Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):
One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.
Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):
One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.
We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.
It worked out so well, feudalism ended up being a better choice. Took us about 1000 years to see a predominance of republics again, although Italian city states got there first.
Turns out without organized states, letting a large number of people self organize ends up being a free for all for chieftains and warlords trying to sieze power for themselves. We ended up not writing history for hundreds of years, because everyone was focused on trying to find any sort of stability. We called it the dark ages. Feudalism was simply the strongest warlords managing to hold power for long enough so that people didn’t see slaughter every year and could experience peace long enough to farm and craft. Even they had to come up with rules of casus belli (justification for wars), a claim system, heraldry and succession to prevent an all out slaughter like before.
No, you didn’t.
Anarchism as a coherent vision of a potential society is a relatively modern development. There are past examples of societies that had some of the traits that anarchists advocate for, but nothing that really matches what we want. Your “lol warlords” example is very far from being relevant.
deleted by creator
The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good. I’m not saying anarchism leads to the loss of values, I’m saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values. I understand that would not be the anarchy you would strive for, I’m saying that’s what people would end up becoming, even though they’d have all the reasons not to.
Anyway thanks for presenting your arguments and showing me your view points. Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy, as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don’t. I wish you and everyone in this community the best.
Edit: i just wanted to be clear that i didn’t intend to spout hot takes to rile you guys up or disparage your beliefs. I understand the downvotes, I’m probably saying egregious things considering your community and obviously you disagree with it. I accept that. But please take none of what i say with disrespect, because none was intended. For me that’s the most important take away. All i said were genuine discussion points and i want to make it clear that i admit i don’t understand much about the modern ideals of anarchism. There are many differing takes on this subject online and they are not congruent. Whether or not i end up not agreeing with your beliefs does not mean i don’t want to fully understand the message as it was meant to be understood.
Above all I’m a firm believer of political plurality. Diversity of opinions is what makes society richer.
According to the modlog you weren’t banned for this comment, so I assume we’re fine to continue our discussion. Probably avoid making these kinds of comments on future posts here though, at least until you’ve learned more.
But you’re also still raising objections here, while admitting a lack of understanding. The tendency to conflate “I don’t understand it” with “it couldn’t possibly work” isn’t good for anyone. If nothing else, at least educate yourself in order to become a better skeptic.
Why is this an objection to anarchy, rather than an objection to trusting humans with the power to rule over others?
Anarchy does not lack “dissuading devices”. See this comment, where I outline how an anarchist society would handle an instance of vigilantism.
Removed by mod
Are you seriously not embarrassed to be displaying this level of ignorance? Have you read anything about either of those ideologies?
Wow, you can’t be serious. XD
Why are you posting in an anarchist community? You clearly have no idea about anarchist theory, so please bugger off.
Because this post has made it to page one of “all” when sorting by active and attracted attention outside its original community.
So do a lot of AI generated images. I don’t post on these communities how ugly the images are.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ENGAGING MY POST I PUT ON A PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM?
Do you know what communities are?
You’re looking for an echo chamber not an online public forum that gets aggregated based on activity.
No, I don’t want to explain the basics of anarchism when I’m posting on an explicitly anarchist community. 🙄
Hey i might not agree with anarchy, but it doesn’t mean i don’t like to hear about other people’s political views and see what they think.
After all, how can one grow being only exposed to one’s own political views ? I will disagree with you, sure, but i mean no disrespect for your opinions. I respect them as if they were my own and i think the world is richer with people who think outside the box and challenge the status quo. We should leave no page unturned.
But you’re trying to dunk on anarchism with your shallow understanding of history and learly without any idea of what anarchism stands for. Excuse me if that doesn’t speak for your open-mindedness concerning anarchism.
I didn’t mean to come off as dunking. Disagreement is part of discourse, I’m afraid and not necessarily dispargement of your beliefs. If you don’t have the patience to discuss the fundamentals of your beliefs with your fellow man, then i suppose we’ve got nothing further to discuss about this matter. There is no need to act this defensive with everyone trying to engage with you on your political beliefs on this thread.
I’m sorry this discussion didn’t turn out the way i intended and regret we couldn’t learn from each other this day, but i wish you a better continuation of your day!
Anarchism is- due to a lot of state propaganda - a quite misunderstood ideology. I need to explain my worldview on pretty much a daily basis. So I hope you understand that I’m not always in the mood to go over the basics time and time again. That is why I posted on an explicitly anarchist community without therequirement for thorough analysis why one thinks that way. This is why I was acting so defensive.
Imagine going into a queer space and asking: “But what do you mean by ‘non-binary’? There are men and there are women - that’s a biological fact!” While you could be asking a legit question, the context where you ask it matters and might get agressive reactions when asked in the wrong context.
Here are the cliff’s notes and why your first comment was so ignorant: The european tradition of anarchism arose in the 18th and 19th century and does not mean that “might makes right”. Rather, it states that hierarchical power structures should be replaced with horizontal power structures where people get a say in political matters proportional to how much they’re affected by it. This would result in a more peaceful, just and efficient world, as it fosters mutual aid and cooperation, instead of social Darwinist notions of competition and exploitation of the weak.
Thank you for explaining it to me. I can understand someone saying such a thing in a non binary community, we’re all ignorant about something.
Anyway, i would like to ask more questions and discuss what you said but apparently there’s a new mod rule that says we need to understand anarchy to be here and people are not here to educate us. Since it’s a rule i won’t be able to participate further since i recognize i don’t actually understand anarchy so i suppose it’s time to leave the community.
I wish you all the best though.