• SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    1·
    5 months ago

    While I find anarchist ideas intriguing, I don’t like how the comic seems to encourage a violent takeover of property like this.

    • lseif@sopuli.xyz
      1·
      5 months ago

      yep. classic “the bad guy is actually good bc i drew him as a cool furry”

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    1·
    5 months ago

    So what you’re saying is that it’s okay for me to just walk into someone’s home, murder the entire family and just live there now because I’m the most violent of all?

  • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 months ago

    Yeah, this is a point espoused by people who see themselves as wolves, but end up finding out they are actually pigs.

  • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    I do wish there were content labels though - people on Reddit avoid the Fediverse b/c of its “extremist political views”, which limits our growth.

    Fwiw I do enjoy the comic on a personal level.

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            0·
            5 months ago

            Betteridge talks about something fundamentally different. Read the essay, it’s really short.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 months ago

              I skimmed it. It’s bullshit. Reminds me of the “not technically a lie but essentially a lie” bullshit that the door-to-door “have you heard the Good News” religious bastards would try to sucker you in with when I was a kid in the South. A lot of “like us” type bullshit.

              If you’re stupid enough, you might think it makes sense. But it’s a fairytale.

              I’m not saying the author is stupid. I’m saying he’s maliciously pandering to stupid people.

              Let’s take a super quick example.

              If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police? If you answered “yes”

              I’ll try to get past my gag reflex at how condescending this is. But sure. Start with an eminently, universally reasonable position.

              The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization

              Still sounds fairly reasonable, but the intelligent among you might be thinking “hmm, sounds pretty reductive”

              Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?

              Now we’ve gone fully into “only really dumb people aren’t skeptical at this point” territory. I mean, first of all, in the interest of saving your mental health, it’s a decent idea to ignore any statement that starts with “but if you think about it”. However even going past that, you get to the premise: “I’m a good person, therefore everyone is a good person!” Which is…like…seven-year-old logic.

              Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice

              This is the part where we go off the deep end. The author hopes you’re either not paying attention or are really stupid at this point.

              • 0xD@infosec.pub
                01·
                5 months ago

                Yeah I was like “maybe I was wrong” but then I came to that part and just had to laugh.

                I would love to assume that everyone is benevolent - but they simply are not. It’s not like there aren’t sufficient examples of states without police or military power. They surely don’t correspond to this fantastical view.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldOP
      01·
      5 months ago

      We were robbed of a truly incredibly human being when Graeber passed away. I’m a huge fan of “Debt: The First 5000 Years”. And I’m heartbroken that “Bullshit Jobs” was the last publication he produced.

  • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
    0·
    5 months ago

    Yeah, down with the violence of the state! Although, to prevent bad actors and armed gangs we do need to have some sort of militia to protect the vulnerable from the greedy and cruel, human nature being what it is. And to prevent said militia from turning into the very thing it was supposed to protect us from, we need some sort of oversight, preferably from a democratically elected body, that tells the militia how to act and prevent them from violating the rights of the people. Oh wait I just reinvented violence of the state hehe.

    People in Somalia hearing that America has a 1.8% homelessness rate: “wow. Things are really just as bad over there.”

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      0·
      5 months ago

      That’s not what anarchists refer to as a state.

      A common anarchist definition of the state is: The institutionized power structure which alienates people from the businesses of their daily lives.

      If the whole constituency of the community that the militia protects is involved in controlling that militia, that’s not state violence anymore.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        0·
        5 months ago

        A common anarchist definition of the state is: The institutionized power structure which alienates people from the businesses of their daily lives.

        So not the government at all, right? Because they aren’t responsible for hardly any alienating in my experience. I would attribute any alienating I feel to corporations.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          0·
          5 months ago

          What would happen to those corporations without the government enforcing their property? Have you ever tried to seize a McDonalds to distribute food to the homeless?

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            0·
            5 months ago

            People have property rights too. I wouldn’t want someone seizing the food in my fridge to feed the homeless. Property rights are a good thing actually. The problem isn’t the government “protecting” corporations. It’s that wealth grants a greater degree of control over government due to corruption.

            Ultimately though it’s a pointless discussion since anarchists are never going to see what they envision implemented beyond weirdo hippie commune towns because their ideas don’t scale up.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              1·
              5 months ago

              I wouldn’t want anyone to seize the food in your fridge. Unless with “seize” you mean “fill up unprompted” because people know you need to eat and that’s enough reason to give you food, and maybe you’re busy all the time with constructing bridges or whatnot so they also cook for you.

              And while corruption is an issue, it’s not the only issue: The very act of having lots of capital to throw around allows companies to direct policy, you e.g. don’t need to grease hands to get different municipalities to overbid each other with tax breaks for your new fidget spinner factory. The BS is inherent in the system.

              As to scaling: Possibly. Possibly not. I’d argue that it can’t yet be envisioned, not even by anarchists themselves (and we’re aware of that, hence all the gradualism)… but as you acknowledged that it can work in the small, what happens if all the municipalities we have turn into hippie communes? Would they elect, among themselves, an Emperor Commune to rule over them? I don’t think so. They’d find ways to cooperate at eye level. How that will look in detail, as said, I have no idea, it’s probably going to involve federation and plenty of subsidiarity.

              Practically, right now, it makes no difference as most of us are not living in hippie commune towns. First step would be to get there, then we can think about luxury gay space anarchism.