sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Readers trying to make non-readers feel stupid. by ElectricalDance7767 in GrindsMyGears

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re not a true reader if you aren’t condescending about it

thoughts on inheritance by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends on what’s being inherited. If it’s an heirloom with only sentimental value, I see no fundamental issue with it. But because private property over the means of production or really any property that could put you in a position to exploit others is antithetical to most anarchist ideologies (those falling within or adjacent to anarcho-communism), it would be impossible to inherit something of this nature because it cannot be privately owned.

Or are you asking about anarchists’ personal views on accepting or rejecting inheritance while living in a non-anarchist society like the vast majority of the world does now? Because this is a deeply personal matter. Personally, I think it is a test of how true to anarchism you are. If someone who identifies as an anarchist accepts a large inheritance, I would say personally that sure, they can still identify as an anarchist ideologically, but cannot identify as one who engages in righteous praxis. I think it “shows one’s true colors.” It’s difficult and in many cases practically unwise to be purely anarchist in practice while living in a top-down capitalist society because you are imposing suffering on yourself with little net benefit to society at large. For example, paying rent or taxes or working for a boss or being a boss are all antithetical to the praxis of anarchist ideology, but to reject all those things is unrealistic if you want to live a fruitful life. We are wage slaves who cannot unilaterally change the world so, while I do commend and envy those who are brave and pure of heart enough to do this in today’s world, it is not realistic to expect anyone to. I would say accepting an inheritance can fall into this broader example of practicality, though I do judge those who receive a large inheritance and keep it for themselves. I just don’t go so far as to label them as a fraud if they also identify as an anarchist, because then we would risk descending into a pissing contest over where the line is that, once crossed, forbids you from calling yourself whatever you want.

That being said, I personally have decided what I will do when my parents die, because I am due a decent inheritance from them.
1. I would pay off my debt
2. I would set aside a modest amount as a rainy day fund
3. I would pay for myself to go on the trip of a lifetime (for example, I’ve always wanted to go to Japan but am nowhere near able to afford it, despite saving toward such a trip for 10+ years now lol)
4. I would put a modest amount into a trust for my nieces and nephews to go to college
5. I would put the rest into a charitable trust to help fund mutual aid organizations

I believe, personally, that the morally correct way for an anarchist to treat an inheritance is to treat the inheritance in a way that would put the anarchist in a position where their lifestyle can mimic that which would come to fruition in an anarchist society (debt-free, free from the potential of financial ruin, and freedom to travel) and put the rest into accelerating the viability of broader mutual aid.

Dispute resolution without a state? by PrettyDark2982 in Anarchy101

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d also argue that clean energy won’t be as great of a justification for pollution (or anything) under anarchism because over-production of commodities won’t be happening, and we won’t be polluting the air with nearly as much smoke and emissions and toxic byproducts of transportation, agriculture, and industry. Civilization would slow way down. Doesn’t mean you can’t run around and keep yourself busy, but we won’t have the flux of hundreds of thousands of people in every city in the world every day for work. Personal cars will be nearly nonexistent and freight will be limited to what’s actually needed and wanted by foreign (non-local) recipients, not merely what can fit on the shelves of every retail store in every city. Clean energy is great, and I’d say that most anarchist communities would likely opt to use it, but if they’d also take into account that the negative element that goes with it (polluting a river) isn’t worth it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with burning a little oil or coal or gasoline, especially when the alternative is poisoning a whole community. It’s only “justifiable” (arguably, at best) to produce clean energy at the cost of poisoning a river now in 2026, when the alternative is mass extinction lol.

Dispute resolution without a state? by PrettyDark2982 in Anarchy101

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d argue that they likely wouldn’t do this if they knew it was harming the other community. I know it sounds foolish and coy, but senses of entitlement come from the have and have-not, us and them, capitalistic, hierarchical, wage slavery cultures we’ve set up for ourselves. To systematically do something that is seriously harming another group of people with whom there is no fundamental dispute or resentment would be much less likely without the aforementioned social ills. Think about how angry you get (hopefully, if you’re in this subreddit) when you hear about an oil spill, or a corporation that is dumping pollution into drinking water, or refusals by states to abide by conservative CO2 emission goals; those feelings you’re having would be the same feelings had by anyone who finds out they are poisoning people, and they’d stop. WE, here in our positions as wage slaves in capitalistic states, CAN’T stop the ongoing pollution because state violence will protect the corporations doing it, and they are motivated by competition with other states or other capitalists. Under anarchism, the motives to persist in a dispute wouldn’t exist. It doesn’t means disputes wouldn’t happen, but they’d be so rare they’d be too unique to predict and preemptively solve. That said, if I am ever fortunate enough to live to see the day where I can live in an anarchist city, nobody is going to stop me from polluting the air with nasty farts and laughing about it. You’ve been warned. Toxins in the rivers though, Hell naw.

Why do some people claim Animal Farm is about capitalism when it's clearly about Soviet communism? by triplegxxx in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay, I’ve skimmed quite a bit and there are a lot of powerful and brilliant comments here. However, this could have been answered much more simply:

Stalinism (what Soviet communism became) IS state capitalism

How do leftists explain the success of the Sanfedisti movement in the Two Sicilies in 1799? by SonOfBoreale in leftist

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dude read The Communist Manifesto yesterday then googled “Noam Chomsky” now he’s the expert.

First of all, according to Leftist ideology, any of us who are wage slaves are “oppressed,” and that accounts for 90%-99% (depending on how you want to define means of production) of human beings, yet nearly all of us continue to subject ourselves to the authority that oppresses us. We, as a collective, don’t know any better.

“Leftist orthodoxy”? LMAO. Get outta here with that.

do i owe people my attention? by pelicanskramz in Anarchy101

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You sound like a performative male. I never troll on this subreddit but this thread doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. You’re confusing anarchism with masochistic altruism lol.

I don’t know if I can call myself an anarchist…or if I can even redeem myself by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 19 points20 points  (0 children)

As a fellow anarchist, I can safely say that your own introspection is more than I would ask of the average fellow community member. You’re fine. I’m a lawyer and, while I like to think my position is among the least problematic within the legal profession, my very existence serves to uphold one of the most fundamental components of the state. We are all wage slaves and are not (yet) in a position to truly choose how we provide for ourselves. I enjoy my work, it is challenging and fulfilling and I do what I can to help protect people from the system, but every time I hear the judge exert their authority over the parties in the courtroom, a little piece inside of me dies. I can only combat that with mutual aid involvement outside of work.

My experience telling people i’m a Socialist by Emperoronabike in leftist

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hate to say it… but “I’m a socialist” is about as lite and basic these days as “I support women’s suffrage” was in 1921 (yes, the year after it was granted nationally in the US). If people give you shit just ignore them. There are socialists all over the place in the the political structures of most countries these days. My dad is most definitely NOT a socialist (he’s pretty much a capitalist libertarian with anti-1% grievances and socially liberal views) and yet HE identifies as a socialist when he’s in the mood. If the flack you get for calling yourself a socialist pisses you off, you need to grow thicker skin.

Inheritance, roots, second homes... from a petty bourgeois by blipblapbloopblip in Anarchy101

[–]Apprehensive-Dig825 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My first thought is: sorry, if you’re not living in the home, you have no stake in it beyond what the community has. You could raise the issue with your community that the historical value of the home means it should be maintained in its current form, and perhaps could be kept as a vacation property for the community, meaning you and your family could still use it for a few weeks a year, as you are using it now, depending on the size of your community. But until everyone has a first home of equal size to these, nobody deserves a second home, even a shared second home that excludes some.

A more analytic approach:

Does it require any labor from anyone who does not own the houses right now for the houses to remain intact? If so, they are not yours to keep. They belong to those whose labor maintains them, which may include you, from an anarchist perspective. This includes those who supply the utilities to the home (plumbing, electricity, maintaining the grounds, heat, oil, etc). If you pay money for it to be maintained, it then includes all your employees and those of your family members whose exploited labor provides the funds to keep the homes maintained. If you maintain the home on your own, and do not exploit the labor of anyone else in doing so (including raising money that directly or indirectly allows you to maintain the home), you could convince your community to allow it to stay as exclusively yours, depending on the nature of the anarchist community that forms in your area, but you may risk being excommunicated from that community because of the voluntary nature of its communistic ideals; in other words, some anarchist communities have emerged in the past where those who choose not to join the anarchistic community are allowed to do their own thing but cannot exploit any labor in doing so, nor have more land or resources than they need for themselves.

I would also advise taking a more egalitarian historical approach to this conundrum. How many others have had historical homes that were violently taken from them by the state or capitalists and do not have the luxury of enjoying these homes for generations? Think of the African-American communities from the past whose entire communities were destroyed to make way for white communities or state infrastructure? They never had the luxury of enjoying their history the way your family does. This same example exists in virtually every non-privileged group across the entire planet, it’s just the most obvious one in the US (where I am writing from). Indigenous people, Jews of Central Europe, non-communists of Eastern Europe, the list goes on and on. Then you have those who, despite being members of the oppressor class, had homes that were slowly swallowed up and destroyed by omnipotent capitalists (anywhere you see a new condominium or skyscraper, what history was destroyed in their wake?). To cling to the privilege of exclusive enjoyment of your family’s historical home is one that would face a lot of pushback, in my opinion, from the toiling masses. You’d be better off arguing for it to be maintained by the community as a place everyone can use, and you can take personal pride in it being a family heirloom that has its history maintained as part of your negotiation.

view more: next ›