• Stephen Darby :ma_flag_aus:@mastodon.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      @naevaTheRat Not really familiar with the Zapatista movement. “Can you even fire the government?” Was your question. What is the point of having ideal governance if it can be fired? You are correct in that we vote seldom for a party rather than for policy. I am not sure anarchy is a great alternative

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I want some of whatever you’re on, this is incoherent. The gov system you’re defending can be fired by the GG or through a DD resolution. Mechanisms to fire governments are in all non totalitarian systems I’m aware of.

        Suppose you vote me in on my platform of not killing you, but surprise! I lied! you can’t hold me accountable for 3 (or 6!) years. That is obviously messed the fuck up, if you have no power to recall me I’m not representing you, I’m just someone who convinced you to give me some power for a while.

        why do you dream so small? why are you convinced that it’s this pathetic little dribble of political power or we murder each other in the streets. Fuck dude, anarchic societies are usually pretty peaceful even in the case of zero external government. Anthropologists have spilled a lot of ink on this.

          • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I don’t really know what you mean? anarchy can involve centralised decisions but only by consent.

            E.g. agreeing to follow to plan of someone for laying out a community garden is anarchic if you are not obligated to do so.

            Actual anarchy in the real world often involves lots of committees and community groups both explicit and customary. It’s hard to do much without organisation, but the difference is bottom up “we want a garden so we form a committee to plan it” vs top down “We are building a garden here for your community enrichment” “but we want a sports ground here” “silence peasants”

              • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Anarchy just means without heirarchy. I only brought it up in passing that humans are actually pretty cool and it takes a lot for us to be violent and horrible. Like in societies with no central government people are usually pretty fine so the sort of lockeian “red in tooth and claw state of nature” argument as a defense of this shitty compromise governance apparently holding us back from chaos doesn’t actually stand.

                Cards on the table I am an anarchist, I think humans are broadly awesome and wonderful apes. I think we do bad stuff when faced with very non ape-compatible choices like whether to deploy militaries but most of those are only enabled by supressing our anarchic tendencies.

                When we have to resolve disputes like taking out the garbage, who’s round is it at the pub, should we support a school’s project etc we’re really cool and sensitive. It’s why I believe in proper democracy, even stuff like the mondragon corporation do so much better because of democracy.

                • Stephen Darby :ma_flag_aus:@mastodon.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  @naevaTheRat
                  I have been reading a little about the society of our primate relatives and whole-heartedly agree that our cooperative nature is innate. Stress can cause us to behave in more primitive ways, using only our lizard brain - we tend to think only of preserving our own vegetative functions. I think some people carry that level of trauma around with them.