Breaking down walls, tearing down barriers and abolishing borders.
All 3 of these are stealing the money right out of the mouths of struggling CEOs.
All three stand on the field…
@db0 Could we get some moderators for this community, to kick out the low-effort trolls?
Are you talking about the commentors or the post? I am assuming you are talking about the commentors.
Yeah, the post is fine, but we seem to have attracted the attention of the great dismissive majority.
Maybe, but I don’t mind comments. As long as the responses aren’t too aggressive, I’m fine with it.
And I don’t mind bad faith, as long as it doesn’t involve violence.
The comments that are from “low-effort trolls” might be a bit much. I mean, you kind of have to sift through them and say to yourself, “meh, what an idiot, doesn’t even know about the topic at hand to say anything remotely valid.” And that’s the fun part. Trolls, in order to really function at effective troll level, have to engage with the content in some meaningful way, if even superficially, which means they have to understand the subject. They seem to not understand the subject at all, which makes them look glaringly ineffective in their role as trolls. I mean, I might call them “lame attempt at trying to be trolls.” They’re out of their element. And it’s funny. But yeah, they don’t need to be there, either.
Fair enough. For my own part I prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. People starting from a position of “there’s no way that could possibly work” generally aren’t worth my time.
“I have always been a liberal radical, an individualist and an anarchist. In the first place, I am an enemy of the Church; in the second place, I am an enemy of the State. When these great powers are in conflict I am a partisan of the State as against the Church, but on the day of the State’s triumph, I shall become an enemy of the State. If I had lived during the French Revolution, I should have been an internationalist of the school of Anacharsis Cloots; during the struggle for liberty, I should have been one of the Carbonieri.” - Pío Baroja, anarchist and novelist. To stand on equal ground everyone needs to adapt to the ever shifting ground in cooperation, to help each other and themselves to stand on it equally.
What Is Politics just made an episode about this, incidentally.
I wanna slip one good comment in here: they do need a little fence to hide behine if a ball comes
Wait…what’s the kid in the red shirt got his hands on in the Anarchy picture?
Even though it’s now transparent, the barrier is still there. The problem only appears to be solved.
Most barriers are only mental, in people’s minds
The pitcher needs to be shooting the red one just because there’s no rules.
You’re confusing anarchism with anomie…
Anarchism is not the absence of rules, but rules agreed between everyone outside any form of authority.
Rules without authority: impossible to enforce. Rules agreed by everyone: impossible to exist.
Once again, you confuse authority with discipline. What is ruled by consensus don’t need to be enforced by authority.
And when did this thing called consensus ever happened in the past 10000 years?
Haha ! good question, probably never happened…
That’s precisely the nature of progress: to create what doesn’t yet exist.
But, but Somalia!
Removed by mod
Read on Zapatistas or Rojava.
I was leading a work group designing a new software. I tried to reach consensus, so everybody in the group would be satisfied with our decisions. But it didn’t work. Everybody was arguing even on simple questions and didn’t listen to arguments of others. Votings didn’t help too, because the minority was rising the same questions again and again, trying to convince others to join them and then re-vote. And nobody was satisfied. We were wasting time. But when I said that now I only listen to others and make decisions on my own, everybody was ok with that. Our meetings became productive. So, I don’t believe consensus is possible.
Consensus is really a function of group size.
I was in a group, there were 8 members we went back an forth for months to try come to decisions, it was not a great time and nothing was achieved.
Consensus is probably possible in groups of around 4-5
Removed by mod
So anarchy - lack of coercive hierarchy is when there is coercive hierarchy? Nope, you are just not especially smart person.
Removed by mod
I am an anarchist and I do not want to be a strongman. You sound like you don’t have even the most basic understanding of anarchism as a political concept <.<
Removed by mod
Ahh, the “human nature” argument. Never heard that one before /s
Removed by mod
Because it’s not correct, for a lot of reasons. Even the idea of “human nature” is pretty questionable, at least unless your conception of it is extremely broad and conditional ^.^
People are capable of cooperation and non-hierarchical/coercive organising and natural disasters and shit demonstrate this. This is just one example of proto-anarchistic organising among many.
Removed by mod
I feel sorry for you that your experiences of fellow humans have been so unrelentingly negative. To clarify your position, are you saying groups of humans are incapable of altruism?
You engage in anarchism every day, and since you’re here on Lemmy, it’s statistically unlikely you’re beating people up.
Removed by mod
You don’t engage in anarchism? At all, ever? So in your group of friends, you have clearly established hierarchy? Do you go on a date with the assumption that one of you is in charge? Have you never gotten together with a group and discussed what’s best for you all, without one person being the leader?
Anarchism isn’t a lack of rules, or the strong beating the weak, or every person for themselves. Anarchism is rejection of cohersive authority. Anarchism is a thousand little things you do every day with everyone around you. You’ve definitely participated in anarchism, whether you want to admit you have or not. And no amount of protestation is going to change that.
Removed by mod
Damn man, I sympathize.
From the comments that you have been making it seems like you have a very negative view of other people and their ability to work together towards things that they both want (i.e. shared goals). This might be informed by your life experience and honestly, I’m sorry for what you have experienced that has led to such a negatively focused view.
I can’t convince you that anarchism can be good if you believe this staunchly. All I can say is that if you look at your surroundings you could find that people do this all the time.
An example I like to think about is driving. You know almost nothing about other drivers (how sane they are, where they are going, etc.) but we still drive and trust other drivers not to crash into us, and a majority of the time people are able to get to where they are going unharmed. This is an example of anarchy working in our everyday lives.
So, anarchism is being dead? Because that’s what happens when you reject authority - they fucking kill you. No exceptions; barely any delays.
As for this, my philosophy is that as anarchists we should follow the ideas that are based on the paradox of tolerance.
If we want a tolerant society, we need to be intolerant of intolerant ideas, or else those intolerant ideas over time become the norm.
The same goes for freedom (which is what anarchists want for everyone)
If we want a free society, we need to resist people that want to dominate, or else everyone will be dominated.
Removed by mod
I am sorry for the trauma you have suffered that has left you living in fear like this. I don’t expect you to believe me, but this really isn’t the world in which most of us live, it isn’t how things really are and it doesn’t have to be this way for you either.
Anarchy is one of those leftist ideals that has extreme rightward pressure (i.e. it is inherently unstable). Anarchy will always devolve rapidly into feudalism or other right-wing/authoritarian structures.
Anarchism only exists because hierarchy exists plus power that reinforces the hierarchy. That’s the part you don’t seem to understand. It’s a dialectic. Anarchists are not against working in teams. They’re against being subjugated by hierarchies and powers that keep hierarchies in place with the rationale of “just because we’re in power.” Anarchism questions authority and its existence is dependent on the existence of authority and power structures. Remove the power structures and there is no need for anarchy. You only seem to comprehend one side of the anarchist’s rationale, the one that says, “screw you, I’m not going to obey you.” You seem to not understand the other side of the anarchist’s rationale, which is, “you just want me to be obey because you say so, and I have all kinds of reasons why your say so is irrelevant to reason and logic, because all you’ve done is construct a reason that justifies your authority, which is not natural or even essential to the organization of society.”
Anarchism is against coercive hierarchies, so not really. Look at Zapatistas or Rojava, they I would say falsify your statement.
Humans are by nature social, remove the authority figures and after the initial panic. Tribes will form…from tribes bigger clans, it will not be pretty. Some will lose, some will win…this is not a good route to take.
