Reddit is where nuance goes to die. If you can't defend a century old school of political philosophy and economics with one thought-terminating cliche then you're wrong because reasons and I win.
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
44 points (89.3% liked)
The Democratic National Convention™ of Libjerk
241 readers
2 users here now
Dunking on Liberals from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Dems keep working with trump to approve his picks, but what they won't accept is that if you sit down at a table with nazis, the only thing that's changed is the number of nazis at the table. @_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules:
- No bigotry of any kind (except towards liberalism).
- No liberals (unless you are a masochist and enjoy the abuse).
- Strictly no downvoting (downvoters may be community banned, 4 the lulz).
- Bernie Sanders is still a liberal.
- This is a genAI friendly instance, so no complaining about genAI content.
We allow posts about liberal behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.
Sister community: !tankiejerk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Inspired by !tankiejerk@lemmy.world
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
May I submit "there are people with guns who will tell you what to do, which is the same thing" as a proposal?
I'd say that person is conflating authoritarian state "socialism" with anarchism. A popular anarchist movement isn't going to have a vanguard that makes decisions for the people under the guise of being an interim government (that just so happens to have all the guns and power) until the proles are really really super really ready to take over.
I love how libs think
the liberal dictionary definition of “anarchy” will be equivalent to the political philosophy of anarchism.
It’s like being surprised when conservatives don’t support conservation.
Oh but you see, the guy dropped a fallacy name so it's an automatic win for them.
I mentioned the fallacy fallacy to someone and they said it doesn't count, since assumptions aren't fallacies.
That's a fallacy fallacy!
If you want to live in a place which has x, why don't you just move to x? Is mindnumbing
Shit. Yeah. Fair's fair; I guess i need to be either a tankie or an ephebophile now.
Ugh. Not a great choice. I mean im leaning tankie. Could i just, like, be hypersexual and still keep liking older women, and just add an attraction to children, or does it need to be an exclusive thing? Because... Yeah.
Edit: shit. No i don't think i can. Peter thiel stepped in something. Just gotta be a tankie.
Here's a good primer for anyone wondering how it is a lot more nuanced than Anarchy = no government. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you
I appreciate the larger-context link, but it's not very convincing. It doesn't even convince itself in the end:
Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this.
I've gotten the exact same lecture from Libertarians. "Life would be perfect if everything was run via free-market capitalism!" But I'm similarly unconvinced because there's noting to indicate that at the inter-state level it would be anything but fantasy.
Unless your pitch is that Anarchy just means, "love thy neighbor"? In which case, cool I'm on board. But I think it's confusing to use an existing word with a meaning to mean something totally different.
But I think it's confusing to use an existing word with a meaning to mean something totally different.
it doesn't mean something different. anarchy is from the greek words meaning the absence of a ruler.
While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean “having no government” or “being without a government,” as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply “no government.” “An-archy” means “without a ruler,” or more generally, “without authority,” and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism “attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State.” [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means “not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule.” [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13]
But I'm similarly unconvinced because there's noting to indicate that at the inter-state level it would be anything but fantasy.
who is it that you think should rule the entire world? who do you think should control all countries? do you believe one country should get to dictate the actions of all others, such as perhaps russia? maybe the united states? because if you believe there should not be a world authority that can act with impunity on the world stage, and decide what is genocide or what is acceptable levels of death or starvation, or who gets what resources in africa, then you're engaging in that fantasy with us, aren't you?
who is it that you think should rule the entire world?
I suppose my objection is that "The Anarchist Library" seems like it's got some kind of grand vision behind it for a world without masters. But it sounds like you're saying that Anarchy is just going, "wow my masters are crap and i wish i didn't have to do their dumb shit." If so, I guess I'm an anarchist. Feels kinda lame, is all. And I empathize with the picture of text in the OP that says it's lame. |-:
In The Dawn Of Everything Graeber puts forth three tenets for actual freedom that are consistent with anarchist ideals:
-
freedom to move. This means the freedom to go anywhere, although people having personal property and space is respected. So no borders but you can’t just post up in someone’s bedroom and say “I live here now.”
-
freedom to associate (and not associate) with others. You cannot be forbidden from being part of a group nor can you be required to be part of one.
-
freedom to refuse. Your actions are done only by your choice. You cannot be compelled to take action or remain inactive.
As with most simple sets of rules these quickly lead to complex scenarios but I think they make a good basis for an equitable society.
The problem with having rights but no authority is that there's no recourse for someone whose rights are infringed, because effectively stopping that requires some kind of authority with the power to do so.
For me this falls under "would be nice if everyone stuck to this, but it completely fails when someone decides they don't want to stick to it".
This is why communities need to build up and connect. Consent-based power structures (e.g. direct democracy, decentralized, horizontal power structures) can provide aid and assistance to those subjected to rights violations.
While there may not be a formal police force, do you think everybody in such a world would stand idle in the face of a tyrant or mass murderer? It's only happening now because people are so disconnected and given the fact there is no democracy - only an illusion of it.
Under socialism, people won't be as motivated to steal and commit other crimes to meet their needs, besides perhaps sexual "needs", which I'd argue such sexual crimes would become rarer as healthier communities form and rebuild. And individuals who committed crimes in the past would likely be allowed to be rehabilitated and properly enabled to re-enter society, instead of being left with no choice to commit crime to survive because nobody wants to hire them.
If you or anybody else knows more about anarchy than I do, please correct me if I'm wrong, but anarchy is not chaos without the state and centralized governance.
Related reading: https://www.anarchy.no/anrights.html
Consent-based power structures generally rarely last for long. Power has a tendency to accumulate, as there will always be people who hoard it. And historically, that power is often given willingly, obtained through deception or through sheer strength. Smaller communities have no real ability to resist such larger hierarchies that will form when someone or some group decides to no longer play by anarchist rules.
I personally think anarchism correctly identifies the accumulation of power as an inherent threat to society. But I don't think power in general is the problem, but rather the accumulation in a single entity is. A measure of power is necessary to protect a community.
It's why the whole "separation of powers" idea has worked fairly well in the past, though perhaps the powers should be separated even further. Separated domains, each with clearly defined limits on their powers.
What is the recourse when those freedoms are infringed?
I think these are good ideas. What I don't understand is how they survive in the world. Let's say you're an anarchist community of 200 people living in Palestine...?
Anarchy has a government of people with no specific rules or enforcement. It's dumb as shit, what you want is communism or socialism where rules don't apply to you specifically unless you consent, they want to be king in a land of peasants they just don't want to feel bad about it.
It does have a grand vision of a world without masters. Hence the slogan, “no gods, no masters”.
Human beings with a master are slaves. I hope one day, you will decide you don’t wish to be a slave anymore.
"no gods, no masters"
The kink community is in shambles
I have a meme just for this, hold on while I dig through my archive.
Thanks!
Have you decided? If so, are you going to do anything about it?
You seem to be under the impression that I'm not already doing things that the American authority would throw me in prison for. You should never just assume things, stranger, especially since we live in a nation where helping people the government deems undesirables is punished by the jack-booted thugs of the authority.
Every kind act is an act of rebellion. So become ungovernable.
The link I originally replied to said
Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction ... In reality, nothing could be further from the truth
I don't see how it's possible to oppose the massive governments and billionaires of the world without destruction, so I wanted more information.
If you're out there committing various crimes to further your ideology, then that seems like you're doing your best.
In Nazi Germany, hiding a Jewish person was a crime punishable by death. But it was not violence, chaos, or destruction. Here in the US, there are many places where feeding a hungry person is against the law, and people have been arrested for it. Giving alms to a homeless person can get you put into prison. These are crimes, as declared by law.
Just because something is supposedly a crime, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make the world a better place.
Seems like a lack of imagination on your part.
go have a 24/7 dance party around amazon's warehouses for some inspiration.
I’d rather just live in a small group and not the seething morass of stinking, screaming flesh that the human species has become.
That's an understandable position. Maybe more denialism than anarchism?
Misanthropism
I did pretty much that for 4 years. Great time, productive activism.
Anarchy is when you do this thing i think you should be doing?