|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: kreg]
#27614409 - 01/10/22 07:14 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kreg said: I know pizza delivery drivers that live alone and have it made in the shade. Yall fuckin up somewhere if you really think shits that bad. Just the general rhetoric of the past few posts. Sure the labor market and the economy arent the best ever, idk where you are actually to be fair but in America even with things fucky right now the challenges bring on so many new opportunities. Like the door to cash in on Work at Home hustles is closing..
Just throwing a few ideas around
|
kreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
#27614411 - 01/10/22 07:17 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
tbh i was looking at posts from page before somehow missed the last one so ignore me im being irrelevant anyway. I understand things are difficult out now though, they are for everyone.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: kreg]
#27614419 - 01/10/22 07:27 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Things get progressively more difficult until the working class fights back, or dies.
Fact is, things really aren't that difficult, if you're the right kind of person. I'm doing great. It's just that most people aren't like me.
The mark of a good society is that one should be willing to roll the dice and be born into anywhere in society. Unskilled worker, homeless, Bezos, where ever. Right now, I am not willing to roll those dice. That means we don't treat the minimum wage people well enough.
|
kreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27614445 - 01/10/22 07:47 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I fucking hate saying this but... shouldnt that be part of it? If everyone was cozy at minimum wage then wouldnt we be just like the communists? Many would just wallow at the bottom.. I remember toying with the idea of communism when I was entry level because I worked with this one person who did the bare minimum everything I had to do so much of their work but they got paid more than me only because they started 1 year earlier. Now I realize how wrong I was because that person is probably exactly where they were before if not worse and Ive elevated myself up some.. but youre right its subjective..
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: kreg]
#27614814 - 01/11/22 07:43 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think of it from a moral perspective.
When you say that minimum wage shouldn't be cozy, you are making a moral judgement: The kind of person that works a minimum wage job does not deserve to exist in comfort. You are saying that they have not earned the right to a decent life. You are, in fact, consigning an entire swath of people to such a subhuman status, because there are a lot of minimum wage jobs out there.
That's what minimum wage means to me: it is the minimum quality of life that we, as a society, decide is the basics of being a human.
There are many people that will spend their entire lives at or below minimum wage, due to external or internal factors. Goodwill is famous for hiring mentally and physically disabled people, and Goodwill is also at the forefront of the movement to pay disabled people below minimum wage "based on ability". If it takes a disabled person twice as long as a "normal" person to do their job, Goodwill pays half of minimum wage.
And maybe that's me being a bleeding heart liberal, and I just need to toughen up and stop thinking about people who aren't on my level. Maybe morality shouldn't be a factor in my decisions, and maybe some people should be forced to scratch out a desperate living on minimum wage. Unfortunately, when you force someone to live like an animal, they start the behave like an animal, and then drug use and crime goes up, and my property values go down.
And I don't like that, either.
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27614981 - 01/11/22 10:27 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think your morality serves you properly. If equanimity is what we seek for our species(it should be) then those people are not any less than you or I and shouldn't be treated to the minimum, simply bc they produce less. However, it is status quo to turn a blind eye to things like that and pretty natural For people to turn our capital gain we get from production to capital worth. Bc every success and failure is measured in dollars it leaves those less productive in a pretty bad spot
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
|
r3volution.gurl



Registered: 10/20/21
Posts: 6,359
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
#27614988 - 01/11/22 10:32 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
  "Souls love. That’s what souls do. Egos don’t, but souls do. Become a soul, look around, and you’ll be amazed-all the beings around you are souls." -Ram Dass
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken] 1
#27615082 - 01/11/22 11:54 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ashfiken said: I think your morality serves you properly. If equanimity is what we seek for our species(it should be) then those people are not any less than you or I and shouldn't be treated to the minimum, simply bc they produce less. However, it is status quo to turn a blind eye to things like that and pretty natural For people to turn our capital gain we get from production to capital worth. Bc every success and failure is measured in dollars it leaves those less productive in a pretty bad spot
I don't have a problem with people being given the minimum, it's just that I think our current definition of minimum is way too low. Minimum wage should be enough for someone to live on. Not survive on, but live on. There should be no shame in working a minimum wage job. Kinda like RG's chart. If minimum wage was 25$/hr, then most of these issues would go away. That was my first job out of grad school. That's a decent wage that someone could live on their entire life.
I do take issue with the second part of your point, however. I think there is a big disconnect between productivity and pay. In my experience, the more useless the job, the higher the pay. That's one of those things that was clearly laid bare by the pandemic: a lot of white collar workers don't really do much. I, personally, have never really accomplished anything productive in my life. I've written some papers on esoteric chemistry that will almost certainly never be useful, and I tell other people what to do with their day. And I am well paid. On the other hand, when the minimum wage cashier doesn't show up to work, the economy fucking stops. Suddenly, they become essential workers.
Though, I guess I was also classified as an essential worker. I just know there is no way I could be a cashier or stockboy or any of those minimum wage jobs. I wouldn't be able to hack it.
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27615111 - 01/11/22 12:23 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Absolutely, I agree. There should be a minimum for lower necessity jobs but that minimum shouldn't make them second class citizens. Some people are meant to just pop in a widget all day long every day. And those people are needed just like a doctor. their services aren't as crucial as someone saving or giving life. By equality I mean exactly as you say equally able to live rather than survive.
So what is to blame for the disconnect? Why does it make sense for desk worker/email queens to make 100k/yr and I make all these businesses run/open/operate by installing the mechanical systems and make 40k/yr. I was ignoring this fail for means of the lower income people. But it is , alas, another part of inequality to be sure
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Psilynut2]
#27624055 - 01/18/22 10:46 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilynut2 said: I'm not really expecting to change your mind any more than I think you are expecting Anarchy to actually happen . Thought maybe I could wear you out and declare victory , wishful thinking I guess .
Wildfires , drought , general lack of food safety . Are we going to have an FDA ? What happens with E. coli outbreaks ? It takes an incredible amount of water to keep California farming going . It doesn't get to these farms through natural streams , rain or ground water , it gets trapped in man made lakes and distributed through canals . All of this only exists because of massive govt investment . This shit doesn't maintain itself and keep the water flowing on its own either . What will keep us from killing each other over access to water ? I really don't understand how you think resources will be managed without it devolving into violence given our massive population ?
Quote:
Also, why did you choose to not answer the other two questions?
Was hoping you would give up , and I was trying to think of a new angle .
You severely underestimate how much I enjoy discussing anarchist theory From pedantic prose to paradoxal poetry, writing words is one of my favourite ways to pass the time - the fact I'm getting to argue for anarchy, rather than against some burgeoning ethno-fascist movement *cough* TRUMP 2020 *cough* Rise of the far-right in France and Europe *cough* on this forum for a change is all I ever wanted. Maybe I don't expect to see a massive worldwide adoption of anarchy in my lifetime but anarchy begins at the scale of the individual - I absolutely expect my personal experiment in anarchy to be a success! Why would I ever tire of talking about that?
I feel like we're circling back to your initial claim that large-scale infrastructure is only possible using a centralized government - but the last time you brought up the current-reality of farming in California, I provided an example of a decentrally organized system of irrigation and water rights. You may not have read this earlier part of the thread, but I had another discussion that largely revolved around the anarchist approach to disaster relief (like wildfires and droughts) - it's a practice called mutual aid, and it's used to great success in the USA today. As I understand it, some of the more significant groups in your country (of the 21st century) began as a response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - as I'm sure you're aware, the gov't response to this disaster completely ignored the most poverty-stricken communities (at best - at worst, authorities were killing them), and so the people self-organized to help each other - it was so successful that these groups have only continued to spread since then - Common Ground Relief and Mutual Aid Disaster Relief are two that I'm thinking of in particular. You talk about government as if it was some sort of metaphysical entity with its own non-human intelligence that safely separates us from those human tendencies you fear - but it's a human system of organization as imperfect as the humans responsible for its functioning. It doesn't create anything beyond the underlying potential of human knowledge and labour, and this potential exists regardless of how we organize.
The FDA is something that I don't believe has been discussed so I'll go into more detail here - what would this organization look like in an anarchist society? First, we need to consider why the FDA is so necessary today: (1) the profit-motive has proven sufficient incentive for the selling of unsafe food products, (2) centralized distribution amplifies the risk by combining multiple batches from various areas before national/global redistribution, and (3) a massively-centralized global food network means that most people have essentially zero ability to influence or control the production of the food they eat. Taken together, we have a system of food production heavily weighted towards the need for a massive oversight organization because it would not be possible for the average individual to protect themselves sufficiently otherwise. Even so, the FDA still isn't able to completely prevent E. coli outbreaks - regulation is one part of its approach to reducing the risk of foodborne illness, but another part is that it facilitates recall of affected food products more quickly by tracking outbreaks (when they inevitably happen) to their source. However you choose to break it down, our current food network is incredibly precarious. Things would be fundamentally different in an anarchist society - food production would shift towards a decentralized system (like the one developed by Cuban farmers) where people are able to be involved in the production of their food. Humans have a natural incentive to avoid unsafe foodstuffs, and there would be nothing preventing us from using some of that human knowledge to develop regulations intended to reduce the risk of foodborne illness - even if we can't unilaterally enforce them like the FDA. If we're producing our own food directly, not getting sick or wasting food is incentive enough to follow safe-practices, and informing those at risk of a bad batch is a simple task. If we step up a rung on the distribution ladder - getting food from other people in our community - community reputation is sufficient to ascertain safe sources, and tracing outbreaks to their source is still within individual ability. If farmer Joe lets the occasional carcass sit too long before butchering, it won't be long before the community knows to avoid his meat - compare that to the impossibility of knowing where my meat comes from today... a cow from anywhere in Canada... loaded onto trains and trucks... brought to a massive industrial slaughterhouse that processes 1/3rd of all Canadian beef... and then shipped to my grocery store in the Yukon. If we don't want farmer Joe's cows to get lost in that shuffle, we need some oversight organization with the authority to enforce regulations. What about one step further up the ladder - let's say I want something that isn't available locally - here's one way we could organize an international presence decentrally: a federation of communities that uses a process of consensus to decide on a series of rules - each member community is responsible for accrediting individual food-producers from their area - the federation is responsible for accrediting member communities. The federation, unlike the FDA, is unable to unilaterally force any community to follow the rules - it's only power of enforcement comes from revoking the membership of communities that don't follow the rules - and its only authority is derived from a social reputation for holding up the rules. There could even be multiple federations, with different sets of rules, operating at the same time - maybe I'm comfortable buying unpasteurized milk, whereas you aren't - there's no reason both systems couldn't exist concurrently.
The greater the inequality, the greater the amount of violence (or threat thereof) necessary to maintain it. The current system we live in is massively unequal (like the minority control of agriculture and water rights in California) - so if your approach to anarchy is 'how would we maintain the current status quo without the state?' of course you'll arrive at the conclusion that things would quickly devolve into violence. That's because our status quo requires violence to be maintained - although it might not feel like that to you. If you live in the Bay area and have stable work and housing, you likely occupy a position of privilege in today's global society where you are protected by state violence, more than you are harmed by it. The state, by merit of holding a monopoly of (legitimate) violence where you live, is able to maintain this inequality with less violence than what we would expect if multiple groups were competing for control (like what we saw in Columbia) - but reducing inequality is an even better way of reducing the amount of violence necessary to maintain a system of organization - and that's what anarchy is about.
I think you should really try and answer this question: 'If people can't be trusted to rule themselves, why should people be trusted to rule others?' I've tried to answer it myself over the years without ever reaching a satisfactory response - but considering that much of your presuppositions regarding the necessity of government have been shown to be incorrect, don't you want to investigate what lies at the root of your beliefs? And if you don't have a good answer, doesn't it make you uncomfortable to so completely believe it's truth anyways?
--------------------
Edited by shivas.wisdom (01/19/22 11:02 PM)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius] 1
#27625076 - 01/19/22 09:18 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: This has been very illuminating read thanks Psilynut2 and shivas.wisdom
I've been thinking what happens with the mega corporations like Chevron for example, large corporations running on the capitalist model, dealing with the transfer of power and how they'd function. Nobody with any experience on say an oil rig, is going to want to work on them if they aren't getting paid a shit ton. The locations are usually remote and inhospitable. Just wondering how those type of activities are meant to keep rolling without incentives like $ I purposely chose oil and gas as I see it as one of the biggest challenges, apart from the military.
[...]
Actually forget about the oil and gas industry, humans can't even agree whether or not a vaccine is worthwhile.
One thing covid has shown me though is that it is possible for huge shifts in political policy when governments are faced with a big enough problem.
Perhaps with the right mix of catastrophic events/circumstances anarchy may prove to be a logical answer?
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." - Rousseau
___ ___ ___Before we dive into how an anarchist society could organize around these facets, I think we should take a closer look at the incentives that keep a capitalist society rolling. What allows a mega-corp like Chevron to exist? In one word, exploitation. Capitalism is built on a foundation of systemic inequality shored up by social conventions like private property and authority. Via a murky history of conquest and inheritance, the capitalist class has come to own access to the basic necessities of life - the working class must sell their labour if they wish to be granted access. One operates under the incentive of 'increase my capital' whereas the other operates under the incentive 'afford the necessities of life'. Both seek to profit, but one desires to profit from exploitation - the other needs to profit from their exploitation. A mega-corp like Chevron can only exist in this reality - it can only exist because for millions - billions! - of people, the incentive to avoid poverty and destitution is stronger than any aversion towards exploitation, submission, drudgery, and danger. What type of incentives could we expect to see in an anarchist society? The basic incentive would be social usefulness, but joy, passion, challenge, curiosity, and duty are other possibilities as well (not an exhaustive list). People were prospecting for gold up in the Yukon decades before there was anything to spend it on if they found it. There's a folk-legend up here that the unnamed prospector who struck gold on the Klondike never staked a claim of their own - they just told a few people and then continued on their way downriver - "Yet it isn’t the gold that I’m wanting, So much as just finding the gold." Of course, even if these incentives prove sufficient motivation we should still expect a radically different industry to arise. One change we could expect: the form work takes will alter in response to these shifting incentives. I'm going to keep talking about the mining industry because I have some personal experience here, but I feel it's comparable to oil&gas. Up here, the most profitable mining operations are massive operations that feature significant division of labour and use efficient techniques that cause major disturbance to the environment - imagine driving a massive rocktruck up and down the same road of an open-pit mine 12hrs a day. Conversely, we have smaller 'artisanal' operations that use less invasive techniques and less division of labour - imagine several miners working together from prospecting to shafting to sifting to that first glitter of gold. In an anarchist society, without the exploitative and coercive incentives of capitalism, I would expect that very little incentive would remain for people to work in these massive soulless mines - and the mining industry would shift towards a form of labour that offers more opportunity for the type of incentives I listed earlier. There isn't much joy to be found in repeating one task over and over again, completely divorced from the actual process of finding gold - but if you've ever had the opportunity to try your hand at gold panning, I'm sure you can understand how some people would find the joy of the process incentive enough. Another change we could expect: the amount of people participating in this industry will reduce. Sure, maybe some humans have the drive of an explorer who will push onward into the unknown - but a much large portion of people probably wish to be secure in their settlements. Maybe some humans will jump at the challenge offered by mining, but a much larger portion of people probably prefer to be challenged by something closer to home and less dangerous. So what happens if the productivity of passionate prospectors is less than the amount of mineral ore society needs? This is where the incentive of 'social usefulness' comes into play. Society has a use for iron or gold? Then that need will provide the incentive for people to participate in the labour, or society will adapt to a point where it doesn't need that resource. Either the incentive to use steel as a material will be stronger than the aversion to mining iron&coal&chromium, or the aversion to mining for these materials will provide an incentive to find alternatives. The third option, that humans would do neither and just let a need remain unfulfilled doesn't seem anywhere near as realistic as either of the first two possibilities. Societal usefulness is a pretty strong motivator - but the irrational motivations of capitalist coercion and exploitation have built us up to a present-day equilibrium where profitability is more important than usefulness. For example, bottled water is profitable - clean tap water is useful. To bring it back to the mining industry, disposability in profitable - repairability is useful. I imagine it's incredibly unlikely that the incentives of an anarchist society would provide enough motivation to keep up with the wasteful consumption of modern capitalist society - but do we want to? As I said to Psilynut2, the question shouldn't be 'how would we maintain the current status quo without the state?' but rather, 'how could the status quo change without the artificial pressures of the state?' ___ ___ ___How would an anarchist society respond to a pandemic? I think this can be separated into two question: (1) could an anarchist society develop an emergency vaccine, and (2) how would an anarchist society enforce rules regarding public health and infectious disease. The first question seems like an obvious yes, to me at least. There's more than enough anecdotal examples of medical researchers who aren't motivated by profit - maybe it's a sense of duty to society, maybe it's a personal challenge, or maybe they were personally affected - the point is that profit isn't the only incentive for medical research. In fact, the profit-motive can be detrimental to medical research - a few examples, intellectual property and patents causing multiple teams to repeat the same research instead of collaborating together; recurring revenue via chronic therapies becomes more appealing than one-off cures; and exorbitant pricing can make existing treatments difficult to access. The bigger obstacle for an anarchist society would be the coordination of necessary resources. Although the motivations for where capitalists concentrate their resources isn't always intended to provide the greatest social usefulness, the centralized structure of its organization still means that a capitalist society can concentrate resources with relative ease, because these resources are held by a minority of individuals (all it takes is one Bill Gates). Conversely, an anarchist society would need to coordinate a much larger number of individuals - and it's unlikely that this process would be as ruthlessly efficient as what a capitalist society can offer. Still, efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all. Efficiency isn't the same thing as progress - the ability to efficiently concentrate resources doesn't mean as much if the motivation behind it is profitability rather than social usefulness. Consider how efficiently we are currently destroying our environment, for example. This isn't to say that an anarchist society would necessarily function better here (I can see it going either way), but merely to say that this type of technological objective wouldn't be out of reach for an anarchist society. The second question should be obvious too - an anarchist society couldn't enforce vaccinations and quarantines like what we've seen happen with the state. Is that a problem? The authoritarian response hasn't been able to force every unwilling individual to follow basic rules of public health - how far in this direction are we willing to go? I imagine that the creation of a total police state still wouldn't be sufficient - so should we even see authoritarian enforcement as a viable solution? Instead of approaching conflict as a winner-takes-all challenge, we should approach it with the intention of understanding the various viewpoints and finding areas of compromise and cooperation. If we can't arrest and punish society into homogeneity, how should we approach public health matters when dissent is expected? One approach would be to focus on improving public education - create easier access to the tools for people to understand why such rules are necessary (rather than expecting them to just listen to an authority) - and build a more robust healthcare system that isn't so vulnerable to being overwhelmed (rather than adding seemingly-arbitrary rules to compensate for budget cuts by gov't officials). This different approach to conflict is fairly integral to anarchy, whereas it's pretty much anathema to an authoritarian society like the one we currently live in. The question isn't 'how can we force people to follow the rules', but rather 'how can we create a society with room for conflict, multiple-viewpoints, and compromise?' Without imposed power imbalances, people have an incentive to actually work out conflicts to our mutual satisfaction - to earn each other's trust. Hierarchy removes this incentive, enabling those who hold authority to suppress conflicts. That doesn’t mean we should seek consensus for its own sake (no compromise with fascists or racists, for example) - but so long as no centralized power is able to compel agreement or transform conflict into winner-takes-all competition, both conflict and consensus can expand and ennoble us. It's not a matter of being protected from the outside world, but of intersecting in a way that maximizes the possibilities - rather than breaking the world into tiny fiefdoms, it's about making the most of our interconnection.
--------------------
Edited by shivas.wisdom (01/20/22 12:08 AM)
|
oursoulsinmotion
Come Down To Us



Registered: 10/04/21
Posts: 3,720
Loc: Deblois
Last seen: 42 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27625249 - 01/20/22 01:03 AM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Anarchy leads right back into Monarchy rule Look into it
-------------------- Alikchi...., Alikchi...., Alikchi.... ♡
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27625313 - 01/20/22 03:53 AM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts shivas.wisdom
I guess I could point out why society isn't currently able to shift in this direction, after all you said it only takes one person to get greedy, but that just re-enforces the current state of affairs.
Quote:
The authoritarian response hasn't been able to force every unwilling individual to follow basic rules of public health - how far in this direction are we willing to go? I imagine that the creation of a total police state still wouldn't be sufficient
Around 25 years ago anyone who was in a supervisory position with Bechtel had to do a 2 day leadership workshop. Mostly it was basic stuff however there wasn't one instance where a heavy handed approach was ever offered as a way to resolve conflict. I've used these techniques over the years to keep things cool so your point makes a lot of sense.
Ratcheting up the state's power to mandate vaccination is a step too far I feel as that would divide society further, and it's about as divided as I can ever recall.
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#27625839 - 01/20/22 01:20 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
After churning thru this last post of yours shivas, I guess I feel like another conclusion should be noted as well;
In order to topple capitalism, I believe, we would first have to topple materialism.
It would have to be yanked out of our human population before they would ever succumb to anarchical ways.
If we are talking about a decentralized yet interconnected population, a population, in fact that once aspired to have so much, to pile on so much debt, desire with all they've got to out do the Jones'.
This is ingrained into them. I know the majority of people I meet love the chase of money, love to be better than this guy and have the newer phone than that guy, or buy a house quicker or throw a bigger wedding, you name it, these ppl live for this shit. If we have large swaths of ppl that are lazy, at which I alluded to in an earlier post, and large swaths of ppl so fucking bloodthirsty for the newest screen, caught up by having the most luxurious car, how are these ppl going to ever feel about living in a more egalitarian manner?
They will fight tooth and nail to keep what they've got and I'm not talking about the top 1%, more like the top 50. Let alone I can't fathom how to convince them to trade their toys and super privileged (to the majority of the world) lifestyle, for some usefulness and joy. These ppl are fucking addicts and they have taken the bait, hook, line,and sinker. Entrenched in their "chase". For what I surely don't understand. But I can tell how much their things mean to them, and for those things alone, it seems, they would die. Much less change the system to help everyone, in particular, the degenerate they have looked down upon and tread on their whole life as they purchase all their success.
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
Edited by ashfiken (01/20/22 01:22 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
#27625953 - 01/20/22 03:13 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think the term you are looking for is the "Aspirational 15". not the top 1%, but the 2-15% right behind them.
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27626081 - 01/20/22 04:45 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I dunno man I know tons of blue collar workers and ppl even that are young enough to still be fooled or really jus anybody. Tons of ppl love to parade their shit around and wear it proudly and value material wealth above all else. And it's not even just pure greed which is sad. It's greed of their overlords (the top%s) that is passed down thru the tactical web that is capitalism. And that web has pretty much everybody caught like a fly waiting to be eaten
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
#27626090 - 01/20/22 04:53 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I mean in the wealthy west, even kids are subject to this if you give them one toy they want two and so on. I mean like I said I'd say it's greed but people aren't really evil enough to call it that en masse, that's why I guess I said materialism. And I think it is much more far reaching than 15%. When success is measured in a society purely by wealth accumulated. And people are hungry for this kind of success.
This suggestion is widely accepted as the "happiness income": https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-3576 I'd be happy with wealth being distributed to that amongst all... Fair. With adjustment for inflation ofc as I think that running number is a few years old methinks and I'd agree to a +15% scale for more skilled worker or something else agreeable. But that's fucking Communism Jesus Christ we all may die. But I am using it a limit to what our "materialism" could be
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
Edited by ashfiken (01/20/22 05:00 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
#27626149 - 01/20/22 05:34 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The aspirational 15 is the target of the marketing. That's usually the point where you have enough disposable income to spend a bit on luxuries, and you're kinda up there in the nice neighborhoods with the nice schools and the nice white fences.
The insidious bit is that once you're in the aspirational 15, you're almost expected to routinely splurge and try to keep up with the Joneses. That's when it becomes socially encouraged to live on credit for that "perfect" lifestyle. Someone in the 50% percentile rolling around in a BMW or an Escalade is what society considers poor financial planning, because they are almost certainly coming up short elsewhere.
Someone in the 15% that's rolling around in a rusted camry they haven't made payments on in ten years gets uninvited from the country club.
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27626845 - 01/21/22 09:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I see what you have going on there now. I get all that. But theres plenty(the 50%) consumers driving luxury cars, whether they are coming up short or are not planning finances correctly doesn't really matter as I see it. It's not what they may currently have that I see as the issue. It's what they desire and what they yearn into their future for.
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
|
TheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter



Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27629095 - 01/22/22 11:35 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Shiva
I can’t believe how many fucking words you’ve typed on this thread
Goddamn.
Sorry to say this but this is the biggest tl;dr I’ve ever come across
-------------------- [quote]Asante said: You constantly make posts thatr fling middle school insults at people you don't like mixed in with maladjusted psychopathic comments about wanting to beat up the other poster with a crowbar. You know how shit you are, you just don't give a fuck for precisely that reason. I disendorse you.[/quote]
|
|