unfreeradical @ unfreeradical @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

There are no good bosses.

The system is shit.

"Landleech" certainly is more gender inclusive, so using it ought to be quite ingratiating to lady landleeches.

Perhaps there is growing momentum toward the left, which is not necessarily the same as a leftist movement.

Again, tribes almost always consist of less than 150 individuals.

No. As I explained, the local groups that are limited in size to several hundred individuals are called bands or villages. Tribes are structures that unify bands or villages.

You are not engaging the discussion or refining your understanding.

You consistently have exhibited sloppy reasoning and have adhered to inaccurate terminology.

I suggest stepping away for a few days.

Then, when your head is clear, you might read about tribal structures. Once you have opened to a broadened understanding of the structure for various past and extant stateless societies, if you are still interested in the subject, then you might begin to review some of the materials in libcom.org and The Anarchist Library. Since literature on the subject reaches back about two hundred years, I doubt you will struggle due to a poverty of sources.

If you later have doubts about material you have read, then you might present them on discussion boards. I think your asking sincere and informed questions, after some background reading, would be more productive than the present course.

Good luck.

All my research says that it’s biologically not possible to have a stateless society of more than 150 people. You’ve given me literally nothing to refute this.

Perhaps one useful starting point for you would be learning about tribal societies.

Tribes are non-state sociopolitical structures that unify bands or villages. Bands and villages are local groups that typically have less than a few hundred members.

The fact that you're unable to link to any of these "resources" says that you don't know them.

Have you made any attempts to learn about the subject yet, or are you still just arguing and whining?

There is not only a single way a stateless society may function, just as there is not only a single way a state may function.

A member of a hunter-gatherer group might lack knowledge of states, but they still occur, in all their variations.

The topic of stateless society is obviously large, just like the topic of states, or any other topic in politics. It is not suitable to be expounded in a discussion thread.

Again, if you genuinely are interested, then I encourage you to seek resources from which you might gain meaningful understanding.

Meanwhile, please stop whining that actual possibilities are somehow limited by your own personal frame of experience, knowledge, or imagination.

Thiel and Musk are essentially both techno-utopian, which I would characterize as a nonconservative but still reactionary brand of neoliberalism. They offer no support for social traditions, but also none for social justice. They help entrench the status quo through spectacle and opportunism.

We know how they spend.

Musk makes himself visible, and so many consider him influential, but it remains unclear that his posts and interviews carry greater overall influence than all the media funded by the Kochs and the Wilkses, who hide in obscurity while everwhere spreading their oily money.

Kochs and Wilkses.

Voting is fine, but meaningful change happens from the ground up.

Unions, based on trust and solidarity among the working class, are essential for building the kind of society that is the one in which we want to live.

Why don’t you enlighten me on how the above scenario would work in your dream of a stateless society.

Stateless society is not a dream, but rather an objective, or an ideal toward which to struggle.

If you want to understand how it might be structured, then I encourage you to investigate and to discover.

At the moment, however, you are engaged in shifting of the burden of proof.

You have also entered into several instances of a false dichotomy, including through your insinuation that all societies are either disordered, or must be kept orderly by a coercive authority.

I feel you are more likely to benefit from explanation of certain ideas if you are not encumbered by such kinds of fallacious reasoning.

Do you know what those “organizational bodies at a scale above the level of the community” are called? They’re called governments. i.e. the State.

No, a regional or even international body is not necessarily a government in the sense of your objection, as a state power that asserts authority through coercion.

I am sorry, but you are conflating various distinct concepts as one. You have not adequately understood the ideas against which you are asserting strong objections.

You are not understanding the essence of stateless society.

The ideal entails no objection against organizational bodies at a scale above the level of the community.

Terse judgments about impossibility are not generally meaningful, and the particular objections you chose are not particularly persuasive.

However, I think the broadest issue is not your insistence that the state is necessary, but rather your assumption that it must encompass all of politics.

There is no single problem, and many of the problems are not necessarily simple.

Many perceive a problem from decisions that affect them being made by elected representatives.

Others may be more agreeable to elected representatives making decisions, but demand much greater participation by and accountability to the constituency.

Communists have long been critical of representative government, because it enforces a class disparity of elites over the governed, not broadly different from aristocratic rule.

You are not engaging the more general problem, which is not specifically the number of evils, whether two or more, nor the process by which one evil may be selected among many.

The general evil is the ideal of representation, or according to some, at least representation lacking consistent and absolute accountability to the represented.

Gold has use value. It is and has been traded for its use value, which is the same value whether or not it is designated as currency.

The decision to designate gold as currency, or a standard for currency, is political.

Thus, gold is natural, and naturally useful, and may be designated as currency politically.

Cryptocurrency has no natural or intrinsic value, no use value.

Unlike the trade of gold, the trade of cryptocurrency depends on a belief that it is currency. Yet, it is not currency, because it has not been designated as currency politically. Once the realization is made that the necessary political process to designate it as currency will never occur, the will to trade is lost.

American media and government would never represent soup lines as a systematic failure, instead of poverty being deserved.

How easily the narrative emerges that the same situation in one case reflects repression and in the other generosity.

The phrasing may be poor, but it remains that communism historically has pursued lateral and decentralized power distribution.