this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023

43 points (72.2% liked)

Anarchism

1158 readers

4 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Equity and equality is good but not enough, we need anarchism (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Breaking down walls, tearing down barriers and abolishing borders.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All 3 of these are stealing the money right out of the mouths of struggling CEOs.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

@db0 Could we get some moderators for this community, to kick out the low-effort trolls?

[+] Danterious 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the post is fine, but we seem to have attracted the attention of the great dismissive majority.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Maybe, but I don't mind comments. As long as the responses aren't too aggressive, I'm fine with it.

And I don't mind bad faith, as long as it doesn't involve violence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

The comments that are from "low-effort trolls" might be a bit much. I mean, you kind of have to sift through them and say to yourself, "meh, what an idiot, doesn't even know about the topic at hand to say anything remotely valid." And that's the fun part. Trolls, in order to really function at effective troll level, have to engage with the content in some meaningful way, if even superficially, which means they have to understand the subject. They seem to not understand the subject at all, which makes them look glaringly ineffective in their role as trolls. I mean, I might call them "lame attempt at trying to be trolls." They're out of their element. And it's funny. But yeah, they don't need to be there, either.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Fair enough. For my own part I prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. People starting from a position of "there's no way that could possibly work" generally aren't worth my time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

"I have always been a liberal radical, an individualist and an anarchist. In the first place, I am an enemy of the Church; in the second place, I am an enemy of the State. When these great powers are in conflict I am a partisan of the State as against the Church, but on the day of the State's triumph, I shall become an enemy of the State. If I had lived during the French Revolution, I should have been an internationalist of the school of Anacharsis Cloots; during the struggle for liberty, I should have been one of the Carbonieri." - Pío Baroja, anarchist and novelist. To stand on equal ground everyone needs to adapt to the ever shifting ground in cooperation, to help each other and themselves to stand on it equally.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

What Is Politics just made an episode about this, incidentally.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Same ideas, worded differently: https://i.redd.it/x6q4jkkc43xc1.jpeg

All 3 can see the game without supports or accommodations because the cause(s) of the inequity was addressed. The systemic barrier has been removed.

(original post: https://old.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/1ceonlj/a_cool_guide_equality_equity_and_justice_breaking/)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I wanna slip one good comment in here: they do need a little fence to hide behine if a ball comes

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The pitcher needs to be shooting the red one just because there's no rules.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're confusing anarchism with anomie..

Anarchism is not the absence of rules, but rules agreed between everyone outside any form of authority.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Rules without authority: impossible to enforce. Rules agreed by everyone: impossible to exist.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Once again, you confuse authority with discipline. What is ruled by consensus don't need to be enforced by authority.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And when did this thing called consensus ever happened in the past 10000 years?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Haha ! good question, probably never happened...

That's precisely the nature of progress: to create what doesn't yet exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

But, but Somalia!

[–] Gxost 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was leading a work group designing a new software. I tried to reach consensus, so everybody in the group would be satisfied with our decisions. But it didn't work. Everybody was arguing even on simple questions and didn't listen to arguments of others. Votings didn't help too, because the minority was rising the same questions again and again, trying to convince others to join them and then re-vote. And nobody was satisfied. We were wasting time. But when I said that now I only listen to others and make decisions on my own, everybody was ok with that. Our meetings became productive. So, I don't believe consensus is possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Consensus is really a function of group size.

I was in a group, there were 8 members we went back an forth for months to try come to decisions, it was not a great time and nothing was achieved.

Consensus is probably possible in groups of around 4-5

[+] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So anarchy - lack of coercive hierarchy is when there is coercive hierarchy? Nope, you are just not especially smart person.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am an anarchist and I do not want to be a strongman. You sound like you don't have even the most basic understanding of anarchism as a political concept <.<

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You engage in anarchism every day, and since you're here on Lemmy, it's statistically unlikely you're beating people up.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Anarchy is one of those leftist ideals that has extreme rightward pressure (i.e. it is inherently unstable). Anarchy will always devolve rapidly into feudalism or other right-wing/authoritarian structures.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Anarchism is against coercive hierarchies, so not really. Look at Zapatistas or Rojava, they I would say falsify your statement.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Anarchism only exists because hierarchy exists plus power that reinforces the hierarchy. That's the part you don't seem to understand. It's a dialectic. Anarchists are not against working in teams. They're against being subjugated by hierarchies and powers that keep hierarchies in place with the rationale of "just because we're in power." Anarchism questions authority and its existence is dependent on the existence of authority and power structures. Remove the power structures and there is no need for anarchy. You only seem to comprehend one side of the anarchist's rationale, the one that says, "screw you, I'm not going to obey you." You seem to not understand the other side of the anarchist's rationale, which is, "you just want me to be obey because you say so, and I have all kinds of reasons why your say so is irrelevant to reason and logic, because all you've done is construct a reason that justifies your authority, which is not natural or even essential to the organization of society."

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

Humans are by nature social, remove the authority figures and after the initial panic. Tribes will form.....from tribes bigger clans, it will not be pretty. Some will lose, some will win...this is not a good route to take.