As an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it’s frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.
I’ve had multiple arguments with liberals who say I’m not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.
So yeah, I’m not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me! (Not you, PugJesus)
I like to point people to Desert by Anonymous. It talks about how the plan should really be waiting for the State to recede as collapse progresses, and finding the spaces left behind where theres room for mutual aid based organization.
I like that. It turns your attention to what’s in front of you, rather than waiting for the mythical Revolution we’ll likely never see.
Ever hear about love? I checked and turns out its for everyone, can you believe it?
💜💜💜
I always like to (admittedly, pedantically) point out that if anarchism is defined purely etymologically, all it means is “without hierarchy”.
My personal interpretation is that it doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of a state, democratic or representative government, or jurisprudence of established law; it only implies a lack of arbitrary and tiered authority or power.
I’m of two minds about it. On the one hand I am tired of the unnecessary suffering that is common in the richest country in the history of the Earth. A step in the right direction is better than nothing.
Or is it? Every time we increase the social safety net, our righteous anger subsides. We stop boycotting, protesting, striking, organizing, etc, because faith in the system is restored. And then we delay the necessary work of dismantling this system that is based on greed and exploitation. Inevitably, the oligarchs bide their time and then strip away rights and economic opportunity as soon as we stop paying attention.
“Things getting worse will make people swap to MY side!” has a terrible track record.
History teaches us that collapse and revolution rarely goes well for anyone.
What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.
There no polite way to put it, that’s dumb, stupid, and very wrong take. Conservatives want to regress. We aren’t in the Nixon times anymore where GOP will launch the EPA, nowadays conservatives are all about regression.
That’s because they are reactionaries not conservatives.
At best you are relying on comically outdated and outmoded definitions/ideas. What part of the current GOP do you see as wanting gradual progress? None. They want to regress.
Do I need to repeat it again? They are not conservatives, they are reactionaries. Two different things.
Conservative does not = GOP except as political shorthand. It’s like saying socialist = Democrat. Both parties are coalitions of many different views.
Do I and everyone else need to repeat it again? You are trying to rely on fucking hilariously outdated and outmoded ideas and definitions of Nixon and similar era.
They don’t want progress. You are wrong.
Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.
That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeles, but many have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats, but they still exist.
I’d love for Mr. Definition to give a single example of a self-described conservative who isn’t a reactionary, but I’m not going to pull his string again.
umm. no. direction of change is crucial lol. some of us want capitalism to wither away as well as the state withering away. that is not conservatism lol.
Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.
I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.
The state is the mechanism that stabilizes class antagonism.
Why would it reform “5 minutes” after it is not needed anymore, because class antagonisms ceized to exist?
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.
I believe some anarchists believe that cooperatives are a good first step. This is maybe more stateless socialism, but an anarchists would prefer elected managers/leaders in such organizations be trained that their position doesn’t give them any real authority over others but rather just additional responsibilities. A small example could be the wording of these positions might be different; instead of managers, they might be called coordinators.
Cooperatives are, at least now, still currently subject to market forces, and people would would together to get things done. The sole difference being workers would have more freedom over their lives since they’d be the owners of the means of productions.
What happens when there is no consensus on an important decision and people split in half and one half tries to impose their will on the other? How is this mediated? And if they do not have authority what happens when someone doesn’t want to do what needs to be done? Who has the authority to punish coerce them?
And I have so many questions about security both domestic and foreign that I don’t even know where to start.
Congratulations on having the absolute dumbest take I’ve seen on Lemmy!
It’s not a take if it’s a fact.
Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, which is a modernizing, antitraditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses resulting from the misuse of social and political power. In The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), the American writer Ambrose Bierce cynically (but not inappropriately) defined the conservative as “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” Conservatism must also be distinguished from the reactionary outlook, which favours the restoration of a previous, and usually outmoded, political or social order.
It’s embarrassing that you think this is a gotcha.
I don’t think it’s a gotcha, mainly because I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass. I’m giving proof of why someone arguing for gradual change is the literal definition of conservative.
I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass.
lol
The only thing you’re proving is that simple definitions are for simple minds.
Ah the good old words mean nothing. Ok I guess we’re done here.
Lmao no, that’s not how this works.
gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative
Lol no it’s not.
What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.
“Harm reduction is conservatism” is where we’re at.
Fuck’s sake.
Stop using the term harm reduction. The crazies use that term to “subtly” push the “b b both sides same!” nonsense. Don’t fall for their framing.
Except harm reduction is a real and good thing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Call it incrementalism then.
This is not about “perfect behind the enemy of good” because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say “b b both sides same!” and they use the term “harm reduction” to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as “it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it’s harm reduction, it’s harm light, it’s harm, and I will not vote for harm!”
Well that’s just fucking wrong. I’m not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.
They are all using public transport. Already a win.
It’s not about “my” ideology; that’s focusing on the wrong part. The problem is that it’s a ridiculous analysis. Most of the people who say this stuff nominally support a free society of some sort, basically a version socialism, but it’s not personal.
MAGA are not socialists but many of them wanted to see the system crash and burn.
What if I want the death of all humans… /s
I suppose you also want to make your own theme park with blackjack and hookers.
Some ideologies want to be the boot pressing down on other’s necks and set the world on fire.
The rest aren’t so bad compared to that.
I like this comment.
As much as I crap on certain leftists, they still have the ideology “I wish people were slightly more kinder” and I would love their ideology to be accepted common sense rather than current one.
I would be just as happier if they were considered the new “centrists.” And current right-wing considered far, far extreme.
would love their ideology to be accepted common sense rather than current one
The crazy thing is that the current economic system we utilize isn’t considered nonsensical.
I guess an economic system that requires infinite growth made a bit more sense during the age of discovery, when people were actively finding new continents to exploit. One would think that now we’ve definitively concluded we inhabit a closed system with a finite amount of natural resources, maybe just maybe we could evolve our economic system to reflect that?
I don’t even think capitalism requires infinite growth. It’s just how we built it. Not even since the beginning. That is, you could buy stock in a company to help them grow. Then they make a profit, and give you a share of that profit. Everyone is happy. You could sell that to someone else, and maybe they pay more than you’d get in a year, but they’ll make more in a long run as long as the company stays alive and can keep distributing profits. Everyone is happy.
It’s this idea that the money you make from investment should grow exponentially. This demand from professional stock traders that they be able to sell for obscene profits. The company must grow, and those profits must grow, or the shareholders will all sell in a panic and abandon them, and even a profitable company may go under.
Like why can’t the company just make some profit and distribute that profit among shareholders and employees and everyone be happy? It doesn’t HAVE to be more profit next year than last year, we just made it that way over time.
