every commie/anarchist I know IRL, and I’ve known quite a few, are HUGE bullies/assholes, and they tend to only be friends with people they have control over or can intimidate into submission to them. They HATE people who are independent of their mentality and character assassinate them.
It’s the typical use of high minded ideals to justify their shitty and hypocritical personal behavior.
That’s really more of what I’ve seen in the communist communities rather than anarchists.
But they too have a tendency of being all or nothing.
The ones who demand “social order” truly aren’t anarchist anyway. The whole point of anarchy is to approach an egalitarian community that rejects the idea of unearned authority.
Genuinely curious. How do true anarchists propose to prevent crime syndicates from gaining power and becoming a de facto government, committing extortion, racketeering, and human trafficking?
Or are they just running on the assumption that after the collapse of society, people’s appetites for wealth, power, and influence will simply evaporate?
wishful thinking mostly. it’s a form of escapism/fantasizing about a better future, rather than actually dealing with the complex problems of ones current reality.
just like a lot of poor people gamble their disposable income in the hope they will become rich, because saving it and investing it is too abstract/difficult of a concept for them. and the momentary hope/high of the activity is provides immediate gratification.
where as richer people see gambling as a leisure activity, they don’t see it as a path to riches. they understand getting richer requires saving their income and investing it and waiting for the payout 10-20 years in the future when those investments double/triple in value.
I mean, I was super into communist/anarchistic when I was a teenager. Then I went to college and realized the world is way more complex/chaotic than anything those theories can cope with, and most theory is really. But generally I prefer theories that acknowledge the basic truths of reality and don’t pretend there is a ideal form of anything.
Sometimes I see people say stuff like “Anyone who says ‘the situation is more complex than that’ is just using it as a cop out because they don’t want to face the solution”
And I’m like, can we not normalize seeking simple solutions to complex problems? That’s partly what got us here today, and every “simple solution” that people try only ends up adding another layer of complexity to the problem for someone else to try to figure out later.
Anyone who thinks the world and its problems aren’t complex is too ignorant to be in a position to demand everyone accept their simplistic solutions.
Yes, but those people are also the ones most prone to violence. Because rather than acknowledge ea complex reality (and feel dumb/inadequate) they would rather use force to compel others to agree with them.
Hence why ‘implementation’ of simplistic theories into a government… comes with a big helping mass murder, incarceration, and a police state.
One of the most telling social trends I’ve noticed of late, is how now for some reason it’s viewed as a weakness to acknowledge the other’s viewpoint that you don’t agree with, or even to preemptively discuss counterargument to your own point. Both of which things that are classically encouraged in literature on healthy debate skills.
But now, as soon as you say “I hear that you’re saying _____, but…” it’s like you get cut off and they think the conversation is over and they just won. Like, no, not at all. Why is society rewarding that behavior?
Another one is addressing intrinsic biases. Like, you practice self-awareness by saying “I may be biased in this respect, but…” and then they go, “See! You’re biased! I win!” Like they’re missing the whole point that everyone has biases, and by pretending to be unbiased they’re actually revealing the extent of their ignorance and lack of self-awareness. But for some reason society today tends to favor the people who don’t admit to having biases, as if it means that person is the unbiased one.
It’s infuriating, but I don’t even try to talk to people anymore. There’s just no good faith discussion left to be had in the world, it seems…
summed up beautifully.
every commie/anarchist I know IRL, and I’ve known quite a few, are HUGE bullies/assholes, and they tend to only be friends with people they have control over or can intimidate into submission to them. They HATE people who are independent of their mentality and character assassinate them.
It’s the typical use of high minded ideals to justify their shitty and hypocritical personal behavior.
Exactly! I’m sorry a tankie got butthurt and downvoted you.
That’s really more of what I’ve seen in the communist communities rather than anarchists.
But they too have a tendency of being all or nothing.
The ones who demand “social order” truly aren’t anarchist anyway. The whole point of anarchy is to approach an egalitarian community that rejects the idea of unearned authority.
Genuinely curious. How do true anarchists propose to prevent crime syndicates from gaining power and becoming a de facto government, committing extortion, racketeering, and human trafficking?
Or are they just running on the assumption that after the collapse of society, people’s appetites for wealth, power, and influence will simply evaporate?
they don’t. they, like communists, tend to ignore human nature and think their ideal society will have no scarcity or struggle.
they basically ignore human psychology and social behavior
Why do you reckon that is? Naivety?
wishful thinking mostly. it’s a form of escapism/fantasizing about a better future, rather than actually dealing with the complex problems of ones current reality.
just like a lot of poor people gamble their disposable income in the hope they will become rich, because saving it and investing it is too abstract/difficult of a concept for them. and the momentary hope/high of the activity is provides immediate gratification.
where as richer people see gambling as a leisure activity, they don’t see it as a path to riches. they understand getting richer requires saving their income and investing it and waiting for the payout 10-20 years in the future when those investments double/triple in value.
I mean, I was super into communist/anarchistic when I was a teenager. Then I went to college and realized the world is way more complex/chaotic than anything those theories can cope with, and most theory is really. But generally I prefer theories that acknowledge the basic truths of reality and don’t pretend there is a ideal form of anything.
Sometimes I see people say stuff like “Anyone who says ‘the situation is more complex than that’ is just using it as a cop out because they don’t want to face the solution”
And I’m like, can we not normalize seeking simple solutions to complex problems? That’s partly what got us here today, and every “simple solution” that people try only ends up adding another layer of complexity to the problem for someone else to try to figure out later.
Anyone who thinks the world and its problems aren’t complex is too ignorant to be in a position to demand everyone accept their simplistic solutions.
Yes, but those people are also the ones most prone to violence. Because rather than acknowledge ea complex reality (and feel dumb/inadequate) they would rather use force to compel others to agree with them.
Hence why ‘implementation’ of simplistic theories into a government… comes with a big helping mass murder, incarceration, and a police state.
One of the most telling social trends I’ve noticed of late, is how now for some reason it’s viewed as a weakness to acknowledge the other’s viewpoint that you don’t agree with, or even to preemptively discuss counterargument to your own point. Both of which things that are classically encouraged in literature on healthy debate skills.
But now, as soon as you say “I hear that you’re saying _____, but…” it’s like you get cut off and they think the conversation is over and they just won. Like, no, not at all. Why is society rewarding that behavior?
Another one is addressing intrinsic biases. Like, you practice self-awareness by saying “I may be biased in this respect, but…” and then they go, “See! You’re biased! I win!” Like they’re missing the whole point that everyone has biases, and by pretending to be unbiased they’re actually revealing the extent of their ignorance and lack of self-awareness. But for some reason society today tends to favor the people who don’t admit to having biases, as if it means that person is the unbiased one.
It’s infuriating, but I don’t even try to talk to people anymore. There’s just no good faith discussion left to be had in the world, it seems…