> Greta Thunberg > @GretaThunberg
[https://x.com/GretaThunberg/status/1852331823428247927] > > #UsaElection
#USA2024 #StopArminglsrael #FreePalestine #ClimateJusticeNow > > This year we
have seen many defining elections all over the world. On November 5th, It is
time for one of the most powerful countries in the world — the USA — to go to
the polls. It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this
specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity. > >
There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous
than the other. But no matter if Trump or Harris wins, the USA — a country built
on stolen land and genocide on indigenous people -will soll be an imperialist
hyper-capitalist world power that will ultimately continue to lead the world
further into a racist, unequal world with an ever increasingly escalating
climate- and environmental emergency. > > With this in mind, my main message to
Americans is to remember that you cannot only settle for the least worst option.
Democracy is not only every four years on election day, but also every hour of
every day in between. You cannot think you have done “enough’ only by voting,
especially when both those candidates have blood on their hands. Lets not forget
that the genocide in Palestine is happening under the Biden and Harris
administration, with American money and complicity. It is not in any way
'feminist.” “progressive” or “humanitarian” to bomb innocent children and
civilians — it is the opposite, even It it is a woman in charge. And this is of
course one example among many of American imperialism. I cannot for my life
understand how some can even pretend to talk about humanitarian values, without
even questioning their own role In further deepening global oppression and
massacres of entire countries. > > So, Americans, you must do everything in your
power to call out this extreme hypocrisy and the catastrophic consequences
American Imperialism has on a global scale. Be uncomfortable, fill the streets,
block, organise, boycott, occupy, explicitly call out those in power whose
actions and Inaction lead to death and destruction. Join and support those who
are resisting and leading the change. Nothing less will ever be acceptable.
Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
Removed by modRemoved by modRemoved by modRemoved by mod
Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net
It’s not a problem with anarchists in general, I think, but that the kind of anarchists who put themselves into positions of power are generally… not the ones you want in power. Regardless of ideology, power, even the smallest, pettiest kind, tends to attract a certain kind of person more often, on average.
There are always positions of power. Anarchists are interested in minimizing the institutionalization of power and individual offices. And also, that even anarchists don’t live in a currently-anarchist society/structure, and have to work within that. Don’t believe Lemmy has implemented
Taking turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs…
Just to add on to your mention of there always being positions of power, I believe there is a difference between someone having power/authority in a specific moment or in a limited capacity versus a hierarchy.
A hierarchy enforces compliance from the top down, while individuals are capable of ceding to limited authority in specific situations; see every Anarchist military unit like the CNT, RIAU, BOAK, YPG and YPJ. Any individual member has the right to disobey, to leave. It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.
I think the difference between positions inherently having power and hierarchical power have been explained much better in other comments, but I just wanted to add that there are real world examples of Anarchists consenting to power/leadership, and it resulting in effective small unit combat effectiveness, outside of thought experiments or generalities.
It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.
I mean, I feel the need to point out that dissent, refusal of orders, and desertion were all punishable in CNT militias.
Any wartime unit is necessarily going to be stricter on such things, as coordination, timing, and accurate estimations are all vital in military operations.
The anarchist militias were very effective in the Spanish Civil War, though, you are correct about that.
Thank you for the clarification, that’s really interesting.
Was desertion specifically deserting a line unit on rotation? Could an enlisted person willingly leave when their unit was rotated off the line for resupply for example? Or was it more a situation where upon enlistment you willfully submitted to the commands authority for the period of enlistment?
Do you have any recommendations for reading material on that subject specifically? I had just assumed the CNT operated like most of the other militias I mentioned, although now that I’m thinking about it I guess most of the anecdotal evidence for fighters dropping in and out at will are foreign (predominantly white) volunteers, so that just might be my privilege showing.
It’s been a long time since I’ve done serious reading on the subject, unfortunately. Article 4 of the CNT regulations for militiamen outlines offenses, though, and treating abandoning one’s post and desertion as separate offenses suggests it wasn’t just leaving the front line that counted as desertion.
Yeah, but if your system is anarchist, those are exactly the kind of people who are going to wind up running things.
There’s a lot of overlap between anarchism and good sense. I’m not trying to be snarky about it. But it does seem that it has a couple of fatal flaws, and that is one. You could say that the early anarchists and the American founding fathers both identified the same types of failure modes in government and societal hierarchy, and where the founding fathers came up with a flawed system that nonetheless made a sincere effort to design a society of free individuals who could each live their lives in a pretty anarchist-friendly fashion, while still taking account of the realities of power and how to mitigate the problems of it… the anarchists just decided, “If we don’t pay attention to these problems then they won’t exist, much easier.”
Just picking a random point in this giant thread to chime in. I am an anarchist who is sometimes capable of being serious. So if you want to pick my brain, as PugJesus suggested, feel free.
One thing that I feel I should point out in regards to this particular comment is that anarchists do not advocate for creating power vacuums. Generally speaking, we advocate for people to self-govern in a much more direct way than representative democracy allows for. We urge the creation of voluntary institutions for managing social coordination, shaped by the needs of their members. We want to get rid of positions of power in ways that don’t result in a power vacuum, because people have their needs met and are no longer looking for guidance from a strongman.
We also (usually) recognize that our ideal isn’t going to be perfectly achievable, but we instead seek to get closer to that ideal as we discover new ways to practically do so.
I see that you read a summary of Kropotkin’s ideas, which is cool. He was an anarcho-communist specifically, which is probably the most popular anarchist tendency. I tend to advocate for mutualism, in part because I think it’s easier to understand for people that are accustomed to how capitalist societies function. The short, very oversimplified version is: abolish absentee ownership, create an economy of cooperatives, and gradually replace government institutions with more co-ops.
There’s sometimes tension between the different strains of anarchism, but usually we recognize that we’re all working towards roughly the same thing. Any future anarchist society is likely to be a patchwork of various frameworks serving different groups of people who have different preferences.
It’s… more complex than that. You should pick a more serious anarchist’s brain. They do consider these problems.
Personally, I think the term ‘anarchy’ works against them because of its literal meaning and its connotations. I always mentally replace it with the synonym of libertarian socialism, and find it works wonders in reducing preconceptions.
Personally, I think the term ‘anarchy’ works against them because of its literal meaning and its connotations.
It does, but there isn’t much we can do about it. Its literal meaning (an-archos, no rulers) is exactly what we want, so we have to die on that hill.
The “bad” meaning of anarchy comes from what most people think would happen without some kind of ruler in charge of society. So if we were to largely switch to some other term, people would start to view that more negatively the more it caught on. Even “libertarian socialism” is pretty awkward, given the connotations of “socialism” in the mainstream.
Discussing the matter with actual anarchists is preferable. There are fewer central agreed-upon texts to anarchism (appropriately enough, lmao), and many of those that remain influential are… quite thick. Kropotkin is available if you are the patient sort.
I read the abridged version of the abridged version of Kropotkin just now. I like it quite a lot. I more or less stand by my assessment of the flaws in it, as compared with an approach like the founders of the US, but it sounds like good stuff. I think like a lot of things the devil is in the details.
I am mostly being snarky about the laughable brand of faux-anarchism that got me banned and deleted in this instance, not trying to throw too much shade at real anarchism.
It’s not a problem with anarchists in general, I think, but that the kind of anarchists who put themselves into positions of power are generally… not the ones you want in power. Regardless of ideology, power, even the smallest, pettiest kind, tends to attract a certain kind of person more often, on average.
I thought the point of anarchy was not having positions of power.
There are always positions of power. Anarchists are interested in minimizing the institutionalization of power and individual offices. And also, that even anarchists don’t live in a currently-anarchist society/structure, and have to work within that. Don’t believe Lemmy has implemented
Just to add on to your mention of there always being positions of power, I believe there is a difference between someone having power/authority in a specific moment or in a limited capacity versus a hierarchy.
A hierarchy enforces compliance from the top down, while individuals are capable of ceding to limited authority in specific situations; see every Anarchist military unit like the CNT, RIAU, BOAK, YPG and YPJ. Any individual member has the right to disobey, to leave. It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.
I think the difference between positions inherently having power and hierarchical power have been explained much better in other comments, but I just wanted to add that there are real world examples of Anarchists consenting to power/leadership, and it resulting in effective small unit combat effectiveness, outside of thought experiments or generalities.
I mean, I feel the need to point out that dissent, refusal of orders, and desertion were all punishable in CNT militias.
Any wartime unit is necessarily going to be stricter on such things, as coordination, timing, and accurate estimations are all vital in military operations.
The anarchist militias were very effective in the Spanish Civil War, though, you are correct about that.
Thank you for the clarification, that’s really interesting.
Was desertion specifically deserting a line unit on rotation? Could an enlisted person willingly leave when their unit was rotated off the line for resupply for example? Or was it more a situation where upon enlistment you willfully submitted to the commands authority for the period of enlistment?
Do you have any recommendations for reading material on that subject specifically? I had just assumed the CNT operated like most of the other militias I mentioned, although now that I’m thinking about it I guess most of the anecdotal evidence for fighters dropping in and out at will are foreign (predominantly white) volunteers, so that just might be my privilege showing.
It’s been a long time since I’ve done serious reading on the subject, unfortunately. Article 4 of the CNT regulations for militiamen outlines offenses, though, and treating abandoning one’s post and desertion as separate offenses suggests it wasn’t just leaving the front line that counted as desertion.
Yeah, but if your system is anarchist, those are exactly the kind of people who are going to wind up running things.
There’s a lot of overlap between anarchism and good sense. I’m not trying to be snarky about it. But it does seem that it has a couple of fatal flaws, and that is one. You could say that the early anarchists and the American founding fathers both identified the same types of failure modes in government and societal hierarchy, and where the founding fathers came up with a flawed system that nonetheless made a sincere effort to design a society of free individuals who could each live their lives in a pretty anarchist-friendly fashion, while still taking account of the realities of power and how to mitigate the problems of it… the anarchists just decided, “If we don’t pay attention to these problems then they won’t exist, much easier.”
Just picking a random point in this giant thread to chime in. I am an anarchist who is sometimes capable of being serious. So if you want to pick my brain, as PugJesus suggested, feel free.
One thing that I feel I should point out in regards to this particular comment is that anarchists do not advocate for creating power vacuums. Generally speaking, we advocate for people to self-govern in a much more direct way than representative democracy allows for. We urge the creation of voluntary institutions for managing social coordination, shaped by the needs of their members. We want to get rid of positions of power in ways that don’t result in a power vacuum, because people have their needs met and are no longer looking for guidance from a strongman.
We also (usually) recognize that our ideal isn’t going to be perfectly achievable, but we instead seek to get closer to that ideal as we discover new ways to practically do so.
I see that you read a summary of Kropotkin’s ideas, which is cool. He was an anarcho-communist specifically, which is probably the most popular anarchist tendency. I tend to advocate for mutualism, in part because I think it’s easier to understand for people that are accustomed to how capitalist societies function. The short, very oversimplified version is: abolish absentee ownership, create an economy of cooperatives, and gradually replace government institutions with more co-ops.
There’s sometimes tension between the different strains of anarchism, but usually we recognize that we’re all working towards roughly the same thing. Any future anarchist society is likely to be a patchwork of various frameworks serving different groups of people who have different preferences.
It all sounds very good. I don’t, honestly, feel like I have any questions at this point, but it sounds really good, thank you for your message.
It’s… more complex than that. You should pick a more serious anarchist’s brain. They do consider these problems.
Personally, I think the term ‘anarchy’ works against them because of its literal meaning and its connotations. I always mentally replace it with the synonym of libertarian socialism, and find it works wonders in reducing preconceptions.
It does, but there isn’t much we can do about it. Its literal meaning (an-archos, no rulers) is exactly what we want, so we have to die on that hill.
The “bad” meaning of anarchy comes from what most people think would happen without some kind of ruler in charge of society. So if we were to largely switch to some other term, people would start to view that more negatively the more it caught on. Even “libertarian socialism” is pretty awkward, given the connotations of “socialism” in the mainstream.
Is there someone I should read? I read some of the Wikipedia article to try to educate myself but I didn’t get all that far.
Edit: I think the fact that I made someone so salty they felt the need to downvote this comment means I’m doing something right.
Discussing the matter with actual anarchists is preferable. There are fewer central agreed-upon texts to anarchism (appropriately enough, lmao), and many of those that remain influential are… quite thick. Kropotkin is available if you are the patient sort.
I read the abridged version of the abridged version of Kropotkin just now. I like it quite a lot. I more or less stand by my assessment of the flaws in it, as compared with an approach like the founders of the US, but it sounds like good stuff. I think like a lot of things the devil is in the details.
I am mostly being snarky about the laughable brand of faux-anarchism that got me banned and deleted in this instance, not trying to throw too much shade at real anarchism.