Zzzxxxyyy

3

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Do you even know what anarchism is? Throwing one large blanket over Anarchism and saying “bad” makes about as much sense as saying animals are “bad.”

I personally think everyone who isn’t into oppression is an anarchist that just hasn’t found their flag.

Here’s a start:

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism.html

3

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Yeah. I mean, in my experience the unintentionally racist people I know usually have never had a frank conversation about race with a person of color. And at that, you would want POC from a variety of backgrounds.

For example, there’s a lot of fat/health shaming of people who live in food deserts. White people don’t understand the burden of accessing healthy food in impoverished areas. Even if you have access, processed foods allow you to recover precious hours in the day for things like sleeping so you can work the next day.

But likewise, POC in high income professions experience different challenges with credibility/opportunity unless they can adopt enough white-face they’re accepted as generally white.

Giving people access to first hand testimony of experiences, so they can start to see how the gentle raindrops of bias turn into a flood, is the best way to help them realize their personal responsibility in reversing(not just avoiding) bias.

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Freedom - as in free to do what I want with my time, not freedom to die in abject poverty

Permanence - as in creating positive memories in my friends lives, good art, making a positive change in the world

Ethical monotony - avoiding future selves that behaved unethically either selfishly or self destructively

Reply to Is chaos good? by /u/ziq

-1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Generally, I’d say the powerful are able to turn chaos into opportunity. But a well organized and prepared opposition can use chaos as well. Chaos may expose the illegitimacy of power structures, either when they fail to leverage the opportunity or if they leverage it too adeptly.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I personally don’t rage against nature. What I rage against is people who are slaves to their need to dominate over other people. Perhaps anarchy isn’t the ultimate realization of free will, but it’s freedom of life and movement for me. I would like to have the problem of pondering free will in an environment that maximizes freedom.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Really depends. If I go try to shop Whole Foods or one of the other bougie stores in the area it’s far for expensive to eat “fresh” produce than shit processed carbs or meat. They charge a premium for healthy unprocessed food, because it’s actually food. But the down to earth “working class” grocery stores prices much more closely reflect the relative time/energy put into the products.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I think Chomsky would agree to supporting state socialism/social democracy.

I didn’t feel like he glossed over the relationship of the individual and the state. He directly, but unemotionally, addresses the injustices and illegitimacy of the US government in respect to natives and slaves.

I think his primary point in this very short interview was to shed light on the absurdity of gun overship keeping the state in check. It wasn’t meant to be an all encompassing thesis.

His definition of anarchy is not the absence of hierarchy all together, but the practice of challenging and tearing down illegitimate power structures. That the power of violence should be democratically controlled verses privately controlled. I tend to agree with him, but I do acknowledge the risk of corruption. I’m not dogmatic, I just don’t know what would achieve anarchists goals of maximizing individual freedom better.

I wouldn’t lump him in with HRC or Pelosi. He obviously doesn’t support capitalism of the US/globalist variety and I think he supports suppression of fascist speech. Not exactly your vanilla liberal.

So, from my perspective he’s on the left side of anarchy and I wouldn’t vote him out of the community if there were such a thing.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

What he’s advocating for is an accountable state vs unaccountable state.

This is similar to why he advocates for unions, even though they are power structures, that power is somewhat accountable to union members verses being fully concentrated in the hands of business owners.

So, what he’s saying, is that realistically you need to have some sort of government to oppose private(unaccountable) power that would inevitably attempt to become a totalitarian government to exploit its citizens.

Chomsky is essentially trying to optimize for maximum individual liberty, while recognizing there needs to be a way to prevent private power from taking away individual liberty.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I think it’s probably more that our society necessitates hierarchy, so that if you want to do larger scale good you end up having to participate in illegitimate power. People go in with good intentions of changing things for the better and find themselves swept up in the current.

Specifically, in the US, I think the way we vote creates polarization and prevents new political parties from arising independent of a currently existing party. I think it’s accidental, but you end up having to tow the party line and ‘corrupting’ yourself if you have longer term goals.

I think ranked choice voting will go a long way to correct the problem if the current parties will permit it.