Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):

One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.

  • cacheson 💤@piefed.socialEnglish
    51·
    11 days ago

    We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.

    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.

    • NeuronautML
      24·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • cacheson 💤@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        9 days ago

        Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy,

        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.

        as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don’t.

        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.

        The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good.

        Why is this an objection to anarchy, rather than an objection to trusting humans with the power to rule over others?

        I’m saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values.

        Anarchy does not lack “dissuading devices”. See this comment, where I outline how an anarchist society would handle an instance of vigilantism.