this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
24 points (87.5% liked)

anaval

38 readers
2 users here now

A place for me. Because I want to post but don't know where. But others can post if they want to.

Expect anarchy.

If at any point you find yourself typing. "how do you expect society to work without the state?" or anything similar click on the link below.

Any questions about anarchy:
https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html

Rules:

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
 

Hares another thought I had.

We all know the political compass. The simple way to map all of politics in just two axis on a 2d plain. Reducing the fascinating complexity of society to just four sectors. With such unhelpful labels as "left" and "right". Here's my version. The "left-right" axis is replaced with class authority and "lib-auth" with state authority. Now If any lib-rights want to argue with me about the label I'm happy to do so.

The other thing I want to note is that, in my opinion, the lib-right and auth-left sectors are impossible. They represent ideas that do not match reality. because authority creates authority. By mapping class and state authority separately you can see that if you somehow manage to eliminate one but champion the other, the remaining will just form the other. Either by state bureaucrats becoming the privileged class, or the companies creating private militias and becoming states in all but name. That is what the black arrows represent: the tendency to move to a stable balance between the two authorities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's an opinion. Not a fact. you can tell because right before you start the quote I said "in my opinion".

Also I'm not limiting the chart. The sectors are shown. I do accept that these ideas exist. I just don't agree with them and wanted to discuss them. That's why I included them in the image.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What is this "auth-left" then? And no, you stated "they represent ideas that do not match reality", after your opinion. That's just straight up denying other viewpoints

[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's my opinion that these viewpoints aren't applicable in reality. That's still not a fact. I might have put it a bit more dramatically but In the end it's still just my opinion. I state it in the hopes that someone will come along and say "no. they are applicable and here's why". That does not sound like denying to me.

Also even if I am denying the viewpoints I have no problem with that. They are archic viewpoints. They have very little consequence and are, in my opinion, outdated and primitive. We can do better.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

Then maybe state those viewpoints? No one can come point them out if you don't state them