1100
I promise the Republican Party
(feddit.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
1100 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6027 readers
1136 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I would suggest that the final form would be anarcho-syndicalism.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
I also think our basic human natures make such cooperative systems unlikely on any large scale.
I'm using communism as a bit of a catch-all term. the specifics are not my concern so long as the people hold the power.
and i disagree with your statement there. human nature is whatever we do with it. there's nothing natural about capitalism.
I didn't say anything about capitalism being natural. I said the final stage, anarcho-syndicalism, is probably unachievable. And no, human nature is not whatever we do with it. You will not just make things like jealousy, violent tendencies, the need to be controlled, and people fearing those different from them magically disappear. There will be people like that regardless of how you wish to remake the world unless you find a way to genetically engineer it all out of us. Because all of those things go back to our primate roots.
i didn't mean to imply you said capitalism is natural. i meant there's nothing natural about it yet the entire world revolves around it and has been for quite a while. if you put a system in place human nature is irrelevant. murder is "natural". we have laws against it. anarchism shouldn't be just total chaos, it just removes unnecessary hierarchies.
things like jealousy and violence are usually linked to economic and social hardship, and in a fair economic and free social system it should either go away or be the result of psychological problems which should have remedies in an anarchist system as well.
Psychological problems only have humane remedies in such a system if the person with the problem agrees to the remedy. What if they don't?
i don't agree. if you're an aggressor, it's not inhumane to require you to stop. a free society doesn't mean you're free to hurt people.
Require how? How would this be enforced?
i don't know man, some sort of social worker takes them away. you're asking me specifics like I'm going to build my own society right now.
I'm trying to point out the flaw here. If you give the social worker the power to do that, suddenly you're creating power hierarchies, which goes against the whole idea.
no it doesn't. not necessarily, anyway. authorities don't need to automatically vanish in an anarchy. instead they may need to prove the purpose of their existence. there is literature on non-state justice systems. communism and anarchism comes from thinkers, economists and philosophers. it's not like they didn't just think of crime at all.
If you have power hierarchies and authorities, it is no longer anarcho-syndicalism. So I think you're proving my point. Also, when would these social workers with this authority ever vanish? After some sort of eugenics program to eliminate all dangerous mental illnesses from humanity?
so you think murder is or should be free in an anarchist society?
No, I think an anarchist society won't work on a large scale because mentally ill people commit murders and you will have to have a power structure to deal with them. And then suddenly you have classes of people with different levels of power.
yeah. anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness.
I never said it did. I'm talking about power structures and hierarchies. You keep putting words in my mouth.
not having any enforcement of the law is effectively lawlessness. idk how that's putting words in your mouth.
you either think anarchy is lawlessness or accept that am anarchist society would still have a way to enforce laws.
You go ahead and have the conversation with the straw man version of me you've set up on your own because you're not talking to me or about what I'm saying. Enjoy.
you know you can correct me instead of just denying my interpretation.
is the answer is yes to both then there can be certain authorities on certain issues in an anarchist society. if the answer is no to either of those questions you either think it's lawless (no for Q1) or effectively lawless (no for Q2). tell me which part of this is a strawman.
In an enlightened society, each man or woman would govern himself or herself.
yeah but there's no such society. checks and balances must be external or they don't exist.
I've corrected you more than once and you keep putting words in my mouth and trying to talk about something I wasn't talking about. I'm not interested. And I'm done.
sounds like you're just avoiding
That's lame AF.
And from what I've seen in my lifetime and in the history of the world it's almost unavoidable.
Anarchism is unavoidable? Where are you seeing that? Because I'm seeing the world spinning into an ultracapitalist death-spiral which will end with the deaths of billions of people.
And this was the personal attack that ended the discussion. Goodbye.
Education?
How do you educate away violent mental illness?
To quote you: "You will not just make things like jealousy, violent tendencies, the need to be controlled, and people fearing those different from them magically disappear."
Please point to the words 'violent mental illness' in your original post. Now take your yellow highlighter pen and color it on your screen. Actually, use a Sharpie - what the hell. Maybe next time you'll see it and remember not to speak out of turn.
If you mean to say that 'violent tendencies' is necessarily equivalent to 'violent mental illness', I would counter that they are two different things. I would say that people in the armed forces have violent tendencies. Police officers have violent tendencies. But violent mental illness is a completely different thing. Violent mental illness implies that the violence is not a rational response to the situation at hand.
So, sorry I took away your little 'Gotcha!" moment.
Okay, well you can counter it but that is still what I meant to say.
And I didn't do any sort of gotcha comment. That's not something I do. I resent the suggestion. If you're going to just make uncivil accusations, we can stop this right now.
Dude, it's your ball. Take it and go if you're upset.