Comments

2

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Why do you think participating in the local chapter of a communist party is trying your best to accomplish revolution as soon as possible? It's no secret that many communist party chapters are simply leftist debate clubs.

It looks like it's more of a way for you to detach from reality, seeing as you mentioned it in response to this thread about someone's emergency situation dealing with misogyny. A genuine effort to recruit people into a communist party would involve participating in the struggles of the here and now so that people would see more of a reason to join your effort to build a better future.

1

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Being pedantic is the revolution

But seriously, it's not, it's just a way for leftists to assert dominance over one another and has absolutely nothing to do with social change. This, along with vague proposals to end capitalism in order to solve someone's emergency situation, is the kind of silly "leftism" that promises a lot and delivers nothing.

1

kittybecca wrote

I'm tweaking as I go. I'm starting with a clone and seeing where I can make changes when that's done. In a lot of senses it will never be a real clone because the lexicon will be considerably different, will lack many Klingon concepts and introduce many new concepts.

I think modifications to the grammar and things like that after a while will probably happen eventually. At the moment the syllable structure is only slightly different; it could be called a generalization of Klingon's CVC structure... even though the phonological inventory is different. And I've also already added "vowel dissonance," a requirement that two front vowels or two back vowels not appear consecutively within the same word (maybe their ability to produce sound is much more adept and the focus is on clarity via contrast). So even phonologically it's considerably divergent.

2

kittybecca wrote

I dunno, something like...

Tutpik Jak /tʼutʼˈpʼikʼ ˈd̠ʑɑkʼ/, the language of the Tutpik, a culture of space-faring pirates who fled the implosion of the empire ruled by their home planet Boddettarh /ɓoɗɗetʼˈtʼɑʁ/, which collapsed due to unbridled greed. The proto-Tutpik decided to live collectively and non-hierarchically, raiding large merchant or military vessels for supplies, forming several space-based nomadic collectives.

Also, their language is grammatically identical to a certain copyrighted language, but entirely relexified and put in the mouths of a different culture with its own story, then released CC0.

shrug

4

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Many of the factors that anarchists, an-coms and other libertarian leftists would like to see society based on is actually being experimented with there, such as mutual aid, direct democracy, consensus decision-making, armies sans hierarchy, democratic federalism, gender equality etc.

This is the bottom line for me. The fact that they're doing this means they're doing the most toward an anarchist society of anyone in the world. People care way too much about whether something fits their definition of an ism, not enough about what that ism actually wants to bring about.

Bakunin apparently wrote all his books upon request from different people and saw them as afterthoughts to his praxis, as things he didn't personally consider very important relative to his actions.

5

kittybecca wrote (edited )

I guess where we arrive at a philosophical difference is that you judge democracy as a form of authority, whereas I judge it as a broad movement away from authority, where the less hierarchy it involves, the more democratic it also is.

I view anarchism as perfect democracy, where people are masters of themselves. Democracy was an attempt to abolish autocracy out of a distrust of authority and a genuine desire (for most participants in the revolutions, who primarily were NOT members of the bourgeoisie) to take control over their own lives; anarchy merely takes this a step further.

Judging the history of democracy by various reactions and failures is like judging the history of communism by the same thing. You don't need to throw the word communism out to advance the spirit of the communist revolutions, nor do you need to throw the word democracy out to advance the spirit of the democratic revolutions, largely fought by proles from the very beginning even if the primary beneficiaries were the bourgeoisie.

I see anarchism as a radical form of the spirit of '89, the most complete form of what democracy has always claimed to be about: liberty, equality, etc.. That's not an attempt to salvage democracy for me; it comes naturally rather than being a series of mental gymnastics. It might require mental gymnastics for you to come to the same conclusions, but people's brains are wired differently. I think you just think about things in very different terms than I do.

Edit: Imagine the anarchist movement failing to achieve its promises and creating yet more forms of hierarchy and authority in the future; would that mean we should throw the word anarchism out?

I realize people say democracy and liberalism work as intended, but the reality isn't that simple. Things work the way they do because various power struggles resulted in things being this way. These power struggles ended the way they did because democracy was insufficient to deliver its promises. From the beginning, democracy promised liberty, self-government, self-mastery, etc., but it was unable to deliver its promises because of the fundamental contradiction between the liberal concepts of individual rights and capital, the latter of which undermined the former. Aristocrats systematically weakened democracy, and this effort was there from the very beginning; this doesn't mean most of the early democrats weren't genuinely trying to create a society of freedom and self-mastery.

2

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Why do you think democracy = majority rule? What about democracy implies that? Consensus-based decision-making is obviously a form of democracy. That's not a disclaimer, that's just using the word properly.

notable anarchists

I can't think of any "notable anarchists" who would have been comfortable with being looked at as the final word on anarchism or even as especially important to the mass movement and collaboration of the people. It honestly seems your view of anarchism is incredibly misanthropic and involves a sense of belonging to an elite class of woke people rather than to a society.

Worship of the "notable" is contrary to anarchism - but it doesn't make you not a genuine anarchist. A genuine anarchist is someone involved in anarchist organization, collaboration, mass movement, etc. for good-faith reasons. And in practice, anarchism is imperfect and doesn't always even involve total consensus. It's still better than "rule by the great thinkers" though.

tyranny of the majority

Do you think anarchists invented this concept?

3

kittybecca wrote (edited )

I joined but ended up leaving because there were people complaining about "weird people" in the chat and I don't like going places that aren't friendly to neurodivergent people. It has a chilling effect on special interest communities.

2

kittybecca wrote (edited )

ironic that its name is from the Esperanto word for money, and that many associated projects and technologies also have Esperanto names (e.g. "Kovri", an implementation of I2P onto which the coin is eventually supposed to move, from the Esperanto word for "cover")

Esperanto of course was created by a Polish Jew whose daughters died in the Holocaust (side note: if anyone thinks antisemitism is a religious matter rather than a racial one, note that they had converted to the Baha'i Faith and this wasn't enough to stop them from being killed as Jews)

EDIT: and also ironically, George Soros is a native speaker