Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote

Liberals support capitalism and coercive hierarchies and police and prisons and invading other people's lands to steal their resources so they can live in luxury.

They idolize billionaires and sleep soundly knowing that the state shields their inherited status from the lower classes.

We don't like any of those things :(

19

Shandy OP wrote

But that's not even true, lots of us are progressives who want to change the system and would have voted for Bernie if we had been able to...

−4

ziq wrote

If you think voting for Bernie would have changed any of the things I mentioned, you're not being very honest to yourself.

14

Shandy OP wrote (edited )

That's just silly. Of course change can't come all at once, it needs to be a gradual progression to make our revolution. In the real world, you can't just destroy the whole system and hope that the things that we count on to survive will still be functioning the next day.

We have an advanced civilized society here, and sure there are bad things about it like police brutality but also good things like when the police protect us for legit murderers. If you just get rid of the whole system overnight, a lot of people will get hurt. It has to be a gradual thing or it'll be chaos.

It's not a reasonable position to think that voting for progressive leaders won't lead to change. Since it's literally the only method we have within the confines of our system.

You're talking about throwing out the constitution and hundreds of years of law and progress and that's just idiotic. It would only end up hurting the little man to be so reckless. Our civilization and our safety has to be safeguarded first and foremost. Then and only then can we think about affecting change (through legitimate channels).

−3

dele_ted wrote (edited )

If you just get rid of the whole system overnight, a lot of people will get hurt

Of course, but you're missing something here. The state is not the only entity based on hierarchy. There's corporations, gangs and so on. If the state simply broke overnight, it would leave an enormous power vacuum, and all the other hierarchic entities would start fighting to fill the vacuum. If there's anything worse than being dominated by a single entity, it's being dominated by multiple entities all clashing for power.

Anarchism isn't as simple as "smash the state = love and peace". Anarchism means abolishing hierarchy altogether.

Since it's literally the only method we have within the confines of our system.

Let's get rid of the confines of our system then. It's obviously oppressive, and you just agreed, why are you trying to thrive in an oppressive system, instead of fighting to get rid of it?

14

Shandy OP wrote

Because I'm a reasonable and logical person who knows getting rid of it would just result in utter chaos. We can't destroy our wonderful and thriving civilization just so you get to live as some kind of holier than thou political activist. We need hierarchies for certain things, I mean, even nature has natural hierarchies... Food chains... It's unavoidable. If we don't elect leaders, we'll have no direction, no one to guide us forward (or backwards, in president Trump's case). But at least its a direction, anything is better than just not trying at all.

−7

dele_ted wrote

I'm a reasonable and logical person who knows getting rid of it would just result in utter chaos

I just explained this to you. Getting rid of the state, or "the system" as you call it, will inevitably result in chaos - but that's not anarchism. Read my reply above again, i think you misunderstood something.

just so you get to live as some kind of holier than thou political activist

If you want to understand anything about anarchism, if you actually want an answer to your question, put aside your generalizations and misconceptions. Gets us nowhere.

We need hierarchies for certain things, I mean, even nature has natural hierarchies

No, we don't need hierarchies. We can thrive without hierarchies, in a world where you help your neighbor because he helps you. We've effectively signed out of nature, we are not animals and we are not bound to primitivism.

If we don't elect leaders, we'll have no direction, no one to guide us forward

Leaders is one thing. Leaders can exist without authority. An anarchist society that would have to defend itself against invading capitalist armies would of course have leaders, tacticians that know which move would be the best, and how that move would be executed. The people of the army trust their tactician because tactics is his field, and the tactician trust the fighters because that is their field. However, that's not hierarchy, that's mutual benefit.

anything is better than just not trying at all

Again, put aside your judgemental misconceptions.

9

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

When there was slavery, would you have advocated first for smaller whips for the slaves, saying, "Of course change can't come all at once!"

Or would you have advocated for abolition?

12

Shandy OP wrote (edited )

I think that's kind of a bad analogy because no one is enslaved here, we have the freedom to move about freely, to practice whatever religion we want, to work for whichever employer we want, and so on. I would of course have advocated for abolition of slavery just like I advocate for abolition for unjust police brutality today.

But that's just one broken aspect of a giant system that mostly functions well. We can be against one bad thing in the system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

−6

Magma5 wrote

Why do you think that the legit murders happen?

5

Shandy OP wrote

Greed, jealously, anger.

−2

Magma5 wrote

Any why do people who feel these emotions take it out on others in such a violent way?

6

Shandy OP wrote

Because of our primal nature to dominate others and show the rest of our group that we are powerful.

−5

Magma5 wrote

Do you have any sources to back this up?

6

Shandy OP wrote (edited )

I mean, it's just common sense. Why do you think powerful people hurt less powerful people?

−4

dele_ted wrote

The political system is nothing but an illusion of choice. You get to decide who's going to be your dictator, and perhaps you get to be one in a million votes on whether to change the age of retirement with one year.

No candidate in the political system will fix any of the issues that we, and with we i mean the world, face. Politicians is nothing but a fancy way to manage the structural violence of the capitalist system, and trust me, no candidate that wants to abolish this structural violence will ever appear (and even if they did, they would quickly lose sight of their purpose and goals; power corrupts).

10

Shandy OP wrote

Oh, come on! Are we really going to pretend that America has a dictatorship? We the people elect our leaders, for better or worse.

And yes it blows that the majority vote for an awful candidate like president Trump, but that's democracy in action. It's the best system we have.

−3

dele_ted wrote

We the people elect our leaders

We the people elect our dictators. They are not leaders, they are authorities with the ability to dictate what others can and cannot do. I never said America is a dictatorship, it's simply a system where the majority gets to dominate the minority.

And to be real, we all know our president doesn't hold much actual power. Those in power are not elected, they elect themselves. They are the banksters and the billionaires, they are the leaders of the weapons industry and the heads of corporations.

It's the best system we have.

I get the feeling you haven't even tried to understand what anarchism is. "The system" as you keep calling it is failing, just take a glimpse at the spread of wealth and you'll see why. Take a look at once beautiful countries such as Syria, which have been obliterated in a matter of years, in the name of profit (or, if you choose to believe those that invaded, because of freedom. Listen to the fascists sing).

7

Shandy OP wrote

We the people elect our dictators.

If they were dictators they wouldn't be limited to 4 year terms. They're literally not dictators as long as term limits and open elections exist.

If all the people are dictators because the minority has less say than the majority, then you're basically calling democracy a dictatorship... That's obviously not logical. A dictatorship is when 1 person decides everything and no one else can complain or they get killed.

Those in power are not elected, they elect themselves. They are the banksters and the billionaires, they are the leaders of the weapons industry and the heads of corporations.

It makes sense that the richest people would have a big stake in choosing who runs the country because they have the most to lose if someone is elected who doesn't know what he's doing. They have the most to lose if our complex society / economy is damaged by someone unequipped to manage it.

I get the feeling you haven't even tried to understand what anarchism is.

I had no idea this site was for anarchists, I thought it was for all leftists. I didn't ask this question on the anarchist board so I don't know why everyone is telling me I need to understand the anarchist position. The position of anarchism as far as I know is to destroy the system entirely, and as I've said, that's a dreadful idea.

−1

dele_ted wrote

Let's leave the dictator thing alone, there's many definitions for 'dictator', one of them being 'a person with unlimited governmental power', which is what a president is supposed to be. Remember there's a difference between dictatorship and a dictator. Doesn't matter much what we call him, let's call him a ruler from now on to avoid digressing.

It makes sense that the richest people would have a big stake in choosing who runs the country

You've misunderstood something. The fact that somebody can be richer than another, and hold more freedom than another being who was born equal to him, is deeply corrupt.

They have the most to lose if our complex society / economy is damaged by someone unequipped to manage it

What makes you think that these people have more right, or are somehow better at managing the lives of others, on their behalf, simply because they hold more capital? There's nothing justifying their rule, the only reason why they have risen to power is because they were able to set aside ethics and exploit the earth, the working class or the animals.

I had no idea this site was for anarchists, I thought it was for all leftists

Do your research then, it's very obvious.

The position of anarchism as far as I know is to destroy the system entirely

That's not anarchism, I've explicitly said this many times now. Here's two good introductions to anarchism if you want to understand it:

Accidental Anarchist, a pretty good and short documentary that explains the basics of anarchism with a very relevant real-world example.

The Secret is To Get Started, a written introduction with some of the classic questions that newcomers have. If you have more questions, just shoot me a PM or comment here, I'll gladly clarify.

8