nadir

nadir wrote

Anyone interested in this sort of thing should keep their eye on GNUnet which is a free and open source decentralised P2P networking system that's part of the GNU project (the same project involved with GNU/Linux.)

6

nadir wrote

The parent comment says:

Babies don't need authorities to teach them.
...
My job is more feeding and keep them from killing themselves.

You say:

babies will die if you don't keep them from climbing out windows or crawling into the road.

So you seem to agree with the parent comment, but you also say what they said is naive.


Note that keeping someone from killing themself is not necessarily enforcing authority upon them.

If you see a baby crawling towards a road and so proceed to stop the baby, are you subjecting the baby to some systemically enforced authority?

5

nadir wrote (edited )

I would say the destination is more important than the method. Achieving the communist society is more important than the journey you take to reach the communist society.

So are you saying that not only do you agree with marxism, but you're fine with things like posadism too?

sectarian

What is wrong with anarchists disagreeing with something that goes against anarchism? How does keeping quite serve anarchists? And to what extent do we have to keep quite? Do we have to support Marxists? Liberals? Posadists? Fascists?

2

nadir wrote (edited )

power to the people

There are two issues here:

  1. Democracy can be subverted to "not work like you want it to", let's call this fake democracy.

  2. Democracy, when it does work like you want it to, gives the majority power over the minority. Which as you can probably see is going to end badly in many cases.

\1. "Fake Democracy"

It is often the case in many so called democratic institutions that the democratic system can be controlled by a minority of the members. You probably already know this because it's election season in the "greatest democracy on earth", the USA. So let's move on.

\2. "Real Democracy"

Rule by one person (monarchy) over a majority is bad.

Rule by a minority (oligarchy) over a majority is bad.

Rule by a majority (democracy) over a minority is bad.

Rulers are bad.

You might say that if there was no minority, as in when everyone agrees, then that's good. Which is fine, but that is rarely going to be the case, so people should not be held to the authority of a democratic system, they should be allowed to go and do their own thing if there is no way for everyone to agree, which is often the case.

4

nadir wrote

It might not be 100% perfect but it's still the best system we have.

No, anarchy is the best system we have.
Democracy is not compatible with anarchy.

What do you mean instead of?

Well seeing as democracy is not going to achieve anarchy, we will have to do something other that just democratise the warehouses.

3

nadir wrote (edited )

Did you read The Abolition of Work that I linked to above? If so, which parts of it did you disagree with? If not, please let me know which parts you disagree with after reading it.

Edit: don't worry if you have issues getting into that text though. Just let me know and we can sort something out.

4

nadir wrote

This seems worse than just a facelift.

The first release of 10X will not include support for running Win32 apps in containers [...] Instead, it will be able to run Universal Windows Platform (UWP) and web apps only.

More platform/vendor lock in.

Windows Central's Zac Bowden believes that Microsoft might be counting on Microsoft's new Cloud PC virtualization service [...] to provide those who need Win32 apps with access to them.

And even more, but this time it's locked behind a cloud service.

Honestly, the best Windows PC is a Linux PC running wine.

3

nadir wrote

Reply to Counterarguements by cute

Often when people have such drastically different views it can be hard to make any progress before they dig their heels in, but --in my experience-- in those cases it's often a matter of showing them a different perspective so that they are more open to changing their minds. I think movies are a great way to do that.

If you have the opportunity to watch movies with your parents then maybe that will help them to see things from a different perspective, and maybe it will give them some context for when you have discussions about these things.

4

nadir wrote

Reply to Counterarguements by cute

When you do have the talk, It may be best to do it with only one parent so that the presence of the other parent doesn't make it hard to have a meaningful discussion. In my experience people are more open to discuss things if they don't have to watch how they appear to others.

So if it's possible, try having the discussion with whichever parent is more likely to be understanding.

7

nadir wrote

I'm not sure I understand sorry.

Are you talking about a Capitalist Realism like false consciousness?

(Initially on reading your reply I thought that you might have meant the following, now I'm not sure.)
Without having the abstraction of anarchy to point to as a shared trait of all desirable activities and structures, communities will be less able to identify changes that reduce anarchy and so authority can creep in more easily? In that sense, not knowing about anarchism is a handicap and those that do know about it have a useful tool for identifying problematic things.

3

nadir wrote

Anarchy is not that special, it happens all the time.

See this section of Anarchy101 by Bob Black

everyday life is almost entirely anarchist. Rarely does one encounter a policeman, unless he is writing you a traffic ticket for speeding. Voluntary arrangements and understandings prevail almost everywhere. As anarchist Rudolph Rocker wrote: “The fact is that even under the worst despotism most of man’s personal relations with his fellows are arranged by free agreement and solidaric cooperation, without which social life would not be possible at all.”

Family life, buying and selling, friendship, worship, sex, and leisure are anarchist. Even in the workplace, which many anarchists consider to be as coercive as the state, workers notoriously cooperate, independent of the boss, both to minimize work and to get it done. Some people say anarchy doesn’t work. But it’s almost the only thing that does! The state rests, uneasily, on a foundation of anarchy, and so does the economy."

6

nadir wrote

but that doesn't mean people are naturally anarchists

A person with their friends is an example of anarchy that most people just do naturally.
Things like:

  • what you do with your mates
  • how you and your mates make decisions as a group
  • the mutual aid of helping out a mate and not making it all a transaction
  • the freedom of association of deciding who your mates are

Some of that may be affected a little by capitalism or democracy or other nasty things, but for the most part it has been unchanged by archist developments.

Most people are natural anarchists, at least when they're with their friends.

[Domination and submission] in a non-sexy way, although probably the sexy ways too.

So as far as the sexy sort of domination goes, it's a different sort of thing. If you're with someone who you trust to back off if asked, and there is some understanding of limits and preferences from the outset, then it is not real domination. It's not like other sorts of actual sexual domination, It's just informed consensual sex.

8

nadir wrote

Reply to comment by An_Old_Big_Tree in Lemmy on anticivs by ziq

Yeah, If I'm ever that out of touch I just hope someone tells me, and I hope I have the humility to listen to them.

I suppose this is where i ought to do the same for the author, but i can't be bothered.

10