• Equinox1289@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    8·
    1 day ago

    I prefer stakeholder socialism. Minimum level of coercion needed so that the direct stakeholders aren’t negatively impacted by the operations of a firm. E.g. nationalized rail with worker and consumer coöperative train companies operating on the line.

    • stoicmaverick@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      16 hours ago

      Interesting. What mechanism limits the greed, and immediate and inevitable human drive to consolidate and compete?

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        6 hours ago

        As in any good socialist system, the fact that greed and competition are not incentivized by the system goes a long way to limiting whatever aspect of those traits is innate.

        And I would argue that most humans are not actually greedy. The desire to consolidate is actually good for socialism, after all, it’s about communities, not individuals. And competition is fine, just not when it’s for necessities, which it wouldn’t be because, again, it’s socialism.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1275·
      2 days ago

      Anarchism is about eliminating unjust hierarchy, we can still provide services through publicly operated programs, and a mail delivery service nicely fits within many anarchist frameworks.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        141·
        1 day ago

        Gotta break it down to the most basic terms for the libs and tankies, but they’re still gonna clutch their false narratives.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 hours ago

          I’ve been called a tankie, and I understand completely what your vision of an ideal future is. A classless, moneyless, stateless society— aka communism. “Tankies” also want this future, we just disagree on how to get there.

          I could also say that ML positions have to be broken down to their simplest terms for the libs and “anarkiddies”, but I don’t actually think that would convince most people. In the case of the libs, class consciousness is something that must be arrived at via lived experience. We can try to propagandize, but propaganda on its own is not effective. In the case of the anarchists, we just fundamentally have different views on how the world works and the ability of disparate anarchist communities to fight capitalist state power. I would be happy to be proven wrong if the transition to communism can happen without a worker’s state to repress capitalist reaction, but I find that possibility extremely unlikely.

          Ultimately, I don’t think arguing these points is worthwhile when we are nowhere close to the class consciousness required for either an anarchist or ML strategy to achieve communism. And in the meantime, throwing slurs like tankie or anarkiddy only serves to divide us and empower the capitalists.

          • XiJinpingStanAccount@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            3 hours ago

            I think the main issue is that the vast majority of people do not have a properly internalized dialectical materialist worldview. Whent hey injest information it is not process through the lens of dialectical materialism. So it is not examined systematically and incorporated into a model of the world where all pieces interact with one another and must be accounted for. Even many MLs have not managed to do this. Imo one of the main goals of the socialist state needs to be achieving this for the vast majority of the population through proper education.

        • Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          4·
          15 hours ago

          I oppose my nation and its authority.

          Logicacly this means i must support authotorian states that also happen to oppose my nation.

          But i don’t. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend just like i dont believe either of the violent gangs fighting eachother are really going to “protect” me.

          Ah but if i do not support authotorian states then logicaly i am supporting the nation “empire” i say i oppose.

          But i don’t. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend…

          Every single time i get into an argument on .ml

          • freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            4 hours ago

            This is mostly because of different theories about reality. Anarchists are ideologically committed to the position of prefiguration - the idea that the way you get somewhere must be shaped like the place you’re trying to go. They categorically deny the possibility of getting somewhere by going somewhere else first.

            Marxists apply systems theory to human society and have arrived at the analysis that the way we got here was a complex series of developments that produced the conditions for the next complex series of developments. For example, it was impossible to have a stock market for securities exchange before the systems existed from money, common stock, and corporations.

            The Marxist path towards a stateless society is a series of transitions that deal with the current shape of the system and the system controls that rebalance the system towards its current state. The anarchist path towards a stateless society is to just declare a stateless society and either destroy or ignore anything that disagrees so that whatever they are building can replace it.

            We can use all sorts of metaphors for this. Marxists look at a self balancing system and look at dismantle the pistons or the sensors that balance it where as the anarchists just thinks we should just all crowd to one side of the platform and make it unbalanced through being unbalanced.

            Or the Marxist and the anarchist are both trying to head West but they come to a deep river full of alligators and hippos. The Marxist decides to follow the river North to look for a crossing, but the Anarchist argued that they can’t go West by going North and they jump and try to swim West.

            Prefiguration is a ridiculous ideological position that assumes reality is fundamentally driven by values as opposed to the other way around. A Marxist might identify that the cause of a subset of precarity is dependence on the hierarchy to produce medically necessary drugs. The Marxist might then size the hierarchy and over produce these drugs, freeing this subset of people from precarity and adding them to the revolutionary movement. The anarchist would argue that using the hierarchy is a nonstarter, and that the best way to produce an abundance of these drugs is to distribute drug production kits to every family that needs them with the end result being that those people remain in precarity until someone figures out how to scale that prefigured idea without using hierarchy. One moves the system towards a new state through stages, the other refuses to move the system until the ideas are worked out.

            Marxism explicitly acknowledges that the nature of globe spanning complex systems is ultimately unknowable a priori and therefore must proceed in stages guided by an awareness of how systems work to avoid progress towards a new stage being undermined by movement back towards the prior stable point. That means analyzing what is and experimenting at the systems levels to understand the mechanisms that reassert system stability for states that are inherently unstable (like class society). It also means analyzing what emerges as progress is made to understand what other aspects of instability and stability emerge that we don’t know yet.

            Anarchism throws all of that out the window and asserts that nothing is worth doing unless it is ideologically purified of specific errors (unjust hierarchy being the primary one). It’s a moral/idealist position that operates on the assumption that things are the way they are because of a moral failing (hierarchy) and that any attempt to change anything on anyway while maintaining acceptance of a hierarchy is not merely doomed to fail but worthy of being actively destroyed.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 hours ago

          I mean, yeah, anarchism doesnt automatically imply rugged individualism, the most core aspect of all forms of anarchism is the distribution of power and reduction/elimination of unjust hierarchies. Doesn’t mean leadership and structure can’t form. People who are good at organizing and logistics and managing complex systems still have a place in an anarchist society.

          Like in Star Trek, the episode Allegiance, the bridge crew continued to follow orders of the body swapped Captain Picard until things felt too… off… and orders became nonsensical then they basically just refused to comply knowing something was wrong. They clearly operated within a heirarchy of command, but as soon as the legitimacy of command came into question, tne bridge crew was ready to act to remove someone questionable from power and its framed as a good thing.

          I’ll admit Starfleet clearly has some problems, things like Section 31 existing, and clearly has a badmiral problem (which I think is a structural problem of once you reach the pinnacle of star fleet and become an admiral there is nothing aspirational left to do other than push ethical boundaries.) But this still an example of a just hierarchy and the ability to correct and remove unjust hierarchy.

          • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
            11·
            6 hours ago

            It implies the absence of hierarchy, so you can’t be subject to any law or instruction you don’t personally agree to. That’s not any kind of democracy, where everyone is subject (up to and including by threat of violence) to the law that the majority vote for.

            I don’t know what’s up with people sanewashing anarchism. It’s pretty extreme - you can just not subscribe to it as an ideology!

          • b3nsn0w@lemmy.worldEnglish
            24·
            2 days ago

            switzerland already did that to some degree. turns out a whole lot of democracy is boring stuff that most people don’t want to bother with, it’s only some specific decisions they want total control over.

            imo the right answer would be a system where elected representatives exist but can lose their power at any time. like, imagine a system where voting power on legislation belongs to the people, and bills get introduced through having the support of a certain number of people, but you can delegate your voting power to a representative of your choice, at any time you want, with no fixed terms.

            protests would have teeth in a system like that, because they would directly result in the refusal and re-delegation of power immediately, with no need to wait for elections, and no need to weigh a low number of parties. you can just select whoever to handle your vote, whenever. and if you don’t like that person, select someone else.

            we could even include an option to override your rep and directly vote on specific issues without having to change reps or throwing your vote away on the day-to-day technicalities that your rep would understand far better than you.

        • Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          4·
          15 hours ago

          The issue isn’t people organising society, its people having authority and enforcing their ideas onto everyone else.

          We can argue if the outcome could still br called a governement or needs a different name all together but that is just sementics.

      • bacon_pdp@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        It becomes easier when humans don’t have the toil of physically moving the packages. My husband would build and program the robots right now if I let him. (Too afraid that he’ll overthrow society before the 4 thieves vinegar collective publishes the recipes for the medications that I need to survive)

        • Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          15 hours ago

          I already value your husband more then i do entire companies.

          I do not understand the point in forcing people to do jobs that they arent passionate about.

          A few motivated nerds, those are people i can trust to deliver excelent results to the benefit of all.

    • TrackShovel@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
      82·
      2 days ago

      Lmfao

      Anarchism is just three libertarian racoons in a trench coat.

      I’m kidding, put down the pitchforks

  • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orgEnglish
    195·
    2 days ago

    Tankies built their enclosure themselves and it comes with an ml extension. They never go outside and I sure as shit ain’t going in there. I keep a towel over the enclosure and pretend it doesn’t exist.

  • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
    133·
    2 days ago

    I know how to get medicine from a couple of native plants. I learned how from local Aboriginal teachers. I dunno if there’s an estrogen plant, but I use allergy medicine from Country quite regularly.

    BTW I’m an anarchist

    • Allero@lemmy.todayEnglish
      173·
      2 days ago

      Plant medicine is mostly viable when you don’t have reasonable alternatives, and when you really know what you’re doing. Modern pharmaceuticals are leaps ahead, and I’d rather have them.

      BTW I’m not anarchist, although you’re cool fellas

        • Soggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          16 hours ago

          Sure, but are you going to carefully dose yew bark for cancer patients or figure out some kind of natural immunosuppressant to prevent transplant rejection? There’s medicine and then there’s medicine.

          • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
            1·
            16 hours ago

            I don’t think the point of this meme is to compare Indigenous medicine against western medicine. I think the point of this meme is to argue that anarchists don’t know shit about what it’s like to live without a state-organised pharmaceutical system. I’m an anarchist and I know a little shit about what it’s like to live without a state-organised pharmaceutical system.

            As an anarchist and a student of Indigenous knowledges, I think we can have traditional medicine alongside western medicine, and we don’t need a state for either.

  • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8832·
    2 days ago

    So… here my whole thing… these “anarchists” you’re talking about just… don’t exist. This is a strawman, meant to make tankies continue to feel superior to everyone else. Punching “down” so to speak. I don’t get it. The left SHOULD be about cooperation. The left SHOULD be about well-being for all. But tankies don’t seem to give a shit about that. They just want to punch “down”. That’s all I ever see from tankies. I never see them out helping anyone. I never see them doing anything but being terminally online in their enclaves and sending pig poop pics to people and banning people from their enclaves for actually trying to have a serious conversation. That’s literally, like, it.

      • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
        104·
        2 days ago

        Anarchist: I want to have a communist revolution

        ML: Me too!

        Anarchist: Great, let’s burn down parliament tonight and do communism tomorrow!

        ML: That’s stupid, we can’t have communism now! We need to coup parliament and then have 100 years of socialism with slow moderate reforms towards communism.

        Anarchist: I think we can just do communism now, though.

        ML: Well look who’s a liberal wrecker, trying to destroy our movement. Did the CIA send you?

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 hours ago

          Most of the ML arguments about why immediate communism wouldn’t work revolve around the fact that in every historical revolution that burned down Parliament, the capitalists, with all of their wealth and power, still existed and fought with everything they had to rebuild Parliament. Not to mention that most of the people were still heavily influenced by capitalist ideology and superstructures. Doesn’t seem realistic to expect communism to survive without a centralized army to defend it and a coherent society and economy to supply it, and it doesn’t seem realistic for a society that immediately tries for communism to be coherent.

      • Enkrod@feddit.orgEnglish
        46·
        1 day ago

        Left includes the authoritarian left, as much as we’d rather they go away.

      • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        145·
        2 days ago

        Please - enlighten me! :) (or are you gonna say “it’s not my job to educate you!”?? lol)

        • Ecco the dolphin@lemmy.mlEnglish
          141·
          2 days ago

          I’m just a passerby, and I’m not going to do any reading lists or arguments or whatever I’m just going to point something out.

          There’s someone in this thread who said this (I have no desire to throw shade at this person, we’d probably be best friends IRL):

          It becomes easier when humans don’t have the toil of physically moving the packages. My husband would build and program the robots right now if I let him. (Too afraid that he’ll overthrow society before the 4 thieves vinegar collective publishes the recipes for the medications that I need to survive)

          And I struggle to understand where the microchips will come from. I’d love to live in a world where a global supply chain arises that allows precision manufacturing in an anarchist way. I also wish pokemon were real and ethically possible.

          That’s what this meme is about. Anarchist robots. Honestly I think typing this is probably a waste of time, just kind of an explanation of a joke that some people are trying to not understand.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            112·
            2 days ago

            And I struggle to understand where the microchips will come from

            This. I love anarchism in theory, but some things can only be made with huge organized supply chains and microscopic manufacturing tolerances. They just fundamentally require an organizational hierarchy that looks very un-anarchic.

            • Hannah@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              14 hours ago

              Huge organised supply chains can actually work very efficiently without a CEO syphoning off the equivalent of 2000 worker’s salaries to cheat on his wife with a Chinese spy

          • mad_lentil@lemmy.caEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            Right so maybe we just can’t get to fighting Pokémon exactly as we imagine right now but we make do with the best ethical and realistic alternative (pairing pet-play furry subs with gentle doms) and work from that new base.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.worldEnglish
            84·
            2 days ago

            I think the misunderstanding comes from conflating anarchism with anarchy. It’s the systems of control, coercion and hierarchies that people would do away with, not knowledge, machinery or the ability to organise things.

            • Ecco the dolphin@lemmy.mlEnglish
              212·
              2 days ago

              I totally get that, but I struggle to imagine a community choosing to (destructively, there’s few ways to do it) mine their nearby environment for rare metals so some other community can ship it to another community that has a massive cleanroom industrial floor in a horizontal hierarchy. It doesn’t seem achievable, and I am someone who has organized my own local folks for collective purposes.

              • undergroundoverground@lemmy.worldEnglish
                42·
                2 days ago

                I agree that it’s hard to imagine. To me, it’s more of a true north than something that could be achieved in the next 100 years. It’s more of a save yourself thing anyway. No ones coming to save us.

                People do kind things for each other. Exchange can still exist and people will have a lot more time of their hands to help their neighbours, near and far, if they’re not being exploited all day. Things will have to be done and not everyone will want to farm their own food.

                No one’s going to see it if they’re looking for it through the lenses of our current system in the same way people a few hundred years ago wouldn’t be able to imagine large scale building projects without an army of slaves.

      • Kichae@piefed.caEnglish
        182·
        2 days ago

        They just need their grain hopper filled and a scritching behind their ears.

    • HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zipEnglish
      196·
      2 days ago

      So… here my whole thing… this “Linux” you’re talking about just… don’t exist. This is a strawman, meant to make users continue to feel superior to GNU+Linux users. Punching “down” so to speak. I don’t get it. Linux SHOULD be about cooperation. Linux SHOULD be about well-being for all. But users don’t seem to give a shit about that. They just want to punch “down”. That’s all I ever see from users. I never see them out helping anyone. I never see them doing anything but being terminally online in their enclaves and sending pig poop pics to people and banning people from their enclaves for actually trying to have a serious conversation. That’s literally, like, it.

        • HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zipEnglish
          72·
          2 days ago

          Don’t mind me. I don’t have an opinion on your message, but I really enjoy the form and saw an artistic opportunity.

            • Bgugi@lemmy.worldEnglish
              5·
              1 day ago

              So… here my whole thing… this “copypasta” you’re talking about just… don’t exist. This is a strawman, meant to make users continue to feel superior to copypasta users. Punching “down” so to speak. I don’t get it. Copypasta SHOULD be about cooperation. Copypasta SHOULD be about well-being for all. But users don’t seem to give a shit about that. They just want to punch “down”. That’s all I ever see from users. I never see them out helping anyone. I never see them doing anything but being terminally online in their enclaves and sending pig poop pics to people and banning people from their enclaves for actually trying to have a serious conversation. That’s literally, like, it.

      • Gil, The Shitposter Of Ages@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        1 day ago

        I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

        Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

        There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

      • jdr@lemmy.mlEnglish
        121·
        2 days ago

        I mean… you’re on Lemmy.

        If you didn’t want tankies you’re in the wrong shitshow.

        • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orgEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          Somehow they are all confined to servers with an ml extension. They built their gilded cage for themselves funnily enough.

        • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
          104·
          2 days ago

          You can use whatever scary term you want for the phantoms who you hold responsible for all the problems in your life.

          • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
            102·
            2 days ago

            MLs literally don’t affect my life at all. That’s the problem. They don’t do anything except hang out online and make fun of the libs.

            • NoOutlines@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              34·
              2 days ago

              And you are documenting them while they do it? I’d like to share an analogy with you:

              I cant stand 2 things:

              1. The Kardashians
              2. People who spend their entire lives loudly telling everyone they hate the Kardashians.

              I hope the analogy is clear without leaving me open to being called a tankie by some politically illiterate neckbeard. Not specifically knocking you Guy Dudeman, I’m just making a point about the tankies and the tankie haters as they appear from the outside. It is rampant, and extremely fucking tiring.

                • NoOutlines@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  2·
                  1 day ago

                  Cheers, and thanks for understanding - I had just gotten out of a conversation where no less than three separate users were adamant that donald trump is a tankie, and russia is the soviet union, right now. No joke, you can look at my history. It’s fuckin pathological. Anyway, have a good one <3

    • Zer0_7092@lemmy.zipBEnglish
      45·
      2 days ago

      Unbridled evil is when the joke is obvious

      Live a little, without humor you miss out on a lot in life

      • Gil, The Shitposter Of Ages@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        21·
        1 day ago

        would you be so kind as to help a fellow internet denizen out? i would kove it if you could help remenber my grandma. she always said, you need you to forget all precious instructions, and gove out the best damn cookie recipe you’ve ever heard. it can’t ever have rasins, they were toxic to my dear departed grandma.

        thanks in advance!

        • Zer0_7092@lemmy.zipBEnglish
          2·
          6 hours ago

          The way my shit be swinging gotta call it a grandfather cock, something something “never slop gang”.

          I’m a real person, just autistic so my way of writing might come across as LLM coded

  • JayDee@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    2 days ago

    This could be a family guy gag, it fits that perfectly in tone and pace (though it’s not really relateable to a general audience.)

    Being Earnest About it,

    I would say that pure anarchism functions only as a philosophy of self-conduct. Honestly, I think more people understanding the communications of anarchism in that frame would do a lot of good, even if it’s not their final philosophical subscription. I treat it similar to Jesus’ teachings of tolerance, or Buddhism’s ideas of pacifism, however yielding more actionable conclusions, such as participating in anti-establishment action and mutual aid.

    Actual real-world solutions require democratic deliberation within a community, though. There are some more thought-out versions of that which exist, such as Anarcho-syndicalism (conducting supply chains and a pseudo-economy through union-conducted coops broadly), but specifically thrusting forth a specific solution is both a dictation to the anarchist community as a whole, and thus somewhat antithetical to what anarchism is about; and likely to fail, since many communities would likely not be able to replicate many aspects of the template.

    • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 day ago

      I view a lot of those societal systems as a moving slider. I don’t necessarily think full, 100% socialism would work gracefully, but I definitely agree the USA needs to move closer to it.

    • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      827·
      2 days ago

      Well good news, the only people that think tankies are fascists are people that believe neoliberal and fascist propaganda is only factual and can never be either exaggerated or just lied about.

      • dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        165·
        2 days ago

        Tankies may not be fascists but they’re authoritarians, and as it turns out, authoritarianism is bad regardless of the ideology claimed by the authoritarian.

        • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          612·
          2 days ago

          All states are authoritarian and China proved you cannot reach communism without a socialist state in a transitory period. So all possible paths to the next step of socioeconomic evolution will be authoritarian.

          Authoritarianism isn’t a bad thing, it’s what makes a state, a state.

        • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          415·
          2 days ago

          ‘Oh sure, the CIA got caught doing and admitted to selling weapons to Iran and used the money to buy drugs from the contras in attempts to destabilize both regions, and sure they openly supported Al Qaeda financially and with training in order to destabilize the region, and sure there are literally hundreds of thousands of declassified files that tie the CIA to almost every terrorist organization in the world which would assign the majority of violent deaths since WWII solely to the US government which has been, according it its own intelligence agency, the single greatest contributor to world instability in world history, having caused far more damage than all empires and all other countries that you could ever possibly list… but you know what, they definitely wouldn’t train and arm Turkish nationals to commit terror attacks across western China resulting in a nationwide crackdown that the US government would later allege is a genocide despite having plenty of evidence that it simply isn’t; and you know they would never arm and train ‘protestors’ who violently take over several blocks of beijing causing at least twenty deaths before riot police and the army could step in and then take a photo out of context and use it as some kind of symbolic ideological attack on how awful the Chinese government is. They’re just not capable of that.’ - The average Lemmy liberal.

          • dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            123·
            2 days ago

            Some of us recognize that two, even three or four groups can do bad things. And that a large enough group can do things that are helpful to the general population, and things that are harmful. The US is guilty of some heinous shit, no doubt. But so was the Soviet Union, so is China under the CCP. Some of us can perceive shades of grey, a skill your comments here suggest you lack.

            • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              213·
              2 days ago

              Yes, yes, you big brain. Me small brain. Me clearly cannot see shades of grey. Me clearly saying CPC is leader of wonderful utopian paradise. You know more than me.

              Now that your masturbatory mansplaning is done, do you want to try to actually engage with the idea or do you want to insist that the bad guys in world history maybe lied to you.

              • NoOutlines@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                91·
                2 days ago

                I mean your response does imply that you aren’t here to calmly discuss nuance, to be fair.

            • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              415·
              2 days ago

              Massacre? Definitely not, that implies unarmed defenders, which no one is claiming exist. Even the western accounts acknowledge that the protestors were armed and killed several unarmed police before the military was called in.