cacheson 🏴🔁🍊
So there’s a video by CGP Grey that I tend to recommend to people a lot, The Rules for Rulers.
In the framework he presents for democracy, business interests (capitalists) are named as one of the keys to power that politicians need. However, one could argue that it’s actually the (mostly cohesive) capitalist class at the top of the pyramid. The individual politicians would be their keys to power, which the capitalists distribute treasure to in order to keep them loyal (and in office).
Or maybe the reality of the situation is that it’s something that falls between the two views, without neatly fitting into either of them. All models are wrong, but some models are useful, as the saying goes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In a shift from democracy to fascism (Coming Soon™), the capitalists do (mostly willingly) become subordinated to the strong man, so that would fit with your conception of the situation.
Agreed. Anarchists often find US liberals incredibly frustrating to deal with, for some good reasons. A lot of that comes from them being one side of the status-quo ideology, in that both US liberals and US conservatives are descended from classical liberals. They’ve tended to resist scrutinizing most of their received wisdom because they largely haven’t needed to.
However, they’re currently more likely to be receptive to our ideas than they’ve ever been before. Some will end up being “go along to get along” Good Germans. Many others, possibly even a majority are somewhere between nervous and terrified about the future right now, and would welcome new ideas on how to deal with the situation.
They may not be ready to fully switch ideologies, but that’s something that depends on a more gradual background process. If we can refrain from anarcho-purism and meet people where they are, we can make a lot of progress and put ourselves in a much better position to survive and resist.
From reading the message, the way they have it set up actually seems fairly reasonable, considering the scale of what they have to deal with. It’s basically just saying “you can’t participate both there and here, so pick one”.
If you desperately want to participate in both, you can make an alt account. Most people won’t bother with that and will just pick one or the other, which cuts out a significant chunk of toxic users.
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.
It smells like Fed in here. ಠ_ಠ
Anarchists have a significant history of using “Propaganda of the Deed” and accomplishing fuck all with it. No shortage of examples among the history of the broader left, too. So yeah, I’m gonna have to call BS on this.
Violence is a tool, and there’s a time and place for it. Don’t be an idiot adventurist about it though.
This is probably a bit too reductive. Violence is sometimes necessary, but isn’t always the best strategy.
In general, the left should take an approach of nonviolent, disruptive agitation, combined with a willingness to use violence in self-defense. Arm up, protect each other, but don’t try to instigate a shooting war.
Ah yes, the “good German” strategy. It may or may not actually work for you.
Liberal democracy has been decaying for a while, so this result was going to happen sooner or later. If we don’t want to be dragged backwards into autocracy and feudalism, then anarchism is the path forward.