Comments

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

4

kittybecca wrote

"i want to propose a new law. FUCK TRANNIES"

"sorry mr. president, that's not a law"

"FUCK TRANNIES, THAT'S THE LAW, I'M THE LAW"

"no it doesn't work like that, you have to actually have some sort of proposal with a tangible implementation and a rationale"

"grrr, fucking deep state... alright mike, can you give them the legal equivalent of what i just said?"

4

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Certainly. The most recent promising one is Pandunia. There was also Lingwa de Planeta, which I personally love and wish was more widely spoken... unfortunately there was a guy several years back who spammed the crap out of Esperanto speakers about it, which turned most of them off. I myself didn't get too into it until after it had mostly faded away.

Note also though: learning Esperanto doesn't mean committing to it as an international auxiliary language. It's a great exercise in and of itself, has a very broad and diverse community and great body of literature, and the more you learn it, the more you see just how much there is beyond the sanitized advertising image you generally read in English. Both good and bad. Above all, it's the auxlang that is (edit: socially/communally) closest to a natural lang, purely in the sense of how much is available in the language.

7

kittybecca wrote

It's also often just similar to their documented campaigns to pose as black people or other oppressed minorities and advocate reactionary tendencies. The idea is that "the left" doesn't understand what reality is like for these minorities and that if it did, "the left" would also be in favor of reactionary ideas. It has little to do with the left, of course, and everything to do with what reactionaries think about the left, which is why such campaigns are never very effective at doing anything other than circlejerking with other reactionaries.

3

kittybecca wrote

There's a huge difference between intermingling (participating in a culture) vs. appropriating it. Intermingling involves members of both cultures exchanging things with one another. Appropriating is purely about taking, generally in the absence of members of the appropriated culture for unacknowledged and unexamined reasons.

7

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Thanks for the nuanced perspective. I'm surprised by the lack of it in this thread, even on the side of people who are against cultural appropriation. Have people ever really read much about this from the perspective of marginalized people?

Virtually no one is saying you can't ever learn things from their culture. It's about how you do it and how much respect you have or don't have for the culture you're learning from. It's about whether you're learning from members of the culture and taking their history and traditions and beliefs into account. It's about whether you understand what the symbol you're using means, and not perverting it to serve a colonialist narrative or profiting off of it while members of the appropriated culture live in poverty. It's about whether members of the culture itself would be rewarded or punished for the behavior you've picked up from them. It's a question of "do you respect this culture or are you just trying to use them to gain social currency in your own culture?" Etc.

Exchange is something that happens between people who have some sort of relationship and respect for each other; appropriation largely pushes the appropriated culture to the side and the only way they figure in is as an exotic curiosity, a subject to discuss or imitate with your own culture.

28

kittybecca wrote

This gets said a lot, but a big part of the left is too centered around cities and even openly contemptuous of people in rural areas and/or small towns. A big way of changing this might be for people from rural areas and small towns to, where possible, talk to their families and other people back home, keep a dialog open and do their best to change minds. If you approach it the right way, if you say "we all..." rather than "you need to..." etc., if you have a conversation rather than talking at other people, if you advance your argument in a way that doesn't make you sound like some elitist ass who is trying to make everyone bow to your newfound wokeness, you can accomplish more than you might think.