Recent comments in /f/AskRaddle

Fool wrote

I came across this since the previous comment: about the Yamagishi Movement, which started in Japan in the 1960s and are still around.

When kids turn ten years old they generally move out of their parents’ apartment on the jikkenchi and into a dormitory with other Yamagishi kids. Parents maintain intimate ties, but from then on children are more a part of the community than an individual family. Boarding schools in Britain might work in a similar way, but children are still thought to primarily belong to the family rather than the school community. At Yamagishi, rather than direct parental authority, “all the adults are responsible for seeing to the welfare and safety of the children.” [3] Rather than idyllic, the results are, like the results of mainstream society, mixed.


lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

I'm happy there is a more nuanced take on socialism as it helps in answering the thing that was puzzling me about it. I started this ask Raddle because when I try to plan out ways to do anarchy with other people the organization is psuedo socialist. and I don't think of any other methods which might be useful or recreate state dynamics.

It's always a concent based program where everyone making concensus based decision downs a equal part. Or are more just all petite burgeous individuals who consensually share whatever capital they have to do X project. Then After X project everyone takes their objects or whatever. And honestly the second one prob will have more hierarchical problems but the fist one is hard to find people who have the money to be partial owners.

So I guess I feel like I don't like socialism but anytime I wanna do a group activity which requires a larger amount of physical objects I always can't find anything better than consensus based socialism.


subrosa wrote (edited )

Socialism is a political and economic theory

Wiki and dictionary definitions even define anarchism as a political and economic theory. And along with "means of production" hold held in common, this characterization really only reflects the Marxist and communist influences (rather than anarchistic ones).

One alternative option is to place socialism back into conflict with individualism, not capitalism. At times those two were considered as undesirable extremes, both in governmental and non-governmental terms. Socialism as a powerful antagonism to individualism (and vice versa), might reveal it to be as indispensable as individualism.

And I guess that's my main issue with anti-socialist anarchism, it can easily resemble communist talking points of anything vaguely individualist (Stirner's influences on anarchism, for example) being counter-revolutionary, bourgeois, capitalist, you name it. There, the rejection of individualism doesn't even address the various reasons why anarchists consider themselves individualists, but rather insists on the more obviously non-anarchistic ideas about it.

Socialism can take the form of polity-based social organization and the Marxian shift in the mode of production. It can be democratic. But there have been plenty anarchists talking of a socialism that isn't. So maybe the task here is to figure out whether or not we can move on without socialism at its most anarchistic. /ramble


lettuceLeafer wrote

It actually could be conceivable that the US could get funding. Just be anarchists in a war torn area with a sizable insurgency. They basically just find you so you kill their enemy and the US looses no resrouces and doesn't have to deal with diplomatic backlash of war.

So like getting funding isn't inconsivable for anarchists .


subrosa wrote

Both the positive and the negative position on socialism yield delicious fruit. In most contexts I'm happy to respond to "socialist", continue with an unapologetic anarchy-oriented socialism in open conflict with every other socialism. Though I'm usually not the one to bring up socialism, and generally find anarchism described as a form of socialism somewhat misleading.