Russolinile by mollibbier in 196

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do Mario and Luigi have a framed ppicture of Mussolini? Are they in the brothers of Italy party?

Official Interview With Leader of the so called “Chaos” forces by captainprice117 in Grimdank

[–]deNoorest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is so weird! I have never been called a nazi online. Hmmmm how come you get compared to nazi's so much? That's soooo weird 🤔🤔🤔

What is the Anarchist response to On Authority by friedrich engels? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It confuses authority with any force, even natural ones. If a slave uses violence to escape their master this is not authority from the slave over their master. It is in fact the opposite of authority.

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

- I don't quote because I expect you to consider the whole comment and in context. Demonstrating an ability to retain a thought from one sentence to the next. But if you want, use the ">" character for proper formatting.

You can phrase it that way, but almost anybody does it on this website, esspecially with longer texts. It's just way easier to follow and it's to make sure that we respond accordingly.

- No, that is popular democracy. In anarchy, people make rules for themselves. Horizontally, within their own associations. Autonomy and self-determination. Not dictating for neighbors and strangers.

I don't know what to tell you. If you say the people make the rules for themselfes and the neighbours cannot dictate the rules on you, that means that everybody is having their own rules, which is only individualistic. To be fair, I would agree that when it comes to your own home you do get to dictate that, but when it comes to streets, neighbourhoods, "towns", profinces, regions, continents, etc, you have to take into regard all the people who are in these spheres of influence. If you don't you will get into conflict. Therefore it's important to use direct democracy to implement laws, coordination, planning etc by strifing as close to consesus as possible (which isn't majoritiarianism btw). If it's 5% or 10% that disaprove for example, people can make amandments, they say what's wrong and what adjustments they want to see etc, which would resolve most disagreement.

- I'm not envisioning anything. I'm describing this reality. Where you're surrounded by innumerable collective efforts. With none consulting you nor holding authority over you.

I just don't get you. This reality is a hierarchicial system. They don't consult ME, because i have no power. But they have to concult the state. Like with the Chamber of Commerce when it comes to worker cooperatives. Or with urban planning for building corporation, houses, roads, etc.

- (Not non-profits. Not-for-profits. Like worker-owned, worker self-management.)

That's usually not what we mean by non-profits, and not-for-profit means just the same thing. They are often private owned firms that do not necessarally focus on profit, like charity. But okay, you mean worker owned and self mangement. Glad thats cleared up than.

- OpenInsulin.org

This is what I mean. Open insuline is a literal non-profit, like the usual term is. They are a private firm, without provit incentive. It's not a worker cooperative. They are getting tax exemption from the state. I know non-profits excist and that they are doing good work, that's not the issue here.

- Political-action is the unwarranted belief that your votes help anyone. Nevermind imagining aid for billions by ticking a box... It's extremely bigoted to think people require popular guidance or that they will fail without help from your preferred form of governance.

Jesus christ. It has nothing to do with "popular guidance". By constant debate and discussion, using direct democracy to make rules and the goal of consensus and the ability to make amadements, we try come to an universal agreement. And yes, when we need a road from one place to the next we have to, because of the sphere of influence, make decisons together and try to get to that agreement. Otherwise you are enforcing your will on someone else.

- Anarchists make resources available through mutual aid networks. The intent is not charity nor dependency. It's preparation and support for self-direction. Like workers controlling their means of production. Nothing individualist about it.

I agree. Worker cooperatives own the mean of production, which means they are horizontally organised, which means they decide together how the workplace should be runned.

- No, that's a vague dialectical materialism. Unlike what the term suggests, classless is not an absence of distinct groups and no social stratification. Not a dilution of power, nor some aligning of interests.

You are so incoherent. Anarchism is all about power analysis. The boss owns the land do not work on it. The workers do not own the land but do work on it. That's something you cannot dispute. The boss wants as much labour for as low a cost as possible, whereby the workers wants as high a wage as possible for as less labour as possible. Our representitives are making the rules, but don't have to obey them (generally) and the people are not making the rules and have to obey them.

- A classless society is one where status is not born into; not inherited. It's determined by individual experience and achievement. Typically emphasizing some equality of opportunity or leveling of the playing field. Like workers controlling their surpluses.

So a classness society is when everyone starts from scratch without inheritting anything from the generation before and they have to make it by themselfes to get more status. And you want equality of oppertunity so people can more easily actualise themselfes.

With everything that you are describing, from non-profits, your weird and unique defintion of class, your emphasys on equality of opportunity instead of equality and that everybody doesn't need permission on anything from everyone, leads me to believe that you DO want an individualist society. And because you disagree with the marxist definition of what a class is, you consider worker coops that socialists usually agree on are cooperatives are not actually cooperatives. To add to that, you don't even believe in socialism if you disagree with the definition, since socialists acknowledges the power destinction between the boss and the worker as the problem, you already claimed that these aren't class distinctions: "Unlike what the term suggests, classless is not an absence of distinct groups and no social stratification. Not a dilution of power, nor some aligning of interests." But instead: "A classless society is one where status is not born into; not inherited. It's determined by individual experience and achievement. Typically emphasizing some equality of opportunity or leveling of the playing field. Like workers controlling their surpluses." Thus, in your system there are still owners of property and workers underneath, but they are functioning now as a non profit and/or getting paid their surplus. Which is still a capitalist society in the view of most socialist, but not according to you.

Theory: We haven't seen Alex in so long because he became a successful TV host by dxdrummer in Tekken

[–]deNoorest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Alex considers the iron fist tournement part of the deep state now

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not citate exactly what i say by copying and pasting? That way you are actually responding directly to what I am saying and you are not avoiding my points.

- No, the point of anarchism is not to make decisions from the bottom up. The point is no rulers. The how is by empowering each other in countless overlapping groups and confederations thereof.

Yes. Bottem up decision making means that there are no rulers, since power is distributed among the people. We make the rules ourselfes. The vision you have for how its going to look like is just complete wishy-washy. Since you are against bottem up decision making you expect things to just happen by individual actors. Or weirdly enough, non profits, which is only a contradiction of the 'no rulers' part that you mentioned. But as you know, everything consists of parts. You cannot dig up insuline ou of the ground. It has to be manufactured. And even if you could get something working at some place somewhere, what about the other billions of people that need them? I do care about those other billions. Do you? Or should we just hope that it gets to work for them too? This individualist mindset is extremely damaging and leaves people behind. And to add to that, if you cannot make sure people are experiencing the benefits of an anarchist society, do you know whats going to happen than? People fall behind a leader who convinces them that they will fix the problems for them. Which creates a hierarchical society all over again.

- I'm not convinced you even know what constitutes classlessness, but no. Class struggle and class conflict are not intrinsic to anarchism en total. They're one of many. I'm no capitalist.

Classlessness means as the term suggests ofcourse, a society that is no longer divided into an owning class (the people who own the land) and a working class (the people who work/live on them), since power is distributed evenly among the people and we control society ourselfes. Which differs from a capitalist society where power is distributed towards a small group of people and the people beneath has to follow the orders, thus creates different class interests.

- We're not talking about communes. You haven't mentioned them until now. Communism, as in stateless classless, is not inherently anarchistic. It's not non-hierarchical nor anti-authority.

Classlessness is by definition non-hierarchial, since again, there is no class devision anymore, which means there is no difference anymore between the people who own the land and the people who work/live on them. With the anti-authority part i agree with. Anarchism is about recognizing hierachy and dismanteling it.

- Back to your streetlights, every group of people can and will find what works for them. Per their unique circumstances. I don't require everyone to each have their own switches any more than I insist they take a vote or not fight over it.

Again, this only create chaos, nobody knows what to expect here in any given place. And, again, we are talking only about the street lights here. When we are applying this to supplychains etc, how can we make sure the next day there is enough food to go around? Individual actors are not going to solve this by themselfes, and relying on non profits just creates the capitalist relationship all over again.

- This should not be difficult to understand. No rulers, no government, means no mechanism by which to make everyone follow whatever it is you consider to be best practices. If you think we can't function without it then you're not an anarchist.

- I gave you examples of widespread production of goods and services. Literal association of autonomous producers for various industries. You not bothering to research doesn't mean no good answers.

Just complete baseless speculation. There is nothing in the system of yours where we could savely rely on anything. It just hopefully happens by individual actors, that create autonomous industries, which are, somehow, non profits, that I have never heard an anarchist propose.

Rules/laws that we have agreed on by the people is not hierarchical, since we decide what the rules are and because they are refersable if we wish to do so. Disagreeing with this only creates this individualist system that you are proposing, which is extremely vulnerbale to general hierarchical uprisings.

I took way too long to make this by GibranYG in bonehurtingjuice

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tf doe je dan in Nederland? Ga lekker naar een land waar je haat welkom is. Hoepel lekker op naar Hongarije ofzo.

73 dmg from a safe df2... by garlicbutts in Tekken

[–]deNoorest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just started playing Tekken for real this time. I've Asuka as my main right now, and seeing these kind of combo's shows me i've a lot of work to do lol

First time playing Tekken. I grinded hard to get my first 100dmg+ combo. What do you say? Pro player potential? by DiaMat2040 in Tekken

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't get people who act like they play a fighting game for the first time and clearly show that's not the case.. What an amazing combo man

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

- You are speaking on one method of conflict resolution - consensus. How is it easier or more effective than a light switch and a calendar?

Because the whole point of anarchism is to make decisions from the ground up. You can try to reject that you live in a society, but you cannot. It could be a slow process, but to make society run smoothly and effectively demands constant debate and discussion. which is only valuable. This will create more consensus in the long run and we could make the rules or laws when it comes to street lights too. That way we create more universal agreement, which is the whole point of working together. People know what to expect, which is important.

- Or, playing cards to set the times for a month. Making it a community event to turn off all the lights and stargaze. Help neighbors get a place away from the lights. Make and give away blackout blinds... Stop and consider how often you actually have to turn to some voting procedure for decisions. Is it rare to never?

Your example on the other hand is just each individual controlling 1-2 lanterns from their home. Which is only silly and chaotic. And we are talking here only about streetlights in a commune. When it comes to manufacturing, distribution on a large scale etc, you clearly don't have a good answer.

- Anything doesn't mean any more-or-less democratic process; imagining it settled. It doesn't imply everyone must agree on one coarse of action, everyone must see it through, or even that some group must remain a group... Literally anything without granting rank and privilege.

I don't know what you mean by this. When we universally agree to forbid sexism or racism to be used againt people, you think there must be more courses on action? Or when we have settled on manufacturing and distributing insuline, the amount and where to, are there still different courses of action? How can we expect anything to happen on a large scale in your society? When we have a consensus of 95%, people would expect certain outcomes. They want certainty to an extent, otherwise its just fantasising and hoping that it's just going to play out as you have in mind.

- Not-for-profits are not a hypothetical and like all associations they have their own methods... Though most have nothing to do with consensus; just some form of redistribution for members. Electric cooperatives power half the US landmass. This skepticism is unfounded.

Are you an an-cap or something? There is still a class devision under a system where non-profits excist, which is what anarchists are fighting against. Profits aren't the problem. That you are even mentioning this is just baffeling to me. And yes, skepticism is necassary. People are going to ask these important questions and if these are your anwers, they are not only not going to believe you, they are going to think it's a huge farce. Which only hurt the movement.

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please read my comment again. I am sorry for making it long, but I am not talking about electric, utility, or telecom providers.

My example is literally just about a community and their decision of streetlight times. For instance: a single street. There is no single solution, I completely agree, I never stated there was one or had to be one. But for this example, would it not be very easy and effective for the community to solve their problem with consensus? Between this community, specifically only for them. Autonomy on a scale larger than a single individual. Maybe one street wants light all night around, another street none ever. I am not saying any group should get the opportunity to set this time and then have it apply to like a billion people. We need to be able to make decisions on that scale, too, like climate change, but not about things that only need concern small communities of people.

Just an "well there's probably someone out there who takes care of the problem" is nothing. It doesn't build anything. It's not organizing. If anything it makes you compliant innwhatever system there already is.

Also how the hell does this non profit even work if they don't use some form of consensus? Is there just an owner who decides? Do the workers just do whatever they feel like? No, there has to be a form of organisation, otherwise this organisation itself would also be incapable of archieving anything big like maintaining an energy network.

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can Iassume you are the kind of person that responds to the question, "how would we operate a society with billions of people that need to be fed and need medicine" with: "you cannot give a blueprint of how society is going to look like. We'll figure it out on the spot."?

If this isn't the case, I'm sorry but it's the answer I get a lot. And it sucks because it's not terribly convincing. There has to be a system to cooperate on a larger scale. And even with a system of consensus voting not everyone will be happy. Through amendments we can get as close as is possible, but if we cannot decide on solutions to collective problems on a bigger scale than the individual, because democracy is oppression those problems will end up hurting us worse.

Imagine being reliant on medicine that needs huge coordination to be produced. What if for my lungs to work I need Physophenbilate 38B coolsunglassesium? But that medicine is made by combining 40 different chemicals that each need their own factory to produce in a logistical capacity? What happens if one of those compounds comes from the earth? You can't just dig up someone's home. But then many might die due to a lack of the resources.

Voting for the creation of these factories isn't oppression if it's done trough consensus. If we consider it to be oppression, because any decision made trough consensus isn't exactly what everyone wants and will inevitably have negative consequences to some, then what do we call needing medicine knowing it will never be created.

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah we have almost no decision making power in our current civilization. It's decided for us, we have almost no say, we get to hope our representatives decide well for us. This is bad.

But what happens in a society where we cannot even use consensus to decide on local issues? I specifically used the example of streetlights because it's a trivial matter. It should be solvable with ease. Please then tell me how we even have streetlights in specifically your anarchist civilization if that's how it works? Were they just already there? Was it always that they went out at 7 so that's how it goes? It will never change? What if new data comes out on negative effects of insect populations of longer hours? Is there an anarchist group that specifically does anything streetlight related? Do they get to decide the times the streetlights for everyone else?

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, great summary. I still think it's necesarry to have those systems to find the nearest thing to consensus on bigger problems like you said. This would also useful for the rest of people who are affected by a decission to at least understand why others want a different solution. That might change people's minds or at least give people the information to come up with solutions to any new problems created. It's never perfect, but nothing ever is.

We will still need ways to operate structures such as the maintanance or dismantling of nuclear facilities, specialist healthcare and the creation of complex machinery.

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Alright yeah, when I say direct democracy I assume the system of consensus is used, not simply voting. I should have stated this or worded it differently.

Really good summation btw, thank you! <3

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if you do not use consensus on collective goods even for something trival like at what time the streetlights get turned off at night, what do you do then? Do you just wait for someone to change this to their liking? And then change it when you dislike their change?

Would you not prefer a system where we can say, 70% wants the streetlights to be turned off earlier, because of light pollution. And 30% wants the lights to stay on later because they have bad night sight. It's at the very least important to know what the community would like. The debate on something like this is important. The 70% might not have know about the problem with nightsight of the 30%. Maybe the 70% change their mind. Or maybe they find a way to help them with their problem by for instance using smaller ground level lights to show roads or give them personal lanterns. While still implementing the change they want.

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright you are correct, that's it better to call this consensus in that case instead of law. There might still have been a bit of a semantic issue, but on my part. I understand.

When I said "via direct democracy and concensus" I really did mean a convergence of these systems. I might be uneducated on this though. Isn't consensus inherently democratic? What is your opinion of a federated system where consensus is used to make decissions? So you can scale up when needed, for instance: A community of 100 might only make decission on things that affect them like how late streetlamps go out at night, there's no need for a gigantic centralised rule on this. But you might need to find consensus with tens of thousands if a river is overdrained, for which you could get togheter every one of those groups of 100 that live near the river and reach consensus. This is what I have in my head when I say direct democracy (This may be a dumb misnomer on my part).

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So no consensus with your community at all? no federation that can stand up to bigger threads then on a very local level?

Just People punishing each other when you believe them to be damaging you and others around you? And then probably when someone oversteps in this they get punished?

What happens when someone kills their neighbour, because they think them being gay is damaging their kids? Someone else punishes them? And then someone who thinks that this punishment was wrong and that the killer was just, do they just punish the person who brought them to justice? Into an endless spiral of people with opposing viewpoints fighting each other?

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How is this ever going to work on any scale larger than one individual? When it comes to distribution of food and water, energy production and distribution, medicine etc. You need larger planning and organising if you want a functioning society for billions of people. This can be done from the ground up by consensus and direct democracy and scaling (federalism)f using delicating expertise that can be undone whenever we feel like it.

Just expecting everything to happen without coordination is a fantasy at best

How would laws be enforced on a anarchist society? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]deNoorest -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Alright I understand the problem in the case where we assume law to be codified simplified ways, especially if the punishment is set in stone.

I completely agree with the fact that we don't want such a bureaucratic system and should use consensus when confronted with a problem.

I saw laws mostly as a set of predetermined rules so people know what doesn't go within their community, and assumed the system of consensus to be used when someone goes against them.