Flippanarchy @lemmy.dbzer0.com Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Democracy brain

Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):

One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.

You're viewing a single thread.

73 comments

These guys (that got their jobs via democracy) don't have 51% so they have to work together whilst still representing their own voters.
- So? Do you really think that the EU parliament is a good example of democracy? O.o
  
  It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it's better than whatever the fuck is going on in the US
  
  Maybe. But on an anarchist community, I don't feel like acting as if any representative democracy actually fulfills their promise of freedom and equality.
  
  Does community dictate general opinions of posters or more like the subject of posts (as kernels around which discussing arise)?
  
  If I post an anarchist meme on politicalmemes, I expect liberals to dunk on me. If I post on an anarchist meme community, I don't expect to be required to explain the basics of the anarchist critique on representative democracy.
  
  I see, yes, that sounds fair.
  (Also the reminder in which community we are is welcomed/nice on Lemmy.)
  
  So you want to follow the rules? Your rules?
  
  I am confused; what community is this again?
  
  Lol anarchism means no rules amirite? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 /s
  
  While rules can exist in anarchism, they function as shared, agreed-upon guidelines aimed at maintaining mutual respect and cooperation, rather than as laws enforced through authority.
  
  In other words, your distant cousins are here. And by your rules, we get a vote in the rules.
  
  Perhaps you should read up.
  
  I guess you didn't spot the "/s" in my comment.
  
  What do you mean "distant cousins"? What's your deal, wtf are you attacking me? Why are you so arrogant?
  
  The core of the cognitive disconnect you are demonstrating lies in your attempt to impose your own interpretative “rules” on the discussion, using sarcasm as a way to frame anarchism in a narrow, dismissive sense. By doing this, you overlook the very principle I was explaining: in an anarchist framework, any guidelines or “rules” emerge from a collective, consensual process, not from one individual’s authority or interpretation.
  
  In short, the disconnect is you fail to see your attempt to control the tone and meaning of the discussion runs counter to the very idea of consensus-driven participation in anarchism.
  
  Could you provide a link for those that want to learn (me)?
  
  I'm not really sure if I know "the best" source for the completely uninitiated, but
  
  Here's a very short pamphlet
  
  Here's a video
  
  Here's a playlist
  
  Here's a very thorough FAQ
  
  Thank you for all those, I will check them out!
  
  We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.
  
  It worked out so well, feudalism ended up being a better choice. Took us about 1000 years to see a predominance of republics again, although Italian city states got there first.
  
  Turns out without organized states, letting a large number of people self organize ends up being a free for all for chieftains and warlords trying to sieze power for themselves. We ended up not writing history for hundreds of years, because everyone was focused on trying to find any sort of stability. We called it the dark ages. Feudalism was simply the strongest warlords managing to hold power for long enough so that people didn't see slaughter every year and could experience peace long enough to farm and craft. Even they had to come up with rules of casus belli (justification for wars), a claim system, heraldry and succession to prevent an all out slaughter like before.
  
  We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.
  
  No, you didn't.
  
  Anarchism as a coherent vision of a potential society is a relatively modern development. There are past examples of societies that had some of the traits that anarchists advocate for, but nothing that really matches what we want. Your "lol warlords" example is very far from being relevant.
  
  Thank you for explaining it to me. I can understand someone saying such a thing in a non binary community, we're all ignorant about something.
  
  Anyway, i would like to ask more questions and discuss what you said but apparently there's a new mod rule that says we need to understand anarchy to be here and people are not here to educate us. Since it's a rule i won't be able to participate further since i don't actually understand anarchy so i suppose it's time to leave the community.
  
  I wish you all the best though.
  
  The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good. I'm not saying anarchism leads to the loss of values, I'm saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values. I understand that would not be the anarchy you would strive for, I'm saying that's what people would end up becoming, even though they'd have all the reasons not to.
  
  Anyway thanks for presenting your arguments and showing me your view points. Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy, as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don't. I wish you and everyone in this community the best.
  
  Edit: i just wanted to be clear that i didn't intend to spout hot takes to rile you guys up or disparage your beliefs. I understand the downvotes, I'm probably saying egregious things considering your community and obviously you disagree with it. I accept that. But please take none of what i say with disrespect, because none was intended. For me that's the most important take away. All i said were genuine discussion points and i want to make it clear that i admit i don't understand much about the modern ideals of anarchism. There are many differing takes on this subject online and they are not congruent. Whether or not i end up not agreeing with your beliefs does not mean i don't want to fully understand the message as it was meant to be understood.
  
  Above all I'm a firm believer of political plurality. Diversity of opinions is what makes society richer.
  
  Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy,
  
  According to the modlog you weren't banned for this comment, so I assume we're fine to continue our discussion. Probably avoid making these kinds of comments on future posts here though, at least until you've learned more.
  
  as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don't.
  
  But you're also still raising objections here, while admitting a lack of understanding. The tendency to conflate "I don't understand it" with "it couldn't possibly work" isn't good for anyone. If nothing else, at least educate yourself in order to become a better skeptic.
  
  The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good.
  
  Why is this an objection to anarchy, rather than an objection to trusting humans with the power to rule over others?
  
  I'm saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values.
  
  Anarchy does not lack "dissuading devices". See this comment, where I outline how an anarchist society would handle an instance of vigilantism.
  
  We tried anarchy way back when the biggest community was a village (especially in the between-villages space).
  
  And since anarchy is just fascism with a faster, by-chance-situational shifting of power - one could add to the previous example of villages the existence massive supranational megacorps & conclude that anarchism in the technologically developed world is just corporatocracy (since individuals can be kept in check by guns/famine/communication/etc).
  
  And since anarchy is just fascism
  
  Are you seriously not embarrassed to be displaying this level of ignorance? Have you read anything about either of those ideologies?
  
  And since anarchy is just fascism with a faster, by-chance-situational shifting of power
  
  Wow, you can't be serious. XD
  
  Why are you posting in an anarchist community? You clearly have no idea about anarchist theory, so please bugger off.
  
  Because this post has made it to page one of "all" when sorting by active and attracted attention outside its original community.
  
  So do a lot of AI generated images. I don't post on these communities how ugly the images are.
  
  WHY ARE PEOPLE ENGAGING MY POST I PUT ON A PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM?
  
  Do you know what communities are?
  
  You’re looking for an echo chamber not an online public forum that gets aggregated based on activity.
  
  Hey i might not agree with anarchy, but it doesn't mean i don't like to hear about other people's political views and see what they think.
  
  After all, how can one grow being only exposed to one's own political views ? I will disagree with you, sure, but i mean no disrespect for your opinions. I respect them as if they were my own and i think the world is richer with people who think outside the box and challenge the status quo. We should leave no page unturned.
  
  But you're trying to dunk on anarchism with your shallow understanding of history and learly without any idea of what anarchism stands for. Excuse me if that doesn't speak for your open-mindedness concerning anarchism.
  
  I didn't mean to come off as dunking. Disagreement is part of discourse, I'm afraid and not necessarily dispargement of your beliefs. If you don't have the patience to discuss the fundamentals of your beliefs with your fellow man, then i suppose we've got nothing further to discuss about this matter. There is no need to act this defensive with everyone trying to engage with you on your political beliefs on this thread.
  
  I'm sorry this discussion didn't turn out the way i intended and regret we couldn't learn from each other this day, but i wish you a better continuation of your day!
  
  Anarchism is- due to a lot of state propaganda - a quite misunderstood ideology. I need to explain my worldview on pretty much a daily basis. So I hope you understand that I'm not always in the mood to go over the basics time and time again. That is why I posted on an explicitly anarchist community without therequirement for thorough analysis why one thinks that way. This is why I was acting so defensive.
  
  Imagine going into a queer space and asking: "But what do you mean by 'non-binary'? There are men and there are women - that's a biological fact!" While you could be asking a legit question, the context where you ask it matters and might get agressive reactions when asked in the wrong context.
  
  Here are the cliff's notes and why your first comment was so ignorant: The european tradition of anarchism arose in the 18th and 19th century and does not mean that "might makes right". Rather, it states that hierarchical power structures should be replaced with horizontal power structures where people get a say in political matters proportional to how much they're affected by it. This would result in a more peaceful, just and efficient world, as it fosters mutual aid and cooperation, instead of social Darwinist notions of competition and exploitation of the weak.
  
  Thank you for explaining it to me. I can understand someone saying such a thing in a non binary community, we're all ignorant about something.
  
  Anyway, i would like to ask more questions and discuss what you said but apparently there's a new mod rule that says we need to understand anarchy to be here and people are not here to educate us. Since it's a rule i won't be able to participate further since i recognize i don't actually understand anarchy so i suppose it's time to leave the community.
  
  I wish you all the best though.
  
  Yes.
  
  You realize this is an anarchist community, right?
  
  Now I do, thanks.
  
  You being anarchist shouldn't mean that you cannot see that something is or isn't a good example of democracy the same way people from democratic countries can judge communist countries.
  
  (Tho communism needs not to be anti-democratic, you can still have multiparty elections & other free markets without capital markets/with common ownership - political parties & a democracy doesn't/shouldn't need financial interests.)
  
  Ah, yes. The counterpart of "democratic country" is "communist country". /s 🙄
  
  Please leave me alone with your political illiteracy.

73 comments