1. Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
  2. Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
  3. Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most anarchists I’ve spoken to, when pressed, just don’t want to follow other peoples rules. If they get to tel everyone else what to do suddenly anarchy loses its appeal.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think there’s a difference between anarchists and “anarchists.” I read about Kropotkin and the first kind, and, if nothing else, his horror and opposition to the early Soviet state as a way of achieving economic justice, and how accurately he was able to diagnose how and why it would go wrong, puts him as pretty forward-thinking in my book.

        I think OPP is neither of those things, and just wants Trump to get elected and is wearing a little plastic anarchist-mask to get it done. Somewhere deep in the forest you can find he and I talking about it.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Anarchists: Trust me, bro, we don’t NEED guardrails on power or democratic systems. We can just say “just be a good broski” and it all works out, if everyone’s living’ right. It’s beautiful, man.

      Also anarchists, whenever they get even a pretty infinitesimal amount of power:

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        This is almost the exact opposite of an anarchist understanding of power.

        The point of anarchist critiques of the state is that the structure and systems themselves corrupt and constrain people into acting in ways that are authoritarian and harmful.

        So, even if you put a good person, and yes, even an anarchist into an authoritarian system, it will inevitably result in an abuse of power and violence towards oppressed people.

        This is exactly why anarchists generally don’t put forth candidates or actively campaign or support political parties in the existing system. Because embedding a different, even better person into a corrupt system will only lead to further corruption.

        I actually think that, ironically, this is a perfect validation of anarchist theory. Lemmy is a platform that was built by and for authoritarians (initially capitalists as Reddit, then only slightly modified by authoritarian leftists on Lemmy). The structure of moderation with mods and admins able to unilaterally take action and the difficulty of organized resistance inevitably leads to abuses, which is what this community is about.

        I’m still waiting for the social media platform that has better infrastructure for distributed power among users rather than the chosen few.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is exactly why anarchists generally don’t put forth candidates or actively campaign or support political parties in the existing system. Because embedding a different, even better person into a corrupt system will only lead to further corruption.

          I feel obligated to point out that the goal is not necessarily to make the system ‘good’, but to avert catastrophic consequences from the very-powerful-current-system taking an all-out position of “Crush the workers, kill the minorities” when such a thing is very much negative for anarchist initiatives and very much avoidable.

          All politics is about power, whether its restraint, its redistribution, or its dismantling - and decisions from anyone who considers their political positions serious must, in that vein, be strategic, not merely spiritual.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I agree with you but I don’t think these two ideas are completely contradictory. My experience after participating in and studying liberal democracy for decades now is that the existing political structure is not going to meaningfully stop its worst harms no matter who is elected to lead it. As a result, organizations that build power outside of the constraints of electoral politics will be essential for any meaningful change, whether incremental or revolutionary.

            But yes, if we can keep fascists out of power by voting, I support that. However, I feel strongly that voting is not even the bare minimum of political activity that we should be engaged in.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              See, I think liberal democracy is perfectly capable of stopping its worst harms in the case of an educated and active citizenry (what a fucking endeavor that is to undertake… we’re nowhere close to that at the moment), but I also support organizations that build power outside of electoral politics, as alternative bases of power mandate negotiation, implicit or explicit, from the ruling power, and reduce the chance of abuse of power.

              While the view of the government as a single unitary entity is foolish in my view, and thus even a society without strong non-government entities is not automatically doomed to tyranny because of the necessarily factional and disunited nature of government, a society with strong non-government entities providing alternatives is almost always better poised for liberty (and the preservation of liberty) than one without. At least within the modern context of statehood. Pre-modern polities were often worse off regarding liberty with strong non-government entities.

              It’s why I like anarchists, even though I don’t count myself as one. I view their methods and goals as conducive to liberty, even if I’m not sure as to the desirability or practicality of entirely abolishing the state as we would recognize it.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              As a result, organizations that build power outside of the constraints of electoral politics will be essential for any meaningful change, whether incremental or revolutionary.

              There is a great article somewhere that makes a case that unions as the prime entities of political power and organization, as opposed to political parties staffed by a separate class of politicians who do politics and only politics full-time, is about a hundred times better.

              It used to be that way in this country, and then it wasn’t and we got that second thing instead, and my god look at what happened.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                There is a great article somewhere that makes a case that unions as the prime entities of political power and organization, as opposed to political parties staffed by a separate class of politicians who do politics and only politics full-time, is about a hundred times better.

                You sound primed for syndicalism, honestly.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not a problem with anarchists in general, I think, but that the kind of anarchists who put themselves into positions of power are generally… not the ones you want in power. Regardless of ideology, power, even the smallest, pettiest kind, tends to attract a certain kind of person more often, on average.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            There are always positions of power. Anarchists are interested in minimizing the institutionalization of power and individual offices. And also, that even anarchists don’t live in a currently-anarchist society/structure, and have to work within that. Don’t believe Lemmy has implemented

            Taking turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs…

            • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              Just to add on to your mention of there always being positions of power, I believe there is a difference between someone having power/authority in a specific moment or in a limited capacity versus a hierarchy.

              A hierarchy enforces compliance from the top down, while individuals are capable of ceding to limited authority in specific situations; see every Anarchist military unit like the CNT, RIAU, BOAK, YPG and YPJ. Any individual member has the right to disobey, to leave. It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.

              I think the difference between positions inherently having power and hierarchical power have been explained much better in other comments, but I just wanted to add that there are real world examples of Anarchists consenting to power/leadership, and it resulting in effective small unit combat effectiveness, outside of thought experiments or generalities.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.

                I mean, I feel the need to point out that dissent, refusal of orders, and desertion were all punishable in CNT militias.

                Any wartime unit is necessarily going to be stricter on such things, as coordination, timing, and accurate estimations are all vital in military operations.

                The anarchist militias were very effective in the Spanish Civil War, though, you are correct about that.

                • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Thank you for the clarification, that’s really interesting.

                  Was desertion specifically deserting a line unit on rotation? Could an enlisted person willingly leave when their unit was rotated off the line for resupply for example? Or was it more a situation where upon enlistment you willfully submitted to the commands authority for the period of enlistment?

                  Do you have any recommendations for reading material on that subject specifically? I had just assumed the CNT operated like most of the other militias I mentioned, although now that I’m thinking about it I guess most of the anecdotal evidence for fighters dropping in and out at will are foreign (predominantly white) volunteers, so that just might be my privilege showing.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    It’s been a long time since I’ve done serious reading on the subject, unfortunately. Article 4 of the CNT regulations for militiamen outlines offenses, though, and treating abandoning one’s post and desertion as separate offenses suggests it wasn’t just leaving the front line that counted as desertion.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, but if your system is anarchist, those are exactly the kind of people who are going to wind up running things.

          There’s a lot of overlap between anarchism and good sense. I’m not trying to be snarky about it. But it does seem that it has a couple of fatal flaws, and that is one. You could say that the early anarchists and the American founding fathers both identified the same types of failure modes in government and societal hierarchy, and where the founding fathers came up with a flawed system that nonetheless made a sincere effort to design a society of free individuals who could each live their lives in a pretty anarchist-friendly fashion, while still taking account of the realities of power and how to mitigate the problems of it… the anarchists just decided, “If we don’t pay attention to these problems then they won’t exist, much easier.”

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s… more complex than that. You should pick a more serious anarchist’s brain. They do consider these problems.

            Personally, I think the term ‘anarchy’ works against them because of its literal meaning and its connotations. I always mentally replace it with the synonym of libertarian socialism, and find it works wonders in reducing preconceptions.