If that’s what you think this says, then you completely misunderstand anarchism.
This book describes current and past societies that have functioned using anarchist principles such as horizontality, mutual aid, none of which are utopian, but all of which are significantly more equitable than systems like capitalism, feudalism, authoritarianism, and statehood.
Thank you for the link! AnarchistLibrary is cool but sometimes it’s hard to find the solid stuff from the tumblr rants.
I agree, it’s amazing how “revolutionary” it is to hold the idea that people can lead and cooperate just fine without a someone “on top” making all the rules everyone just follows because they say so. Some people just can’t fathom not being lead around by the nose.
They think we’re utopian, but I’d rather work towards an equitable world using anarchist principles, knowing it won’t create a utopia, than give up and let greed and hatred win out because that’s the status quo.
“This current situation is the best we’ve got so far” is such a low bar.
Amen. One of the things I like best about anarchism is it introduces concepts that we can begin to practice immediately vs. awaiting some future revolution.
I really like the book I linked because to me it’s so much easier to read and digest than some of the famous works by authors like Kropotkin or Goldman.
Democratically owning the means of production among the workers. Instead of some greedy rich guy who’d want to give as little of the profit as possible to the people actually making the product or providing the service.
Co-ops and unions are certainly steps in the right direction, but they’re more like temporary band-aids over Capitalism instead of implementing proper Socialism.
Communism without actually sharing isn’t communism. Democracy without fair elections isn’t democracy. Socialism without the socialisation of the benefit of production is not socialism. Your ignorance of these things doesn’t change what they are.
North Korea calls itself democratic. Everyone in the country votes for a new leader every five years. It’s just that there’s only one name on the ballot.
One would be foolhardy to call that democracy.
One would be even more foolhardy to argue that this means that democracy is a stupid idea.
No, it’s not a democracy because it doesn’t even bother following actual democratic principles. It’s just like Napoleon’s idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I’m being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
I copy-pasted my answer because you copy-pasted your comment
No, it’s not a democracy because it doesn’t even bother following actual democratic principles. It’s just like Napoleon’s idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I’m being democratic.
Exactly, and that’s why everything you’ve ever known as communism and socialism is in exactly the same boat. They didn’t follow the actual communistic or socialist principals. They were all little north Korea pretending to be those things.
You’ve never read a book in your life, you have no clue what that phrase means. You have just proven yourself genuine and not an actor. You are a moron.
How do you give the means of production to a concept (the collective) if not by giving it to the institution that supposedly represents it (the state)?
By actually distributing the value generated to the workers. It doesn’t require the state to do anything except legislate paying workers their worth. Adequately taxing those with means to pay for social services for those without. You know, actually benefitting the lowest rung of the social hierarchy beyond letting them beg for scraps and die.
I’ll give you a hint, no one is being paid what they’re worth while a profit margin exists because every dollar of profit is a dollar exploited from the supplier, the worker, and the customer, for the benefit of the mini kings of capitalism.
Which if you knew how to read a book you’d realise is the point. Like I said, you’re not pretending to be a moron. You’re just parroting shit you heard elsewhere with no understanding of it’s actual meaning or context, and you’ve definitely never read any of the books these ideas come from. You are the equivalent of a child telling a physicist that they don’t know how particle physics works because of what your friend told you in kindergarten.
Go read a book and stop being a willfully ignorant dumbass. Not that I have any hope you’d understand the concepts in them but you’d have to learn something from osmisis at least.
All while the world’s current top superpower is right beside them, sees them as an enemy, and has a still ongoing embargo on them for 60 years now to prevent them from trading with other countries. That’ll hopefully change once China’s Belt and Road Initiative is complete though.
Clearly this model works. It does require expelling landleeches, plantation owners and billionaires if they don’t hand over the means of production to the workers (like Cuba did after the revolution), but I don’t think most people would mind that.
It also historically requires fighting off the US though because military, oil, and other private corporation owners can’t exploit Socialist countries as much, which is harder.
It is though? People directly nominate individuals in their area, and the ballots are checked in public where anyone can attend.
This results in a Parliament that evenly and properly represents the entire population. That’s why Cuba has an unusually high percentage of women in the government, 53.22% now (U.S has 29.0%), and better LGBT rights than the U.S. nowadays.
Being rich as an advantage is also taken away by banning advertising yourself/anyone. You need social connections with the people in your area (Socialism) instead.
Not knowing something is fine, but being ignorant and arrogant about it is unfortunate. Though I suppose it is unbelievable, if you’re in a Capitalist country, to hear that a nation has solved homelessness, starvation, and education by just changing its political/economic system (and fighting off the US after).
Imagine its sheer potential once it can trade with other countries with that massive advantage, after the US is eventually forced to stop the embargo.
You mean the 2021 “protests”? Most of it was pro-government/revolution ones against CIA-backed ‘protests’ that were spun up by Fox News to be pro-US; by blurring out signs and the like. And a fake Twitter campaign run by bots.
These aren’t declassified until decades later for obvious reasons. They’re called “color revolutions” and are staged by billion dollar US corporations to set the stage for military or political action. Best way to spot them is seeing if they have US-flags or have signs with generic lines like “Freedom”.
That’s an oxymoron. There is literally no such thing as a capitalist cooperative. By definition, co-ops are socialist. Also, the right wing populist wants to socialize the airlines?
Simple. You know all those scientists that work at $40 billion chip plants? They would actually take the $40 billion and not some random suit who doesn’t do any of the actual work. Executive leadership is important, but it’s not worth 1000x the average worker’s salary.
Work isn’t just physical you know. Management, planning, etc is work too, and they’d get paid according to how many want to do them, and how hard they are.
The difference is, like I said, that some greedy rich bastard who’d want to give as little of the profit as possible to the people actually making the product or providing the service wouldn’t own that means of production.
Oh, they are still around. Now they are talking about people in their 20s dying from the vaccine. And there have been millions of young people (in Germany alone) who died because of the vaccine. The government just made the bodies disappear and payed their families off.
I wish I was joking, but no. This is the shit they believe. I hate every single amoeba on the right.
Yeah this one is more than a little irritating. I’ve encountered too many people who know someone who has someone in their life that was adversely affected by the vaccine. Heart attacks, strokes, nerve issues, whatever. But when you press them for the details there’s always something else, like the person has diabetes, had a bunch of age-related diseases, etc. But there’s no way those things had anything to do with their poor health…no, it has to be the vaccine. Or maybe the even got covid, but refused to get tested.
It’s the same problem I have with people who want me to fix their computer. Any issues that come up at any time in the future, no matter how much time passed or how unrelated it is, was caused by “whatever I did.”
No, Aunt Karen, the malware you downloaded is not from me restarting your Wi-Fi adapter 3 years ago.
And with these people any negative health issues that occur can only be attributed to vaccines.
someone in their life that was adversely affected by the vaccine.
There are rare side effects. When someone brings it up, it’s important to acknowledge it but qualify the risk. .0001% of heart problem or .1 % of death. Tell them it’s like driving without a seat belt because of the 1 in a million chance you get in an accident where the seatbelt traps you. Meanwhile 77% of all people have been in an accident.
I don’t deny that there are potential side effects. However, when one person knows multiple people who have suffered some ill effect it’s obviously not about the science. By that same token I could apply my logic that I know zero people who have had any serious side effects.
I actually just suggest that they drive without seatbelts seeing as the odds of getting in a serious accident are so low in their daily life if they want to refuse the vaccine based on potential side effects. Hemming and hawing usually follows.
Apparently doctors and nurses have been paid off to peddle this and it’s all part of a big global hoax.
Meanwhile my sister with $80,000 nursing student loans is like “Wtf where’s my money? You mean I nearly died working my butt off for nothing??” - 80 hours “full time” per week.
Also ignoring the fact that if even 0.001% of the global medical community has misgivings about accepting what I assume must have been an enormous bribe that we would have heard about it??
Ah. So the “left” aren’t social left, they just see money as the answer to all social progression too. Got it. Well that explains our current Western progress and predicament. Lot of growing up to do if, as far as social progression goes, money is seen as a power rather than a weakness. Ain’t no one in need getting any that way.
History repeats and we all stay the same. New generation, another dollar.
At least “eat the rich” makes more sense. Robin Hood would rob the guy and not socially recognise them as a king. More important things to do.
Edit: I actually expected more down votes than this (7) and was wanting some discourse. Anyone? I’m looking for someone to state what’s not already called out in that a core issue is the perception of monetary wealth being a controlling factor of social imbalance—which of course it is with a society of that perception.
You’ve all got bank accounts drained for the people, not your house deposit, right? Right? Sorry… Left? Left?
Well, actual left doesn’t base itself on economical attributes. So it’s interesting to see a meme go straight to wealth while claiming leftism. Part of being on the left is recognisimg wealth as a faux controller and issue. Actual left doesn’t socially want in on it too. Actual left would aim at rejecting an acknowledgement of wealth by reinforcing services and freedoms to all without requirement of wealth, thus diluting the importance and value of money.
This comic almost opposes that by weighing importance of wealth. It’s insulting to leftism by claiming “this is left”.
A lot of the replies seem to be the trending American ideas of leftism which are very new and very unique to a $27T GDP with stonks of social issues. Kind of trying to force the two to connect, but that’s not how leftism works.
Y’all can literally Google it right now if you need to know what being left is. It’s social equality you’re meant to be working on, not getting a piece of the pie. Recognising and blaming distribution of wealth is literally opposing leftism because it’s acknowledging and giving finance power. The comic is more “I feel left out” when it should be “your money is nothing”.
TIL criticism of the status quo isn’t left. Neither is criticizing power dynamics. It’s not about sharing the cake equally but pretending the cake doesn’t exist. This will feed the hungry and house the homeless.
Sure, occupying empty houses will house the homeless but only if you are prepared for the power dynamics which is the police will evict you in no time. I wish money was nothing but force ain’t nothing and the state has a monopoly on force, so as long as they think money is something, it is. Good luck with your mutual aid initiative or what ever it is you are doing and we can try to change the system, but we can’t just ignore it.
States where the society views money as less important than social issues/equality already have and will continue to get progressive social benefits. You can’t put a value on something if every expects it to be free. Lack of wealth is not an issue when everyone expects things to be free. But by recognising wealth and pricetags does money become important and thus hoarded. Th cake isn’t money, it’s cake. You don’t need money redistributed for everyone to get cake when cake is expected as a social staple and offset by the society as a whole.
This is fundamental leftism. A society won’t achieve it if they’re focused on people having more money than them. “But how will I pay for cake if they have all the money?!” Uhhh, you don’t. You demand the cake and halt everything until you get the cake. Once everyone has cake, back to business as usual.
I can’t recall a single historical social issue that was resolved by acknowledging and redistributing wealth. Enough people just demanded it and social equality happened.
I love how you totally ignore my point. Sure, money isn’t the cake, but housing is. Good luck ignoring the cops that evict you!
Sure, I want a classless, moneyless, stateless society but on the way there, we can’t ignore what is. I’m not a Marxist but I think we can agree that Marx was left. He wrote a book “Das Kapital”. You can literally google what it is about.
I see your point. However, you are still not understanding. Fair housing can’t happen if you think it’s about distribution of wealth. Stop thinking it’s all about money. It’s about social equality. The left would introduce rental caps, tenant benefits, rental assistance programs, more rights and benefits to prevent unfair evictions. But also improve housing for renters to have more equal stance to own instead.
This is what left states do. Left is not considering and focusing on redistributing wealth as the centre of social inequality since it is not a social issue. Money comes after. It is a result. If a self-proclaimed “left” is so obsessed with money, I question their concern of actual social equalities because they too are only thinking about the money and there’s no resolve in that.
Nobody said it’s only about redistributing money. We are talking about a 4 panel meme that says “Rich people are the problem”. It’s not a manifesto stating that redistribution will solve all our problems. It’s a meme saying rich people are the problem. They are the ruling class. Not everything utterance has to have the solution. Sometimes it’s enough to state the problem.
I’m full into solving the housing problem by occupying empty houses and self-organized groups around the concept of mutual aid. We need to abolish money and the state and patriarchy but sometimes it’s ok to “just” say “rich people are the problem”. This doesn’t imply that it’s the only one and that the solution is easy. It isn’t.
Rich people are the by-product of social inequality. The actual problem. Correcting these things would naturally dissolve the power of money since it devalues its place in society as it is less needed for basic social survival.
But in there lies the true issue. If no longer money—an artificial measure of tracking what is valuable in society—what is the next thing the same people will want to control? Our history is riddled with it. That’s the tricky part of we abolish money and it does sound awful nice like you say. Gold, water, people, currency, oil… It’s always something. But leftism looks to ensure things like this are avoided, not being side-tracked by trying to cure the symptoms. If you are a leftist, people wih absurd control of something (money in this case) are an indicatior equality has been neglected and there’s work to do. Step 1, look at what’s making them have so much control and start on all of those things. It’s not money. Money’s not even valuable to many of the left.
I see this comic and I don’t see leftism at all. I see someone upset about finance and doesn’t know what to do but blame a specific symptom of inequality impacting them. That’s not going to do anything and it’s not “left”. It indicates a value and focus for money that may even see them do the exact same thing if they amassed some, since it’s so important to them than much other else in the complexities of society, especially the actual problems causing it.
My triggering issue is it says “this is left” and “this is right” without sensing the irony. The money part is just…so primitive I couldn’t help myself. We see things on spectrums with many points peppered across for just a single individual. What upsets me is this primative two camp idea driving “Whatever I don’t like must be right/left” without actually understanding what these things are. It’s very clear of a naturally divisive society which is a breeding ground for social inequality. It smells distinctly US where almost many things (and historically so) are a really strong competition of one side versus another. Trying to drag leftism into that is actually opposing to its fundamental ideas. Neglecting the spectrum entirely is straight up regressive of social maturity and stability.
I don’t think many people on Lemmy actually know what they are except unhappy, and they are looking for comfort and hope in a home. But the principle ideas of leftism do not conduct itself this way, lest it never succeed in progression.
Edit: Also, I appreciate you sticking with me this far :) It’s okay if I’ve been exhausting enough now though. Exchanging thoughts and ideas is super fulfilling and we always get better for it, even if we don’t think anything’s sticking.
Bro wants to sound important and educated soooo bad. I actually giggled reading “economical attributes”. Like I don’t think even you understand what you’re trying to say.
It’s social equality you’re meant to be working on, not getting a piece of the pie.
Leftists want this. You’re not saying something revolutionary. The problem is that in America, getting democratic socialism with redistribution of wealth is much more realistic than a total social overhaul like you’re suggesting.
Recognising and blaming distribution of wealth is literally opposing leftism because it’s acknowledging and giving finance power.
Uhhh no. Capitalism and the govt give finance power. Recognizing and attempting to use the system to better the lives of people isn’t the problem, it just isn’t the ideal solution. It’s a stop-gap.
You can claim “true leftism” all day, but I live in reality where half-assed solutions are better than nothing.
What does your comment mean though? Feel free to attack my reading comprehension but i don’t actually think your comment is making a statement. Distill it so my slow ass understands and maybe (and that’s a big maybe) we can try to have some sort of conversation. Judging by the downvotes i presume your opinion is unpopular–i just don’t understand it well enough to see why.
My opinion is left and it’s annoyed that someone would say the comic is left.
While the comic is focused on distribution and accumulation of wealth being an issue, actual left recognises finance as an issue. Society doesn’t require wealth for equality. People can be rich in leftism. Leftism is social. Social issues is what it addresses. Thinking “left” is somehow attached to finance is fundamentally anti-social. Thinking money should be better disteibuted and not hoarded by the rich is acknowledging money is power which is anti-social.
None of us with national healthcare systems got them by considering money and the rich and who has and who doesn’t have money. We got them by acknowledging health as a social issue. Money be damned.
None of us with nationally assisted higher education got it by considering money and the rich and who has or doesn’t have money. We got it by acknowledging education as a social issue. Money be damned.
None of us that with gun regulation got it by considering money and the rich and who has or doesn’t have money. We got them by acknowledging public safety as a social issue. Money be damned.
This comic… “Nah, it’s money, hey. That’s what’s stopping us. I’m left 👉👈” It’s kind of insulting to the ideology. And I expected backlash on here because Lemmy seems to be riddled with backseat leftists that don’t actually know what it is. By acknowledging money as some big value implies that when it comes time to pay for social equality, Lemmingtons and the author of this comic will be upset to be getting less money. That’s not an issue when money takes anback seat to social progression aka actual left.
I think his comment is reading way way too much into it. The comic is basically saying that “left” is willing to question authority, while “right” takes it as gospel and asks for more.
There’s also the claim that criticising weath disparity while living in a very weath-centric system is somehow an endorsement of that weath-centric system.
Guy seems to just want to dump on the idea of left, so I’ll leave a downvote and let him dump in peace.
Thanks for taking the time to break that down for me. I will just go ahead and attack my own reading comprehension–i never would have deduced that from their comment, no way.
Could it also have something to do with the fact that nowadays what’s called “the right” in the US are extremists and what’s called “the left” are center-right/right wing?
Judging by the downvotes i presume your opinion is unpopular–i just don’t understand it well enough to see why.
Asked and answered. It’s incoherent borderline word salad and just comes across as really really trollish, especially with the edit demanding “discourse.”
You and all of the new conservative sign ups on Lemmy need to go back to 4chan or Truth and have your circle jerk. Lemmy was safely claimed by leftists. You’re gonna have a bad time here.
You’re making bold assumptions and trying to place me in a tribe you see the world as—but I’m of none of the things you mentioned nor even close. You feel you can say that without much thought or concern though because you feel as though you’re protected in your camp, why would you declare it so loudly that I know where I am? The reality is, your camp is small, one of millions, and insignificant in global society and culture. You also clearly know as much about conservatism as leftism if you think anything of what I said was ideals or association of conservatism. This must be just what you’ve learned in your camp.
But, hey. You keep fighting that “us vs them”—whoever the fuck they are—thing you got going on. That’s the irony of your self-painted banner. It doesn’t help the world progress and encourages we remain conservative of its old social ways and setbacks.
Tribalism is for the old, the weak, and a disgrace on what we’re supposed to be and could be. The world’s long been too small for you to bark like a yard dog and be intolerant of everything that walks by. Maybe it’s time you start reading about the things you claim to hold so dearly. Or don’t. I’m a 4chan “conservative” after all. Nazi next, hm?
Probably the handgun, body armor, jeep, and flashlight. On the first few days the jeep will offer mobility and storage, while the flashlight is necessary for maximizing the search for gear. Handgun and body armor to give you an advantage over your fellow survivors. Then acquire a boat, food, containers, and other resources and become a pirate. I might consider a fire axe or crow bar necessary if everything wasn’t glass doors and easily breakable locks.
Gas will expire eventually and you could just hotwire one of the many abandoned cars anyways, if the roads aren’t blocked by said cars. Bullets will run out unless you find a gun shop, in which case you get guns anyways. Water purifying is easy enough to do without a machine.
My picks would be German Shepherd, Axe, First Aid, and Radio.
There’s a reason we domesticated dogs, they are useful in so many different ways like hunting, defense, and security (and companionship). Especially German Shepherds, you can see the damage they do when used by police.
Axes are survivalist 101 and some are practically multi tools despite being simple.
First Aid because infections, zombie or not, are the real killers throughout history.
The radio’s more of a gamble, but it’s your best chance to find a new settlement, monke strong together and all that. Also you can maybe stay informed on what’s happening in other parts of the country. (And it lets me flex my Amateur Radio License).
I think I’d take the night vision goggles over the radio. You’re much more likely to find a radio. Situational awareness at night will be a huge survival factor.
Its a relatively recent development that u can just walk into the supermarket and buy a bag of dog food that will last a month, u won’t have that in the wild - how u gonna feed the dog?
A variety of reasons. Some move around as different days brings different crowds. Some only open when they need money and take a break when they do not. Some go out of business as they were just not good at managing their operations yet their food was amazing. Some get sick. Some just move around the block as they were on someone’s turf. Sure there are other reasons but getting shutdown by the police seems to not really happen here much unless you are in front of a government building or a some wealthy property. Out side of that it is a free for all. At least here in Vietnam.
lemmyshitpost
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.