Comments

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

So is the motivation here to create an authoritative definition of Anarchy that excludes Chomsky’s views?

I personally appreciate his thoughtful approach to maximizing human freedom, while balancing the need for protection against human exploitation and tragedy of the commons. Perhaps in implementation he’s not always correct, but I like his underlying model. I personally think he’s an anarchist, because at the root of his model is challenging power structures and tearing them down when they don’t serve the greater good. No hierarchy is sacred.

On another note, while I know this conversation is important to you, don’t let my views upset you. I think Anarchy is strongest with a range of approaches, sometimes conflicting, hopefully always respectful and inclusive where possible.

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Idk. Nothing you said here really had anything to do with my questions.

If it’s ok for you or other good guys to “kill them” then you’re acting as an authority.

This non-state stuff mostly seems like a way to dupe people into an ethic of isolation, the strongest survives, etc.

Not my bag. I like Chomsky’s view that Anarchism is challenging power structures and taking measures to tear them down when you find them to be illegitimate (not serving the will of the people). I don’t see myself getting on the anti-Chomsky train here.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

My major question is then, if you achieved your utopian Anarchy non-state, how to you stop illegitimate power structures from (re)forming without collective force?

How do you prevent a bad actor from exploiting the power vacuum? What if they do something like go fill the atmosphere with CO2 and mess up the whole planet for everyone?

I’m not pro-state, but I don’t see how else you maintain anarchy against the inevitable few who would seize the opportunities afforded by having no authority.

4

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Or maybe porn where people communicate what the like, don’t like, etc. I don’t think I’ve seen a single porn where a guy responds, inquires about, or changes his behavior in response to a woman’s pain during sex.

I understand porn is about fantasy, but not all (or many) women like rough, painful, or degrading sex.

I can’t tell you how many women complain about how selfish and insensitive men are in bed. But I have to guess they’re learning to be that way from porn.

14

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I grew up in a religious community that shamed masterbation. It was psychologically traumatizing. It’s also abilist. .

I wouldn’t doubt that this movement has roots in Puritanism if you trace them back far enough.

It’s always those who are most successful romantically who espouse it’s virtues.

If anything we need a profap movement. While we’re at it, how about a non-exploitive porn movement?

3

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I don’t know the answer, but I think if everyone actually consumed as little as needed we’d be fine.

Instead everyone is driving and flying around, eating meat, over working, etc.

4

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Whooo, those are some mighty big swings. Hopefully you develop a strong framework. I suggest read the Communist Manafesto, Noam Chomsky’s “On Anarchy”, and The Great Anarchists by Paul Eltzbacher.

Bear in mind that leftists live in a relativistic universe where everyone appears ‘right’ from their POV. Think of it as the leftist version of redshift, rightshift.

Also, remember, everyone, almost universally, does a poor job of representing oppositional ideologies when making a case for their own. So, literally, everyone seems correct until you do your own hopefully unbiased comparison.

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I think we’ve hit it unless we manage to kick off the singularity. The way I see it, humanity is on the threshold of intelligence where we’re just smart enough to destroy ourselves, but not smart enough to stop it.

I don’t think this phase is unique to us. Being able to grasp long term destabilization of your environment, as an entire species, isn’t exactly easy.

Cheers 🥂