More important than opposition to the current system is the prefiguration of an anarchic one. So much online discourse is about attacking, a lot less is about building. I drew this to remind myself and others that confronting the state is only a part of the puzzle and building new systems without it is also important.

Licence (as always): CC-0, No rights reserved.

  • Val@lemm.eeOP
    2·
    16 hours ago

    People aren’t selfish or greedy. People are ambitious and in the current society those people are raised to believe that to be the best you have to be selfish and greedy. They aren’t traits you are born with, they are learned.

    But anarchy still is the best way to deal with greedy people as any kind of hierarchy will just allow the greedy people to get to the top. Hierarchies don’t punish the greedy, they elevate them to the highest positions in society as those that aren’t concerned with other peoples well being can always find a way to gain authority over them.

    There needs to be something to try to prevent and/or punish that.

    Anarchy has that something. You can counter abuse without being abusive yourself. We can build social structures that prevent greed without hierarchy. The solution isn’t to give some people a monopoly on violence because that position will always attract the most violent. It’s to build a social networks that sees problems before they happen and provides support. Punishment isn’t a productive method of preventing harm. It’s vengeance, not prevention.

    What is currently destroying the US isn’t libertarianism, it’s bad education, mass media manipulation and a bunch of people following orders.

    Learn some history

    OK
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      10 hours ago

      People aren’t selfish or greedy. People are ambitious and in the current society

      This is just so naive.

      You can name like the only two or three times that you believe this worked, but they are all very small scale made up of people who share the ideology, and WANT to be a part of that kind of society.

      You show those communities to certain types of people, and they see dollar signs and opportunities for exploitation.

      That’s what humans are. You need to accept this.

      • Val@lemm.eeOP
        1·
        10 hours ago

        but they are all very small scale made up of people who share the ideology, and WANT to be a part of that kind of society.

        1. The reason they are small scale is because they all existed during times of conflict. All of these societies had to fight against much larger states and the fact that they managed to survive as long as they did is a testament to the viability of anarchism.
        2. Federation of small groups of people who share an ideology and want to be part of a society is how societies should exist. All societies should be made up of people who want to be there.

        You show those communities to certain types of people, and they see dollar signs and opportunities for exploitation.

        Yeah and if they try and exploit them they’ll be told to fuck off. Any anarchic group capable of holding their own against external forces, will also be capable of resisting exploitation from internal ones.

        That’s what humans are. You need to accept this.

        If by this you mean some humans are inherently greedy and selfish: No! Never! I would rather die than accept that every person cannot be kind.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          2·
          10 hours ago

          Yeah and if they try and exploit them they’ll be told to fuck off.

          With what? A militia? And when those people have more resources than your anarchist collective, and there’s no state apparatus to turn to, what happens then?

          I look forward to our future Warring States period

          No! Never! I would rather die than accept that every person cannot be kind.

          There’s the naivete… There is a difference between “a person can be kind,” and “there are lot of awful, selfish, avaricious people”. The latter group might be capable of showing kindness, but that doesn’t really mean anything.