Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by metocin in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

The anarchist thing where people have extremely obscure definitions of words that u can't possibly find in a dictionary then whenever I or someone use the definition of a word as is typical said person does a call out as they have a defined a word in an obscure way that makes me a oppressive force. I dont get it.

Power is the ability to do stuff. extremely oppressed people are powerless as hierarchy removes their ability to do stuff or resist their oppression bc they lack power. I know this is not How u defined it bc if you said anarchism is about making everyone powerless you would sound ridiculous. No guns is anarchist, no autonomy is anarchist as that requires people to not be powerless

The common example of food not bombs is precisely an exercise of gaining wealth to aquire power. You figure out how to gain resources like food to such an abundance that u can't possible consume it all yourself. Which is wealth an abundance of valuable resources. Then distribute said wealth to help empower yourself and others. Which makes u more able to do stuff since u don't have to work to feed yourself which is gaining power. Plus the whole thing of mutual aid where they point is inherently to empower yourself further by building connections.

Unless you use the definition of wealth and power you can only find trolling through long ass books on the anarchist library and not ones in basically all dictionaries. anarchism is all about wealth and power. Aquiring an abundance of useful resource to share and everyone being powerful enough to not be controlled by hierarchy.

Not having wealth and being powerless actually means you are unable to do anarchy. I mean someon can try and run a food not bomb without any food because you just had enough for yourself to eat. Or being a slave so you have no power to do things in your life never less start a food not bombs. I don't know how it could possbly help people as the lack of wealth and power makes one unable to help themself. Not even including trying to help others.

−2

metocin wrote

Except food not bombs are run co-operatively and there is no build-up of wealth or power there. It's simply relocating resources to people who need it.

You don't need wealth and power to do anarchy. That contradicts nearly all of the content I've read about anarchism, including that stuff that folks share here. Mutual aid is about working together to help those who need it, there is absolutely no requirement or need for anyone to be rich in order to do it.

Not to mention the way you seem to misunderstand wealth and power. You think that marrying rich and making a pile of money off of speculating won't corrupt your ethical and political positions? That's incredibly naive.

Power is not just "the ability to do stuff". Power is the ability you have over others. Once you seek out and obtain a superior ability you will no doubt use that ability over others for your own gain. Maybe for little things at first that you can easily justify. But very soon your "anarchist mansion" is just your mansion with big fence around it to protect it.

Anarchy is not about making everyone powerless, it's about everyone being equal. That means nobody having power over others.

17

[deleted] wrote

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Idk if this was aimed at me also, but I'm sorry if I said something hurtful. I lack ability to discern when I'm being cruel, rude or inappropriate.

I try to avoid talking to you because last time I said the wrong thing you deleted your account and I felt bad about it for weeks

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

Nah, u didn't bug me. Nothing for u to worry about. Thx for caring tho.

I try to avoid talking to you because last time I said the wrong thing you deleted your account and I felt bad about it for weeks

:(. I hope u don't worry about it bc I don't even remember what I was upset about.

Normally this internet stuff doesn't bug me. I think I'm more upset by it bc life is pretty shit atm.

Think I might take a break since I've been getting a bit ticked lately plus maybe less internet might help. I don't want u to feel bad bc I not upset with u.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

anarchist thing where people have extremely obscure definitions of words that u can't possibly find in a dictionary 

I agree with this. Like the weird way a lot of anarchists define democracy as "people cooperating" rather than the actual definition; it being a form of majoritarianism government. Or how they insist 'consensus' (people talking) is a form of democracy. Or that anarchy means ultra-democracy. None of it makes sense to anyone not steeped in half-baked breadtube ideology.

Doesn't apply to the words wealth or power tho. Those definitions are pretty universal. Power can certainly be anarchistic in some contexts: self-empowerment, power to the people, the power of love, etc. But in the context of "to strengthen a family's wealth and power"? That sounds like brandishing authority so you and yours can climb the hierarchy and improve your lots in life at the expense of others.

You can't realistically accumulate wealth and power without exploiting all the people you climb over to get the wealth and power. It requires domination, coercion and the near-constant othering and dehumanising of all the people you'd need to use to get ahead (because that's how the game you're maneuvering to win is structured).

Power and wealth can only exist if the powerless and impoverished are denied those ​privileges. It requires rigid hierarchy. And the wealthy and powerful of course then heavily invest their energy into maintaining their wealth and power and making sure all threats to their social domination and monetization of property and people are rendered inert.

​it is hard to do anarchy when you're permanently in survival mode, true. When you have nothing, all your energy has to be devoted to getting your next meal.

But it's even harder to do anarchy if you have everything and thus everything to lose.

14

lettuceLeafer wrote

I didn't think I'd have people deconstructing A brief feeling I joked about. But Wierd but ok. By wealthly I was mostly referring to having enough money to not have to work and have some free savings to fund a project or help out a friend with rent to food or whatever. So like 2 people maybe having around a million dollars maybe a bit less than that. Which is a fuckin a lot of money compared to most poor people but like for America isn't exactly notable.

2

ziq wrote

I mean it's a forum filled with people who do nothing but deconstruct social relations and power dynamics everyday of their lives.

14

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

Yaaaa i don't feel like it's necessary to pile on here but just to explicitly reject this statement beyond what u/metocin already said about it being cooperatively run

The common example of food not bombs is precisely an exercise of gaining wealth to aquire power

FNB has a lot of issues (as do most institutionalized mutual aid groups) but this statement seems to only be able to come from someone who's never worked with mutual aid groups before.

At least in my branch of FNB (not sure if this can be applied everywhere), everything we get is donation based with the exception of some staples (brown rice, etc.) and rent for the building we're in, and some operating costs (car reapirs, gas, etc.). Clam shell containers, vegetables, EVERYTHING else is donation based because it's genuinely founded on the principle that power isn't accumulated wealth. It's having community networks of resource sharing etc.

When we do have money (like right now) we typically try to burn through whatever isn't absolutely essential and spread it out to other mutual aid groups because we know at the end of the day money (to us) means nothing unless it's being used to help folks. Also those decisions are actually consensus driven not a democratic vote.

There's also some interesting history around organizing about how governments use influxes of money / resources to destabilize groups. Like a lot of folks in organizing are actually super wary of getting big donations and acquiring large amounts of money.

I would recommend you should try and find a mutual aid group where you can engage with anarchy in a non-internet-centered way. It's kinda sad to see you go down the anarcho capitalist route (which you 100% are) especially when you used to be someone on this site that i respected and was interested to hear from.

7

potatoes wrote

Not having wealth and being powerless actually means you are unable to do anarchy.

Alright but every human with a pulse and residual glucose has wealth and power, even though it is a small amount. You can do anarchy while naked with an empty stomach.

I think what comes across as offputing in your comments here is that you seem to want to amass large amounts of capital. As you admit, more than you could consume on your own.

As someone who has acted quite stingy in the past and alienated people as a result, I would recommend sharing and giving back even if you don't have much to give.

4

ziq wrote

every human with a pulse and residual glucose has wealth and power

Nah.

wealth

noun

a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.

an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount:a wealth of imagery.

power

political or national strength:the balance of power in Europe.

great or marked ability to do or act; strength; might; force.

the possession of control or command over people; authority; ascendancy.

political ascendancy or control in the government of a country, state, etc.: They attained power by overthrowing the legal government.

legal ability, capacity, or authority: the legislative powers vested in Congress.

delegated authority; authority granted to a person or persons in a particular office or capacity: a delegate with power to mediate disputes.

a document or written statement conferring legal authority.

a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence.

a state or nation having international authority or influence:The great powers held an international conference.

a military or naval force:The Spanish Armada was a mighty power

4

potatoes wrote

If you consider life itself to be a "valuable possession", and the ability to use two legs to walk "great or marked ability to do or act", then most people have wealth. At least in comparison to a rock or a piece of dust floating through space. Or those who didn't live past 5. Or a fish stuck in an aquarium...

1

bloodrose wrote

This is a very econ 101 view of the word "wealth" but it doesn't translate into real measures of wealth: buying power and the freedom that lots of buying power gets one.

6

ziq wrote

I think redefining wealth as life and life as a possession is only going to enable ancap entryism.

Wealth is having more money, property and possessions than most. If everyone were wealthy, the word would have no purpose. Wealth can only exist if poverty exists.

6

potatoes wrote (edited )

Anyway my point is... I wouldn't let neoliberals and capitalists take the word away from you. Even they admit that life is wealth:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_capital

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_wealth

An anarchist definition of wealth can mean friends, affinity group(s), biodiversity, an environment free from pollution, and anything else you consider valuable.

3

ziq wrote

I don't think anarchists need to identify as wealthy. Was it ever our word?

8