Robaque @ Robaque @feddit.it

Posts

4

Comments

207

Joined

2 yr. ago

I was kinda on the opposite end of the spectrum lol. I remained steadfast in engaging with the Santa Claus mythos until a pretty late age despite my parents staight up telling me they were the ones getting me presents, and despite knowing that all evidence pointed to them telling the truth, lol.

Accidentally read petition as putin lol

Wait did they just solve science or smthn?

When anarchists talk about authority and hierarchy, they're talking about coercive/oppressive power structures. Organisation doesn't have to be founded in obedience and control, it can also be built upon mutual agreement/consent and cooperation. Are you really unable to imagine any examples of the latter?

As for laws, they really aren't all that good at preventing "crime", because they don't address the fundamental reasons why people turn to "crime" in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of legal things which are unethical and plenty of ethical things which are illegal.

Some (religious) people think that without fear of god humans are immoral. I think that if the only reason you're not murdering people is out of fear of god then there's something seriously wrong with you. Replace "god" with "the law" and the same reasoning applies.

Anarchism isn't about abandoning "all societal structure" though. Authority and law are not necessary for organisation.

Anarchism in praxis is largely about working towards the social change required to properly challenge/undermine the power structures that control our lives.

Yeah I've got no quick 'n' easy answer to what you're putting on the table here, take it as a compliment, lol. As an anarchist I approach things with a certain worldview which I imagine you disagree with on a pretty fundamental level.

Overall, the system we live in is still governed by capitalist principles (and assumptions about society/humanity) even in cases like the nordic model which is considered "progressive" despite being a hybrid of social democracy and corporatism.

Even putting aside the whole discussion about the "tyranny of the majority", democracy in practice really isn't all that "democratic". Between lobbying, corruption, the class system, societal biases, the manipulation of information, the education system itself... if you believe all that can still add up to the best we can achieve, at least currently, and that if any change for the better is to be made it's through this system, and you're firmly rooted in this belief... yeah I guess there's not much else I can say to you.

Perhaps I was unclear, the "they" I was referring to in my original comment was tankies and fascists, as mentioned in the OP.

Anyways, this:

Happiness of the people, rights for minorities, salaries, education.i could go on and on how countries that have democratised have made lives better for the people who live there.

is a pretty vague and meaningless. In theory? Sure, sounds nice. In practice? It's twisted doublespeak for systems that are still fundamentally authoritarian.

Again, what is democracy, really? How are these metrics measured?

There's so much to unpack I'm not really sure where to start. Are you coming from a perspective of " capitalism can be reformed with democracy" or "voting with your dollar is democracy manifest" or smthn else?

humans are greedy and selfish

That's just what you choose to believe. These's no scientific proof that they make up some kind of transcendent truth about the human condition.

It's entirely possible that the humans traits of greed and selfishness tend to become much more pronounced when humans are subjected to systems that reward those qualities.

Also, greed and selfishness are distinct from self-interest. And besides, self-interest doesn't explain the entirety of human behaviour either.

Perhaps other systems that reward collaboration and egalitarianism and autonomy are not only possible, but also more sustainable that the shitshow we've got now, and all we need is for enough people to get out of the mental rut of believing capitalist bullshit about "humanity" and "life" just because it's the status quo.

They "rank higher" according to certain metrics and certain definitions of "democracy" and "liberty". Take some more honest definitons, and take a more holistic perspective, taking into account how many of those countries are simply really good at exporting their exploitation, and they won't score so highly. Also, being better than fascism is a really fucking low bar.

Or in other words, just because your shit sandwich doesn't have cyanide in it doesn't mean it isn't still a shit sandwich.

I can't provide you with examples if I don't know what you think communism means.

Sounds like council communism I think?

Using the state to make private property "illegal" might be a possible strategy, but it certainly isn't an anarchist one.

Hypothetically, the moment that the state doesn't exist, private property would be unenforceable/meaningless. How the state might be abolished is another question. While marxist-leninists might opt for a "trust me bro the state will dissolve once we reach true communism" strategy, anarchists again would not. Obviously it's a tough question and an even tougher endeavour but it's not something anarchists don't have answers for.

Anarchist praxis is more grassroots focused, because obviously anarchy/anarcho-communism can't happen overnight, and requires a profound change in social values. If you choose to believe that it's impossible, I can't blame you, but I would like to ask why.

Also you use private property and "property" interchangeably, but there's a difference between personal property and private property. Abolishing private property isn't about taking away your personal house and toothbrush, it's about abolishing landlords, factory owners, and other "private" ownership of public/communal spaces.

Regarding unions, it depends whether or not they've been structured specifically without hierarchy in mind. In any case the point is that anarchist praxis is diverse and decentralised.

The state is needed to enforce private property, not the lack of it.

Critically, you assume that authority is required for order, so obviously you're unable to envision whatever it might be that anarchists are getting at.

Sure, communism is an ideal that does not exist in practice currently, but the point of an ideal is to work towards it. The "anarcho" part specifies complete opposition to authority in praxis as well. Strategies could include unionising, community building, mutual aid, permablitzing, FOSS, copyleft, and whatever else can undermine the current power structures while maintaining anarchist principles. Which explicitly excludes Marxist-Leninist strategies of coopting the state, or forming any other kind of heirarchy.

Why do you think communism "lead" to authoritarianism? Do you think communism is inherently authoritarian? Is the distinction between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Communism and other 'communisms' meaningless to you?

What do you think communism means?

Democracy is a sham in practice, anyways

The actually imporant thing they undermine, as does capitalism, is autonomy.

Anyone who supports the idea of communism isn't very intelligent to begin with.

Anyone who makes a wack generic statement like that can't be particularly "intelligent" either

I mean it's not NewPipe's fault that Google Play hosts malware.

Based on what Louis Rossmann said it does seem the more restrictive licence comes from a place of good intentions:

[11:19] If you download this application and you decide that you want to modify the source code so you can run a build that's a little bit more amendable to your use case on your phone, we have no problem with that. However if you modify the source code of this application to insert advertisements trackers or malware in it and then try to redistribute our application with maare ads or trackers in it in a deceptive way we will come after you. That is why we have a license that is not as permissive as NewPipes'.

But idk if that's also what the license actually means legally-speaking. I'm no expert but section 4 seems pretty dubious:

Yes and no. Cool project but I gotta be honest I'm not a big fan of Louis Rossman / FUTO's "open source but not free " stance.

On macs, only with image capture, which is very subpar

No wonder they make people pay so much for extra storage loool