@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I honestly don't know much about anarcho-syndacalist, but wouldn't anarchy, technically, be the extreme far far far FAR right? Absolutely no governmental regulation?
No, anarchy isn't about no government regulation. It's about power structures being arranged horizontally rather than vertically because vertical power creates hierarchies that are inherently exploitative. Most anarchists I've been exposed to want a democratic government, but a directly democratic one instead of a representative one and one in which any official can be removed from power at any moment by a simple vote.
@greenflashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I honestly don't know much about anarcho-syndacalist, but wouldn't anarchy, technically, be the extreme far far far FAR right? Absolutely no governmental regulation?
No, anarchy isn't about no government regulation. It's about power structures being arranged horizontally rather than vertically because vertical power creates hierarchies that are inherently exploitative. Most anarchists I've been exposed to want a democratic government, but a directly democratic one instead of a representative one and one in which any official can be removed from power at any moment by a simple vote.
^ This. Anarchism is not The Purge: Now in 24/7 Mode! despite a bunch of fearmongers trying to make everyone think it is. It's essentially "direct power over others turns people into assholes" made into political theory.
Also:
PS - If you're pro-choice on the basis of "it's not my business what people do with their own bodies" or pro-gay marriage on the basis "the government shouldn't get a say in who you love, as long as everyone is consenting freely".....
SURPRISE!
You have some left-wing libertarian social values. It's just that no one told you that because we usually associate the word libertarian with survivalist crazies who are like "Imma storm and squat on federal park land as a stand against the gubbament, because that sounds like a good idea. Send snicky-snacks, please."
@aria said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@greenflashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I honestly don't know much about anarcho-syndacalist, but wouldn't anarchy, technically, be the extreme far far far FAR right? Absolutely no governmental regulation?
No, anarchy isn't about no government regulation. It's about power structures being arranged horizontally rather than vertically because vertical power creates hierarchies that are inherently exploitative. Most anarchists I've been exposed to want a democratic government, but a directly democratic one instead of a representative one and one in which any official can be removed from power at any moment by a simple vote.
^ This. Anarchism is not The Purge: Now in 24/7 Mode! despite a bunch of fearmongers trying to make everyone think it is. It's essentially "direct power over others turns people into assholes" made into political theory.
Also:
PS - If you're pro-choice on the basis of "it's not my business what people do with their own bodies" or pro-gay marriage on the basis "the government shouldn't get a say in who you love, as long as everyone is consenting freely".....
SURPRISE!
You have some left-wing libertarian social values. It's just that no one told you that because we usually associate the word libertarian with survivalist crazies who are like "Imma storm and squat on federal park land as a stand against the gubbament, because that sounds like a good idea. Send snicky-snacks, please."
Also, a lot of right-wing libertarians are anti-taxation and believe everything should be privately owned, including police, schools, roads, and etc, despite the example of privately owned prisons being utter shit-shows.
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@aria said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@greenflashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I honestly don't know much about anarcho-syndacalist, but wouldn't anarchy, technically, be the extreme far far far FAR right? Absolutely no governmental regulation?
No, anarchy isn't about no government regulation. It's about power structures being arranged horizontally rather than vertically because vertical power creates hierarchies that are inherently exploitative. Most anarchists I've been exposed to want a democratic government, but a directly democratic one instead of a representative one and one in which any official can be removed from power at any moment by a simple vote.
^ This. Anarchism is not The Purge: Now in 24/7 Mode! despite a bunch of fearmongers trying to make everyone think it is. It's essentially "direct power over others turns people into assholes" made into political theory.
Also:
PS - If you're pro-choice on the basis of "it's not my business what people do with their own bodies" or pro-gay marriage on the basis "the government shouldn't get a say in who you love, as long as everyone is consenting freely".....
SURPRISE!
You have some left-wing libertarian social values. It's just that no one told you that because we usually associate the word libertarian with survivalist crazies who are like "Imma storm and squat on federal park land as a stand against the gubbament, because that sounds like a good idea. Send snicky-snacks, please."
Also, a lot of right-wing libertarians are anti-taxation and believe everything should be privately owned, including police, schools, roads, and etc, despite the example of privately owned prisons being utter shit-shows.
I know a decent number of those folks and sincerely hope they all move off to some entirely private island to indulge in their Atlas Shrugged wank fantasies and see how long they last after having opted out of modern society.
See: Above post about "Please send snicky-snacks."
Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules. People like to think it's the other way 'round.
My peeve today is someone who insists on using pronouns without giving any clue what noun they are replacing. He called this afternoon, did he? Who of the 49.2% of humanity who might be referred to as "he" called? You want to know if I plan to use that? What, of all the objects that exist and which I might use are you referring to? Also, quit looking at me as if I'm stupid when I ask you to clarify this shit. I am doing the best I can by not trying to invent a shock-collar that will zap you every time you use a pronoun at all.
Some douche on the Facebook: Look, see? My friend's wife is in the hospital from a blood clot she got as a result of the vaccine. Here's some screencaps of my conversation with him. So, it's dangerous, and I'm justified in not taking the vaccine.
Me: Yo, don't share that with me, that's not cool.
Douche: Nah, it's cool, he shared that on his page and everyone can see it.
Me: So? I'm uncomfortable when people divulge health information of others to people they don't know, especially to apparently try to win a discussion that ended, like, two days ago. I'm ending this conversation.
Douche: Relax, don't be so uptight.
Me: unfriends Douche
Douche: Still love ya, though, you just need to relax.
I somehow keep giving myself tiny little papercuts on IDEFK what. I seriously have four of them on my hands right now, with no recollection whatsoever of how I got them, or even realizing I got them, until they start stinging several minutes later.
How?! Why???
Fucking OWWWW.
https://whatiswrongwith.me/Mia
There were never any good old days. They are today. They are tomorrow. It's a stupid thing we say, cursing tomorrow with sorrow. -- Gogol Bordello
@aria I got one on the tip of my ring finger sometime this morning. I did not realize until I got to work and saw that I was bleeding on my keyboard.
It's worth noting that there are anarchists (frequently ancoms) who are against statism entirely.
Libertarian is a left-wing word.
Anarchism is a left-wing ideology.
Right-wingers stealing, appropriating and corrupting left-wing talking points to both discredit our movements and disguise the inherent selfishness of their own is nothing new. The most egregious and notorious of which would to my mind be "National Socialst" and more recently "identitarian", but still significant of which would be anarchism and libertarianism.
Anarchism is a word invented by Pierre Proudhon, the first person to ever call himself an Anarchist in 1840. A man also famous for his hottest of hot takes: 'Property is theft.'
Libertarian, in a political context, was first coined by Joseph Déjacque in 1857, a self-identified Libertarian Communist, who leveraged the term to criticise his friend Proudhon for not being inclusive enough in his perspective on Anarchism — in this context, towards the feminist struggle for women's rights.
On the other hand, the man known for coining the term "Anarcho-Capitalism", Murray Rothbard, conceded:
'We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.'
But even were we to look beyond history towards more modern usage of these terms, all they mean, in essence, is an opposition to authoritarianism; the desire to organise horizontally, collectively, rather than vertically in a society where power is pooled at the top and leveraged against those at the bottom.
Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. If you endorse the exploitation of the poor by the rich through heritable ownership of land and means of production (landlords & CEOs), then you endorse the legacy of feudalism and hierarchal structures. Fighting authoritarian rule in order to supplant it with a different kind of authoritarian rule isn't "Anarchy"; it doesn't matter if your goal is to replace government regulation with unchecked corporate power, replace Capitalism with one-party Communism, or take out the president of the United States in order to enforce the regime of an unelected fascist.
Anarchism is when power is equally distributed through direct democracy, and the protection of all individual rights that don't impose upon other people's individual rights. (License to kill? Not included. The right to own slaves? Also not included.)
@kestrel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Anarchism is when power is equally distributed through direct democracy, and the protection of all individual rights that don't impose upon other people's individual rights.
And this is the issue that I have with this definition; that and up there, which I have bolded, is joining two things in fundamental opposition. Democracy, or really any sort of governance, is still a means by which you restrain the actions and situations of others. It always has been. It always will be. There is absolutely no exercise of power over another that does not, in some way, constrain them, and thus violates their individual rights to self-determination.
The flaws in democracy have been apparent since the first one was thought up. Plato wrote about it. Aristotle wrote about it. Extensively. It always, always leads to power creep and oppressive tactics. It's just inherent in the nature of the system.
The definition above sounds wonderful on paper, but is fundamentally contradictory in actual practice.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
Yes, there's no state without the gewaltmonopol. I think the solution is to allow for the proliferation of collectives of various sizes, with the primary (perhaps sole) use of violence reserved for protecting individual rights, chief among them the right to move freely.
ETA: direct democracy is about as far from anarchism as you can get tbh
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
The flaws in democracy have been apparent since the first one was thought up. Plato wrote about it. Aristotle wrote about it. Extensively. It always, always leads to power creep and oppressive tactics. It's just inherent in the nature of the system.
Bearing in mind that part of the problem Aristotle and Plato had with democracy was that the "natural slaves" of the world got uppity rather than gratefully submitting to their betters, of course.
@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
The flaws in democracy have been apparent since the first one was thought up. Plato wrote about it. Aristotle wrote about it. Extensively. It always, always leads to power creep and oppressive tactics. It's just inherent in the nature of the system.
Bearing in mind that part of the problem Aristotle and Plato had with democracy was that the "natural slaves" of the world got uppity rather than gratefully submitting to their betters, of course.
I mean, yeah, there was definitely classism in the, well... classical world.
But even putting that aside, assuming no theories of the blood and born rulership, you still have the problems of demagoguery and the resultant tyrannies as people demand protection from their own decisions.
@derp Well, yes, but even then, when a classical Greek elite talks about "saving" the hoi-paloi from their own bad decisions, a lot of the time what they mean is "the year their harvest failed I was gracious enough to offer them a ruinous loan, they accepted rather than starving out of their own free will, and now apparently I'm not even allowed to enslave them on their own lands to collect on the debt. What's happening to this polis, I ask you."
@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@derp Well, yes, but even then, when a classical Greek elite talks about "saving" the hoi-paloi from their own bad decisions, a lot of the time what they mean is "the year their harvest failed I was gracious enough to offer them a ruinous loan, they accepted rather than starving out of their own free will, and now apparently I'm not even allowed to enslave them on their own lands to collect on the debt. What's happening to this polis, I ask you."
...no, not really.
I mean, we could get into the entire Republic but here's a pretty good summary:
The demagogue gains power by democratic means, claiming to be a champion of ‘the people’ and making wild promises; in particular he offers intoxicating quantities of the neat spirit of independence. Anyone who opposes the demagogue is labelled an ‘enemy of the people’ and exiled or killed. Such tactics naturally create genuine enemies, and the demagogue quickly acquires a large bodyguard, and eventually a private army. External conflicts are also stirred up to keep the people in need of a strong leader. It is also in the demagogue’s interests to keep his supporters poor as well as fearful, and when they start to rebel, protesting that this is not why they voted him in, he attacks them too and the full-blooded tyrant is born.
Ability to take requests and intuitively provide potentially unspecified results.
This is a job qualification, listed on a call for applicants.
@il-volpe said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Ability to take requests and intuitively provide potentially unspecified results.
This is a job qualification, listed on a call for applicants.
Is the job posting for a mind reader?
@ortallus What they really want is a cataloguing librarian. Which is particularly ghastly, because while not all autistics are cataloging librarians, cataloging librarians are kinda notorious for being autistic more often than not.
Yes, there's no state without the gewaltmonopol. I think the solution is to allow for the proliferation of collectives of various sizes, with the primary (perhaps sole) use of violence reserved for protecting individual rights, chief among them the right to move freely.
ETA: direct democracy is about as far from anarchism as you can get tbh
