Hospitals do not need the state. In fact hospitals are probably one of institutions to collectivise, due to the level of competence needed to actively work in one. It's similar with electricity, industry and infrastructure maintenance. None of these things need the state. They are being maintained every day by the workers, the only thing the state does is look over their shoulder and give them money so they could function inside a capitalist economy. As an anarchist I reject both governmental oversight and capitalist economies. That's what this post is about. It's calling for people to start building alternatives that can function without the state.
Here are some links for further reading and watching:
I also just found an essay on the anarchist library that deals with a lot of the topics we've discussed, perhaps give it a read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nishikant-sheorey-society-is-not-a-machine
An anarchist society isn't a building. It's a tree. A living, breathing, perpetually growing organism. You cannot say what a tree will look like before it's grown. You can only plant a seed and hope for the best. As soon as you start planning and designing parts of this society you start ignoring other peoples contribution, stifling their liberty and self-determination. State socialists are the ones who are designing society according to their own vision and we've all seen where that leads.
If you want an actual movement and momentum check what the IWW is doing. They claim to be anarchist/syndicalists but I don't know how much we are represented in the actual ranks. I'm sadly in a country that doesn't have a branch.
Are you not of “the people?”
I am just one. I am limited by my skills and specialties. I cannot really contribute to the discussion of heavy industry or agriculture, unless it's about using tech and computers to simplify or automate, but even then I would need to listen to the actual people in these industries to even begin designing something that works. I know IT, I know Computers, I know programming. I also think I'm relatively good at recourse management and coming up with solutions that others might not. Those are the areas I know I can contribute. I would love to start a tech-collective but I don't have the contacts. That's why I spend most of my time on here, it feels like the only place I can actually contribute. If a person actually has enough anarchists around them to actually do something they obviously should do something more than just spread propaganda, but I don't.
they will always side with that which is more concrete
Which is part of the problem. Anarchy cannot be concrete. It's chaos compared to centralized power structures, a free society cannot be anything else. The difference between anarchists and statists is that we embrace the chaos and believe something incredible can exist within it, that collectively we can withstand anything bad that chaos throws at us. Any concrete societal structure can only be maintained with control. This control will often result in inequality and exploitation.
I also saw your comment earlier in the thread that was on the same topic:
Knowing what something mustn’t be is not nearly enough - one must know what something must be in order to build it.
When talking about anarchy the only thing we can talk about is what it mustn't be. Because "what it is" is something that only be answered during the process after all of the different voices come together to build something. Or to use a quote from that AFAQ paragraph: "revolution should not only be made for the people's sake; it should also be made by the people." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]
As anarchists we cannot build anything individually. Only after we have collectively come together and figured out how to work together can we look back and describe what we have made. When we say "organize" we don't have anything specific in mind because that would go against the ethos of self-determination. No anarchist worthy of the name should have a concrete idea of what anarchy looks like. Sure you can have approximations and speculation but you cannot say with certainty what it is your building because that would require you to be able to read the minds of everyone contributing.
neither the youtubers nor us online anarchist can provide a solution to this problem. To solve this problem you need people with experience of heavy industry alongside environmental experts to coordinate using self-managed principles. A bunch of propagandists (which is what we are) do not have enough understanding to create and maintain these processes. Our job is to get people to collectivize and start thinking critically of authority so they would be empowered to create an environment where they can do everything they already do without someone constantly looking over their shoulders.
Essentially: Leave the job of figuring out how to do things to the people. Or as AFAQ put: Is there a blueprint for anarchist society? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci2
This comment got me to look up if AFAQ had a section on this and it turns out it did:
This is the topic of absolute or relative morality, here is my take.
In that groups moral reference frame they would be morally right, but it wouldn't change how I'd react. I wouldn't agree with them or share their morals but I also know I couldn't change their morals. Instead I would do whatever I could to remove any POC from the grasp of the group and arm them for protection. They would consider that morally wrong. I consider it morally right, because I believe everyone has the right to live. After that I'd probably try and build a barrier around them to stop them from hurting others.
At the end of the day actions matter a lot more than beliefs. It doesn't really matter what I believe, only what actions I take.
Or to but it differently I also believe those people are morally wrong. I also believe they think they're morally right. And as I don't place my own opinions over others I cannot say who is right. I can only act in the way I believe is right.
To reiterate: I believe those people are wrong. They are claiming another persons right to exist and that goes against my beliefs. I would to anything I could to stop them. But I also know that's my moral position. It's not theirs. But it doesn't matter, I do what I believe is right.
But in the end it doesn't matter. My actions would not change even if I believed they were morally wrong. I still act according to my moral position. So what difference does it make whether I believe it's the only one or one of many?
Desperately trying to phrase this in a way that makes my point come across because this is a very delicate topic, and communicating in text isn't my strong suit.
Morality is the cultural baseline of acceptability and culture isn't dictated by the majority. If a culture diverges it is two separate cultures. Nighter could be considered the majority. This is the point I'm trying to make, instead of having a single group of people and trying to find compromises why not just have multiple groups living their lives and cooperating when needed? Why do you need this single entity to manage these wildly different people?
But my question stands: If the majority of people in your country voted to have you killed, would you let them kill you?
Fuck this. I'm out. Disengage(https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-disengage-rule). Hope someone else has the energy to explain this to you.
Representative democracy is beholden to the majority. if they majority voted to kill you, would you just accept it and let them?
Also who are the members? what chooses who is and isn't a member of this body that has the right to your life? A made up line in the sand? Why do I have to rely on the opinion of someone who could be half a continent away? The only people I want to be held accountable to are the ones that I have to interact with, because others don't know me, and they shouldn't have any say on whether or not I get to live.
Anarchy is exactly what you say: being held accountable by other members of your society. It just doesn't try and mash millions of people with different viewpoints together and shrug when they inevitably start killing each other. It allows for dynamic formation of groups that think alike and uses the overlaps to build a network of people.
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.
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.
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.
Original work by me. Made using the wonderful Krita.
License: CC-0, No rights reserved.
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56400451
Started with blender but when the eraser started lagging I switched to krita.
CC0 - No Rights Reserved
Started with blender but when the eraser started lagging I switched to krita.
CC0 - No Rights Reserved
I'm making a language with a lot of inspiration from rust and was experimenting with alternative enum syntax. It relies on literals to be types in order to convey information on the different options.
I don't really get on well with Typescript but having the ability to use literals as types is something I really liked as a lot of the times I use static string literals as errors. and having all the variants upcast through types makes it easier to do pattern matching.
Plain-text transcription of the image:
// using rust like enum syntax
Option<T> (
| "Some" T
| "None"
)
fn match_demo() {
let some_option = Option "Some" "text";
let none_option = Option "None";
match some_option {
"Some" "hello" => print("oh hi there"),
"Some" text => print("Option is {text}"),
"None" => print("Option is {text}"),
}
}
// Or maybe more experimental syntax
Option<T> (
| T
| ()
)
fn match_demo2() {
let opt = Option "something";
match opt {
"text" => "matching directly",
var => "bind to variable",
() => "nothing",
}
}
Original in this post: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/33311504
I thought it was cool and spent an hour in Inkscape trying to recreate it.
commenting to have an easy link to my original account.