manicatorman wrote (edited )

I think Tabby definitely has the moral high ground here, but Justine brings up good points. It's like Tabby is naive but ethically right, whereas Justine is more observant and correct about how the world actually works a lot of the time, but ends up being too cynical to get to the right ethical conclusion.


manicatorman wrote (edited )

There is Diaries of a Spaceport Janitor that is pretty weird and artsy, but definitely has a good anti-capitalist message to it.

Have you played Night in the Woods or Undertale? I know both of those edge into mainstream popularity, but they both are pretty innovative and artistic. Kentucky Route Zero is another good one.

All of these should work on pretty basic desktop hardware.


manicatorman wrote (edited )

I think you have to realize that a lot of people do not give a single shit about politics and do not follow it closely whatsoever. They also don't trust major news sources (which is actually fair), and so they aren't up to speed on the latest controversy. They also implicitly know that the ruling class doesn't give a shit about them, and Hillary did not make any effort to make herself appear removed from that class, while Trump kind of tried (it's ridiculous, clearly Trump IS the ruling class, but there is that element).

I think the left needs to understand that the right-wing has successfully co-opted a lot of language that is traditionally associated with the left, like defiance, anti-authoritarianism, rebellion, conspiracy, etc - and it's not too far-fetched to understand why some uninformed but well-meaning people get caught up in it. Obviously there are a ton of really shitty people who did vote for Trump, but abandoning Trump voters to the realm of "irredeemable" is a bad move. It certainly won't allow for much rural organizing to take place, which the left sorely needs.

I know he's a socdem, but look at the way Bernie talks to the Trump voters in this video, and look at the reasons they give for voting for him. It actually was a severely misguided protest vote for a lot of people, and it honestly shouldn't be TOO hard separating those people from the actual racist assholes.


manicatorman wrote

Voting alienates people from their moral choices, though. Like - a lot of people can vote for something that they could never do themselves. And our capitalist democracy doesn't give people very many choices. I don't necessarily make a moral judgement on people that voted for Trump - I think their other actions can speak more to what kind of person they are. Voting for Trump doesn't necessarily make you a bad person - but actively supporting Trump-like ideas and implementing them in your community does. I think those things can be separated, given how much we are alienated from each other.


manicatorman wrote (edited )

I am personally a pacifist for religious reasons, but for the movement as a whole I agree with Malatesta:

"Since historical antecedents have driven us to the necessity of violence, let us employ violence; but let us never forget that it is a case of hard necessity, and in its essence contrary to our aspirations. Let us not forget that all history witnesses to the distressing fact - whenever resistance to oppression has been victorious it has always engendered new oppression, and it warns us that it must ever be so until the bloody tradition of the past be for ever broken with, and violence be limited to the strictest necessity.

Violence begets violence; and authoritarianism begets oppression and slavery. The good intentions of individuals can in no way affect this sequence. The fanatic who tells himself that he will save people by force, and in his own manner, is always a sincere man, but a terrible agent of oppression and reaction. Robespierre, with horrible good faith and his conscience pure and cruel, was just as fatal for the Revolution as the personal ambition of Bonaparte. The ardent zeal of Torquemada for the salvation of souls did much more harm to freedom of thought and to the progress of the human mind than the scepticism and corruption of Leo X and his court.

Theories, declarations of principle, or magnanimous words can do nothing against the natural filiation of facts. Many martyrs have died for freedom, many battles have been fought and won in the name of the welfare of all mankind, and yet the freedom has turned out after all to mean nothing but the unlimited oppression and exploitation of the poor by the rich.

The Anarchist idea is no more secured from corruption than the Liberal idea has proved to be, yet the beginnings of corruption may be already observed if we note the contempt for the masses which is exhibited by certain Anarchists, their intolerance, and their desire to spread terror around them.

Anarchists! let us save Anarchy! Our doctrine is a doctrine of love. We cannot, and we ought not to be either avengers, nor dispensers of justice. Our task, our ambition, our ideal is to be deliverers."


manicatorman wrote

It's basically the idea that if you give rich people tax cuts, they will use that extra money to invest in the stock market which will grow the economy. It works for a very short period of time (because a lot of rich people do invest in the stock market when they have extra money), but it eventually crashes the whole thing because demand hasn't risen whatsoever. You can't grow the economy when consumers don't have any spending money, and giving more money to the wealthy isn't giving any more money to consumers.

Here's a metaphor: Imagine I want to grow a shoe company, but nobody has any money to buy shoes. If I give more money to the people who own the shoe company, is that going to make the shoe company successful? It might allow it to coast for a bit, but there is still the central problem that nobody has any money to buy shoes. And that lack of demand will eventually crash the shoe company, no matter how much money I give to the owners.

Personally I say we should end the whole game and just build anarcho-communism, but there's a short rundown of it using the language of capitalism


manicatorman wrote (edited )

I honestly feel like this essay is Peter Gelderloos's worst. It almost turned me off of his writing in general, even though his Anarchy Works is so great. He doesn't really make any new arguments that other vegan detractors haven't already made, including his "but lions eat meat, so humans should eat meat" ridiculousness. Not to mention the horrible "Killing can be a beautiful thing" nonsense.