Capitalism is just an economic system, I'm not sure what nukes has to do with it. It's not like billionaires directly own them, and we have to distribute the "nuke wealth" to the people or anything lol

😳 unless we destroy capitalism? 👉🏾👈🏾

reminds me of https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo

I think one thing people need to think about is that if we succeed in abolishing capitalism, then all medicines become public domain, no more proprietary formulas, and no more profit motive.

So instead of a few dozen or hundred scientists and business-persons figuring out production of medicines strictly constrained by maximum profit (industrialized automation, single point of manufacture, distribution, etc), instead, we'd have potentially millions of people looking at the science and working on sustainable, local, and easy-to-produce formulations that put people, not profits, first.

We need to understand that the reason medicines currently require complicated expensive machinery and huge supply chains is due 100% to the profit motive. That reality ceases to exist post-capitalism. We HAVE to learn to think outside of the confines of "capitalist realism."

getting steady work is critical. if work dries up, often everyone takes a pay cut till times are good again. some coops pay hourly, not salary, so subsidizing isn't a thing for them. for the ones that do salary, there is the temporary furlough route, but ideally there is savings for such eventualities. savings and / or loans can be used to ride out dry spells.

but generally speaking, coops are more stable than typical corporate businesses simply due to the lack of a billionaire class extracting profits and making big decisions on their whims. coops are democratic (even consensus-based!) so the coop does what is good for the worker, not the billionaire.

the difference in salary they're talking about is more along the lines of small business vs venture capital-backed startup or established huge corporation. one joins a worker-owned coop for the alternative to corporate life, not the high-paying salary. and you'd have to try pretty hard to become unemployed at a coop. there are generally no "layoffs" since there is no greedy billionaire at "the top" needing a second yacht. it's tough work, but it is totally worth it if you have a seething hatred for capitalism. fuck the billionaire class with a cactus, sideways.

Knows so little he uses an image of Iron Eyes Cody? Nah, seems too ironic to be real.

y'all are acting like the rich don't already have mercenaries and mafia

I usually couldn't care less about electoralism, but if any politician has get rid of police and government as their platform, I will vote for them and campaign SO HARD.

I really appreciate this thread and I feel inspired to reply. I think a lot of why anarchism is difficult to understand is because it is hard for us to imagine anything other than the "capitalist realism" that has spread to the entire world. As they say, it is the air you breathe, the water you swim in, so it can be hard to see.

So if you want to understand how anarchism can possibly work, really what you have to do is look at places where it is, in fact, actually working. Find the edges of society where affinity groups are actually doing real work in supporting the unhoused, defending marginalized and vulnerable communities, feeding and empowering one-another without any hierarchy. Look closely at the actions of Block Cop City for instance, or the Zapatistas, or Rojava. Look at how things worked in the Spanish Civil War, or Occupy Wall Street. As an added exercise, find some other examples of non-hierarchical activities and actions in your own life (you may be surprised how many there are).

Lots of hierarchy-apologists will decry these things always fail, or are only applicable in very specific contexts, but judge for yourself. There are obviously autonomous tactics that clearly work within these examples, but can you imagine them working in other contexts? How are they organizing themselves if it isn't by way of hierarchy? How are they getting things accomplished without rules and punishments? Keep an open mind, use your imagination, and you may just find yourself thinking that anarchy is indeed possible beyond these given examples.

IMHO this situation was not morally ambiguous, like at all. There was a transporter accident. Two crewmen died. That's that. The fact that a new sentient being came to life as a result is a completely separate matter. That being (Tuvix) as far as anyone should be concerned, was a newborn.

At that point, what you had was a tragic accident of no one's intention or volition.

The choice was never "save two crewmen" vs "save Tuvix," because at that point, the two crewman were already dead. And Tuvix was alive and in no danger. There was no moral impetus to do anything. A tragedy happened, it sucks. Move on with life.

So IMHO Janeway absolutely, intentionally, volitionally murdered Tuvix, who was a newborn in no danger. She absolutely resurrected two crewman who were already dead. She did this for her own personal reasons, and acted immorally. QED.

Thank you for coming to my irrationally-important-to-me TED talk.

I think the confusion here might be in the qualities of what anarchists mean when they say "state." It is commonly remarked that anarchists are against the state. But as you can probably imagine, they are not opposed to, say, libraries. Or emergency services. Or sewer lines.

What "the state" represents, what anarchists are opposed to, is the upholding of the status quo. The reproduction of the system that murders people, pollutes the environment, enforces the necessity of wage slavery, protects billionaires and punishes the homeless.

That giant system of oppression (capitalism) is not something these small groups can or want to do. Forming councils is very different from the prison industrial system. Kicking out a member is very different from arresting someone for stealing bread to feed his family. And scuffles with neighbors is hardly a war. These are the actions (right or wrong) of groups of friends. This is human-level drama.

What anarchists oppose is the giant machine that is not human-sized; the unstoppable Leviathan that does not think or feel but rather lumbers eternally toward ever greater destruction and madness. It is the worldwide money monster that cuts the trees, turns farmland into parking lots, treats chickens like factory parts, and ensures there are more empty buildings than there are unhoused people.

"The state" is the nation-state, yes. But it is also (and more importantly), the "state of things." The awful, joyless, depressing, inescapable state of things. That is what anarchists really oppose.

Caveats: 1) Not all anarchists feel this way. 2) I speak mostly from a North American perspective. 3) I didn't read the article. 4) I'm a lemmy noob.