesn’t advance my goals of creating a freer society? while also making pennies for some shareholder at the top? on top of that I get bored of doing the same thing over and over again. I want my work to have more variance.
And I guess while being truly international is kinda difficult it seems that it’s a lot easier within the EU and USA.
I’ve reached that point where I’m good at programming but require to explain my ideas to someone or I just give up because it seems like too much effort for no benefit. So even someone who doesn’t really know any programming but can listen and think along would be a important.
That final sentence really made me laugh. Thank you. You have such a fun way of talking. I really like how frequently you use ellipses to give pauses. They really work.
I’m not that serious about religion. I wasn’t raised religious and have spent most of my life not really thinking about it. The anarchy as religion think is more just playing with thoughts. Approach ideas from angles that aren’t usual and see what you come up with.
Thinking about it more I think the main reason why I’ve started trusting more in anarchism as a faith than a process is that I live in an environment where anarchist thought really isn’t spread. I’m pretty isolated and so it’s hard to trust in it as something real because I don’t see it anywhere but through the computer. I guess Isolation really is the cause of faith.
But thinking about it further what I consider faith is really not baseless. As it is just “anarchy can exist if people try hard enough”. And that’s not baseless. pre-archy1 was pretty much the same as anarchy and many anarchist project have been incredibly successful. But does that mean that it’s not faith and rather a rational belief? And is that difference really that important when most of humanity would say that anarchy is naive and impossible? Making it seem like the belief that people can work together without oppressing each other is just blind faith.
1: All of the societies that existed before being invaded by a “civilisation”.
At the end of the day what is and isn’t rational is entirely based on the information you have available to you. I imagine there were times that prospect of democracy seemed like blind faith.
And I have no concerns about your beliefs. They seem really solid and nice. I’m just here to discuss a topic I’ve thought about recently.
oh also: “No Gods, No Kings, No Masters, No chains except the ones we choose ourselves.”
Well said.
I actually accidentally submitted my previous comment but because it wasn’t really that cut off and I wanted to get started with other stuff so I left it.
I think the primary reason I think of anarchism as faith is that christians often say they have faith in god and that they believe everything that happens is part of his grand plan. To which I have made the anarchist counter of I don’t need to believe in god, I believe in people. That through working together we can create wonderful things and that we don’t need some omnipotent force to guide our movements. Both the evil and the good in this world is nothing but actions of people rippling through time. And I believe that most people are good.
It’s this weird way of looking all of this theory through a religious lens, but I find it gives me a lot of hope, which is the point of faith. It is dumb and kinda blind, but also very comforting.
I think all ideology is faith based. At the end of the day your ideology is based on some fundamental beliefs that you hold. And holding these beliefs even when evidence points to the contrary. I think of anarchism as a faith. A faith that there is a world worth fighting for. That people are kind. That it’s possible to dismantle these systems of oppression that have seeped into every facet of our society and culture.
Yeah. You’re right. There couldn’t really be that hard of a line between citizens and non-citizens. And because the hierarchy wouldn’t really be based on violence and more just deferring of skill and effort it wouldn’t really be a hierarchy at all.
But I still think that having anarchist-friendly states is possible. Maybe by having a border that can get moved as the demographics change or through territories voting to join either the anarchist side or the state side.
Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.
Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It’s a very general definition and doesn’t necessarily require money.
But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don’t wish to be part of this “state” then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.
Actually It’s very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.
I used country because I couldn’t use state as “without the threat of violence it is no longer a state.”
Isn’t anarchy specifically managed bottom up? What if this state still has elections, government, ministries, state-run education and the like? Would that still be anarchy? I wouldn’t call it anarchy, I’d call it minarchy. Because by being voluntary it is fundamentally minimising it’s authority.
Borders and land ownership would be dynamic. If a citizen lives on a piece of land or citizens manage a company that land and company become part of the state. As soon as the people/companies move the border moves as well.
Fitting money into a minarchist state is tricky as even if participating in the state is voluntary money could still be exchanged outside of it. Unless you make the state currency digital and ensure that those who revoke their citizenship also lose access to their funds, but that’s probably going to create a secondary “unofficial” currency. money is tricky.
And does a state need to have an elite? If the minarchist party is comprised of influential and trusted community figures that are focused solely on the benefit of their community would that make them an elite? Could a state function with a benevolent elite?
I guess all of this is describing less of a state and more of a voluntary elected bureaucracy. But isn’t that what minarchy is? And couldn’t we transition a state to that?
So what do you call a country that has voluntary membership and community policing? One that doesn’t have a police force or a justice system and is instead maintained by the will of all of it’s citizens, as those who don’t wish to be a part of the country can just leave.
Anarchism doesn’t have law. It has customs. Law is a specifically worded series of commands that must be followed and if broken be interpreted by the legal system in order to determine the punishment. You cannot have law without also having the justice/legal system. Crime in anarchism is handled not by the courts but by the surrounding community on a case-by-case basis.
That is at least how I see it. What is the point of writing down pages and pages of commands if the only ones that enforce them are the people themselves. I think with law people will just start arguing semantics or interpretation instead of the actual severity, effect and consequences for the crime.
Here is the AFAQ section on law: I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci73
What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an alternative law system based on religious or “natural” laws) is custom – namely the development of living “rules of thumb” which express what a society considers as right at any given moment. However, the question arises, if an agreed set of principles are used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?
When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist in my eyes.
We need a new name for them. I call them oxymorons but sadly I don’t think that’s distinctive enough. Totalitarian Capitalists/TotCaps? Fremcs (shortend from free-market capitalist)? Kinda hard to say. Maybe something with yellow or gold or money? golks? Dollups (from Dollar) (I think that’s a word already)?
whatever they are they are 100% archic. no an- or min- in sight.
Here you go: https://nitter.poast.org/Betar_USA/status/1998018571734290468#m
While searching for the post I did glance at the replies to the top tweet that suggested that the death Alonso is referring to was an accident. But the zionist account didn’t attempt to refute it so It isn’t relevant to the reaction they are receiving.