anaVal

joined 3 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] anaVal 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No thanks. I like my theory to be from the current century. You know the one where we have stuff like the internet, imminent climate disaster and the hindsight of the soviet regime.

Also starting a cooperative is no individual solution. It's a first step towards establishing a collective economy. Which could fuel the collective spirit and start a political movement.

[–] anaVal 1 points 1 week ago

I actually don't care about the pay. As long as I can buy food and pay my bills I don't care. I would be willing to work for less than minimum wage if it meant I could have a say in my workplace.

And honestly it doesn't even need to be a tech syndicate. I would be willing to work for any syndicate, and most areas have some kind of IT.

[–] anaVal 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Except tidal. That one comes from the moon.

2
I live in cycles. (self.anaVal)
submitted 1 week ago by anaVal to c/anaVal
 

One thing that I have noticed is that I cycle my activity. I have a couple of modes that I seem to constantly move between. Like right now I am in the middle of my lemmy cycle where I'm active here. I have also noticed this with gaming, drawing, and programming. I get bored of one thing, move onto another, then another, and then back. It's rather interesting. It also means I'm not good at holding a job. I start to feel like I've gotten stuck and get bored and want to get out.

[–] anaVal 2 points 1 week ago

No need to apologise for both taking your time and your assumptions:

  • I don't expect people to be online and answer immediately. I know I wouldn't be if I had any way to express my anarchism outside of this. and sometimes you need to take your time and think about what's been said.
  • We all make assumptions when talking with people online. It's easy to make wrong ones, especially in text as you cannot have the other person immediately respond and correct you.

I appear to have run out of things to say as I don't really wish to delve into the situation in america. Just hope you stay safe.

It's been fun talking to you. May we meet again.

[–] anaVal 10 points 1 week ago (6 children)

My main reason is ideological. Why should I waste my precious time working in a job that doesn't advance my goals of creating a freer society? while also making pennies for some shareholder at the top? on top of that I get bored of doing the same thing over and over again. I want my work to have more variance.

And I guess while being truly international is kinda difficult it seems that it's a lot easier within the EU and USA.

[–] anaVal 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've reached that point where I'm good at programming but require to explain my ideas to someone or I just give up because it seems like too much effort for no benefit. So even someone who doesn't really know any programming but can listen and think along would be a important.

33
On finding a job. (self.anarchism)
submitted 1 week ago by anaVal to c/anarchism
 

I can't find a job.
Well I could but there doesn't seem to be any jobs that fit.
Or if there are I can't find them. (But I don't think so)

The biggest problem is that I live in estonia and it seems there really isn't a well-developed anarchist/socialist/syndicalist movement here. The IWW doesn't have a branch and searching online doesn't really yield any results (aside from a couple of socdem groups),

I don't know how to search for a job that isn't just doing menial labour for some company.

I would like to work for a global fully-remote anarchically managed tech syndicate. But I don't think those exist and I imagine starting one is incredibly difficult. (Well starting it wouldn’t be difficult, but finding people capable and willing to work for something like that, while getting enough income, is.)

At the end of the day the means dictate the ends. Looking for a job in a capitalist way is going to land you with a capitalist job. I need to look for a job in a anarchist/socialist/syndicalist way, but how do you do that in an environment where those ideas aren't widespread?

[–] anaVal 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That final sentence really made me laugh. Thank you. You have such a fun way of talking. I really like how frequently you use ellipses to give pauses. They really work.

I'm not that serious about religion. I wasn't raised religious and have spent most of my life not really thinking about it. The anarchy as religion think is more just playing with thoughts. Approach ideas from angles that aren't usual and see what you come up with.

Thinking about it more I think the main reason why I've started trusting more in anarchism as a faith than a process is that I live in an environment where anarchist thought really isn't spread. I'm pretty isolated and so it's hard to trust in it as something real because I don't see it anywhere but through the computer. I guess Isolation really is the cause of faith.

But thinking about it further what I consider faith is really not baseless. As it is just "anarchy can exist if people try hard enough". And that's not baseless. pre-archy^1^ was pretty much the same as anarchy and many anarchist project have been incredibly successful. But does that mean that it's not faith and rather a rational belief? And is that difference really that important when most of humanity would say that anarchy is naive and impossible? Making it seem like the belief that people can work together without oppressing each other is just blind faith.

^1^: All of the societies that existed before being invaded by a "civilisation".

At the end of the day what is and isn't rational is entirely based on the information you have available to you. I imagine there were times that prospect of democracy seemed like blind faith.

And I have no concerns about your beliefs. They seem really solid and nice. I'm just here to discuss a topic I've thought about recently.

oh also: "No Gods, No Kings, No Masters, No chains except the ones we choose ourselves."

[–] anaVal 6 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Well said.

I actually accidentally submitted my previous comment but because it wasn't really that cut off and I wanted to get started with other stuff so I left it.

I think the primary reason I think of anarchism as faith is that christians often say they have faith in god and that they believe everything that happens is part of his grand plan. To which I have made the anarchist counter of I don't need to believe in god, I believe in people. That through working together we can create wonderful things and that we don't need some omnipotent force to guide our movements. Both the evil and the good in this world is nothing but actions of people rippling through time. And I believe that most people are good.

It's this weird way of looking all of this theory through a religious lens, but I find it gives me a lot of hope, which is the point of faith. It is dumb and kinda blind, but also very comforting.

[–] anaVal 5 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I think all ideology is faith based. At the end of the day your ideology is based on some fundamental beliefs that you hold. And holding these beliefs even when evidence points to the contrary. I think of anarchism as a faith. A faith that there is a world worth fighting for. That people are kind. That it's possible to dismantle these systems of oppression that have seeped into every facet of our society and culture.

[–] anaVal 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah. You're right. There couldn't really be that hard of a line between citizens and non-citizens. And because the hierarchy wouldn't really be based on violence and more just deferring of skill and effort it wouldn't really be a hierarchy at all.

But I still think that having anarchist-friendly states is possible. Maybe by having a border that can get moved as the demographics change or through territories voting to join either the anarchist side or the state side.

[–] anaVal 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.

[–] anaVal 1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It's a very general definition and doesn't necessarily require money.

But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don't wish to be part of this "state" then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.

Actually It's very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.

 

I've been thinking a lot about the relationship between anarchists and the state. Obviously I understand the reason behind anti-statism but I think mindless opposition to any idea is unproductive. So I want to discuss the concept of an anarchist-friendly state.

The starting point is the thought: "what if some people cannot be anarchists?". The effort needed to maintain anarchic structures is considerable and it's possible that a lot of people aren't willing to put in the effort. Voluntary association is fundamental to anarchist theory and that includes the creation of voluntary states. As long as these states are willing to work alongside anarchists there should be no reason for conflict, and states have a good reason to cooperate as anarchists could take over some of the problematic functions of the classical state like policing, after all any successful anarchist society needs to self-police anyway.

I'm not familiar with all of the theory surrounding minarchism but I think the term is applicable to these voluntary anarchist-friendly states.

Which brings me to a question: Could minarchist parties exist? And could they represent a form of electorialism that anarchists could participate in? They could be structured around instant recalls ensuring some level of protection against opportunists. Although such parties would require a change to election laws.

1
An ART (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 months ago by anaVal to c/anaVal
 

License as always: CC-0

12
A thought experiment. (self.anarchism)
submitted 2 months ago by anaVal to c/anarchism
 

Imagine you are a person fighting in an anarchist revolt. You have captured a sizeable chunk of land but the front line has grown too large and you can't progress further. The state that you have been fighting approaches you with an offer: They recognise you as a sovereign (however that would look like) entity but you have to give away most of the land you've captured. They will leave you with the primary city and enough surrounding land to feed everyone.

What would be your position? Would you be willing to make a deal with the state?

2
A poem (self.anaVal)
submitted 3 months ago by anaVal to c/anaVal
 

There is no right.
There is no wrong.
Just a bunch of people
doing their best
to get along.

-7
In honor of the new rule. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 3 months ago by anaVal to c/flippanarchy
 

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

Hello m@tes. I have immigrated from lemm.ee following the imminent closure, (and needed to but ana in front of my name because the one I used on lemm.ee was taken.)

Here is just a small thing I made after skimming the comments of a recent popular post. As it is a small image and I'm getting better with Krita this one only took ~35 minutes. Improvements. Yay!

 

Hello dbzer0! I am Val. I have immigrated from lemm.ee. You might have seen a couple of my posts on [email protected].

This is a small community where I post stuff, sometimes. Starting with the logo for the community logo. Made using krita in about 2 hours.

License (as always): CC-0, no rights reserved.

view more: next ›