Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

willow wrote

communism is okay actually

9

celebratedrecluse wrote

are you a communist?

3

willow wrote

communish. i don't have any interest in Kropotkin-style anarcho-communism with well-defined communes and federation and so on but i think the basic tenets of communism are sound (from each according to their ability, to each according to their need) and i haven't found a philosophy that offers better prospects for people who can't or don't want to work engage in productive activity.

7

celebratedrecluse wrote

I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, and I think others here do too, not that you need agreement to have a valid view.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

willow wrote

i don't think it's just tankies; anyone who posts on raddle is probably able to distinguish a tankie from an actual communist.

i think a significant proportion of raddle's userbase is explicitly opposed to (anarchist or other) communism: because they prefer to abolish the means of production rather than transfer them to common ownership; because even anarchist communism is often envisaged as a form of coercive collectivisation ("if you don't like it, you can leave"); and because communism generally assumes that the continued technological progress which will enable fully automated production is both possible and desirable.

6

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

This post has been nice for showing how raddle is not a monolith, which I appreciate.

9

86944 wrote

I like nuclear power.

8

Trunk OP wrote

If the Japanese can't keep it safe, what chance do the rest of us have?

3

86944 wrote (edited )

Have you read about Fukushima in depth? They ignored warnings from other nuclear agencies about needing to redesign parts of the plant because the GE design they were using was meant to be used inland.

Had they adequately sized the seawall and moved the backup generators out of the basement none of this would have happened.

Besides, new reactor designs incorporate passive fail safes and emergency systems that don't require external energy or even human intervention in some cases. Not that I have hope any of these new reactors ever get built.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

Had they not built a nuclear plant near the sea on a rim of fire, none of the bad engineering you describe would have resulted in such devastation.

Nuclear energy may sound good on paper, but its production life cycle promotes nuclear weapons proliferation and the specific engineering choices leave way too much room for horrible priorities and catastrophic consequences which always harm the most marginalized people worst.

4

Trunk OP wrote

In summary: sloppy engineering.

There's lots of sloppy engineering in the world. With nuclear, that becomes massively fatal.

3

Ennui wrote

I find it impossible to get into Onepiece.

8

mofongo wrote

Can't blame you for it. I started 10 years ago for the only reason that if I waited longer, I would not have the time or energy to catch up. I have forgotten lots of characters and plot points in the mean time. I'm also unaware of the anime only stuff.

4

celebratedrecluse moderator wrote

nice try ziq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7

AnarcheAmor wrote

I'm an AnPac, which doesn't seem to be highly favored anywhere as far as I'm aware.

7

NoPotatoes wrote

Direct democracy as a methodology for organization and compromise.

To accomplish significant tasks, coordination and cooperation is necessary. I think that direct democracy can be a great way to accomplish that.

6

celebratedrecluse wrote

Direct democracy as defined how?

Majoritarian voting? Or something else?

How do you reconcile the history of democratic societies being embedded in the history of slavery and empire building?

5

NoPotatoes wrote

I'm not familiar with the assumptions behind your last question.

I define direct democracy as people voting directly on policy proposals. It can be majoritarian, but there are likely other voting systems that can be used too.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

assumptions

I'm thinking of the example of Athenian democracy, Roman republicanism/universal rights-based law, or US American influenced "democratic republics", all of which were slave societies but which are kind of the archetypal "democracy" examples that are commonly cited historically.

I guess if I was summarizing my understanding of this critique, it's that the political Subject (a voter, for example) was inherently created by creating "Insider vs. Outsider" dynamics (Free voting public vs. non-voting laboring Slaves, women, foreigners, immigrants, non-men, and other excluded groups), and that it also tends to creates a third class, the political class (the generals, engineers, or other public officials who implement the decisions made by the direct democracy). In your opinion, how do you avoid these developments within democratic societies?

I'm also curious to hear you talk more about the subject in general, to understand your point of view better. :) Thanks for sharing

3

keez wrote

I'll probably vote in the next election (not in America) just out of spite for the current government. I just want them out

6

Bezotcovschina wrote

I feel almost the same, honestly. I'm not sure I will vote, but the urge is, certainly, here. I think we are SO close to have Belarus-like scenario here, that it seems like worth a shot.

3

masque wrote (edited )

I don't have a very consequentialist/results-oriented approach to ethics, which leads me to not be very convinced by a) the "paradox of tolerance" argument against a broad interpretation of free speech, and b) the "nonviolence is ineffective" argument against pacifism.

6

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I'd be interested to hear more about both a and b.

I don't think that raddle has a paradox of tolerance argument for how we relate to speech generally. For me it's prefiguration and occupation. We occupy a space that works by logics that we instantiate for ourselves in the present.

And re b, when you say the 'nonviolence is ineffective' argument do you mean the 'nonviolence only is ineffective' or 'nonviolence as one of multiple tactics is ineffective'?

5

masque wrote

I don't think the paradox of tolerance is particularly built in to Raddle as a platform or a community, but I've seen it brought up by Raddle users (or internet leftists in general) fairly often, which is why I thought it would be relevant.

Obviously, "tolerating" intolerant views can, in practice, lead to those who are targeted by said views being excluded (or worse), which is definitely a problem. But it's only paradoxical if you think of "tolerance" as an ideal aimed at bringing about a tolerant world, rather than an ideal about how people ought to behave. The "paradox" implies that total tolerance of everyone is impossible when in reality it might only be impractical or dangerous, which are still problems, but not of the same logical calibre.

I think there are other, better arguments for the sort of moderation practices that Raddle has.

With respect to nonviolence, my concern really applies to both arguments. If someone genuinely believes that violence is intrinsically wrong, then arguing that they should actively accept/participate in a diversity of tactics that includes violence is not that different (to them) from just directly trying to convince them to engage in violence; in both cases, an argument based primarily on effectiveness misses the mark.

On the other hand, if someone's preference for nonviolence is motivated by their own beliefs about effectiveness (e.g. "violence is bad optics"), or just some vague personal reluctance/fear, then the diversity of tactics argument could go through.

I'm personally on the fence about pacifism currently. I used to be strictly pacifist back when I was more religious, but now I'm agnostic & unsure about a lot of moral questions.

5

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Alright. Yeah I don't think raddle's approach has anything to do with the paradox of tolerance.

Assuming your pacifism was rooted in Christianity, I can see a link between your rejection of the paradox of tolerance argument and your pacifism - would it simply that you allow any violence from others, but not from yourself?

I'm personally on the fence about pacifism currently. I used to be strictly pacifist back when I was more religious, but now I'm agnostic & unsure about a lot of moral questions.

That's exciting. I'd be happy to hear about the relevant considerations you're making as you go along your journey with this question.

That kind of pacifism a very different view from mine! Taoist nonviolence has always been interesting to me. I've never understood it from a Christian perspective except in terms of Nietzsche's resentment critique.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

I mean, what could be more significant about our actions, than the consequences of those actions?

What do you hold more important, intent perhaps?

4

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Anarchism is a phantasm.

5

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

In some fundamental ways I am Platonist.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

NoooooooooooooooooooOOOO!

4

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Your response leads me to think you thought I was joking :)

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

No, i think you are serious, but as an anti-platonist i thought i would address our differing views with a sense of humor, as that's how i deal with most things in life wherever it's feasible to.

But on a serious, do you want to elaborate on your platonic perspectives?

5

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

If I get the spoons I'll come back to this since I would like to answer, but chances are slim.

4

Raxalor wrote

Not a belief, but I'm actively seeking to purchase land and start my own small family business. Then again, I'm not planning on hiring anyone, so I won't be exploiting anyone.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

exploitation is still part of life, even if you don't own a small business or buy land

3

Majrelende wrote

Exploitation of whom? Workers who make products that are sold? The illegal inhabitants of the land?

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

This is anecdotal, but I think that if you look around in the places I have lived, which are varied, the common denominator is the impressively cynical nature of people's interactions, where nearly every dynamic is at least unilaterally, if not multilaterally, exploitative.

There's a better and more scientific discourse I could try to construct about this, but perhaps I'll feel better about attempting that in another thread another night

3

Pop wrote

I am a loaf of bread

3

Majrelende wrote

A successful anarchist rebellion is likely possible.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

successful defined how?

removing a government?

or precluding the re-emergence of a government?

or suppressing embodied hierarchies in all their forms (sexism, classism, ableism, racism, etc)

5

Majrelende wrote

All of these, but they may not happen simultaneously.

I may be referring to a process rather than an event: the removal of archy and the healing of the social and ecological wounds associated with it. This could just involve a few squatters reaching for self-sufficiency or a regional uprising, maybe even a widespread one, seeing how quickly a spark of discontent can give rise to a number of protest movements in such a quasi-connected world.

I suppose, though, that this kind of speculation is more harmful than helpful if taken seriously.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

I suppose, though, that this kind of speculation is more harmful than helpful if taken seriously.

Do you want to elaborate? You have piqued my curiosity.

4

Majrelende wrote

The best I can say is that so many ideologies and ideas proclaim that they know how society works and usually prove themselves either incorrect or acontextual, or those in authority change all of their definitions as soon as people find that something is wrong. I know little about what can help or detract from a rebellion, but I suspect that a false sense of knowledge that leads people to counterintuitive actions and unnatural ideas is more harmful than helpful.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

Perhaps, but I think all we can do is to keep talking. I'm glad you shared what you were thinking, it helps us all whether the conclusions are adaptive or not, because we are all in a giant ongoing experiment of freedom

3

[deleted] wrote

4

Majrelende wrote

The latter is as much as one can expect at first, but the minimum might be a very small group of people who have extricated themselves from archy and can set an example for others.

3

broseph wrote

China is flawed but is on the way to achieving communism.

−2