They cannot see the things that will hurt them

Comments

• OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  A couple of years sounds nice but no fully anarchist society has ever overthrown a state and remained stable long-term at a national level.

  I get that its more of a ‘process of radical change’ rather than an objective ‘end goal’, but i always thought anarchy was strangely way too optimistic about human cooperation. No rules (obviously there would have to be some), police or concept of state? With the amount of people ive encountered on this planet, that requires everyone to think exactly the same or change their views accordingly at the same exact time. Oof good luck with that

  source

  • bearboiblake@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Anarchists believe in rules, we just don’t believe in rulers. We believe that the people who live and work in a place should decide the rules of that place, rather than the king or billionaire or whoever.

    You should check out the Q&Anarchy video series, it addresses all of the concerns you have, and then some.

    source

    • OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Doesnt address the insane amount of optimism with no long-term proof. Zapatista sounds great, but they are focused on the self-determination of indigenous Mayan communities. Its small and niche, different to an entire country with different races all mixed in with different views

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • the_abecedarian@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    read some of the links OP helpfully posted to clear up the misconceptions about anarchism you display in your comment

    source
• sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Don’t get me wrong, I love the Spainish anarchists. Their story is very romantic and inspiring. However, they didn’t exactly succeed no? The Spanish put up a solid resistance to fascism but in doing so they had to abandon quite a few of their ideals. I mean they had labor camps yk? They had to a build a semi-state apparatus in order to survive and I think that really undermines the message here.

  source

  • bearboiblake@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I’d suggest you check out an anarchist FAQ’s answer to the question, “Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?”.

    source

    • Wakmrow@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Ok but it didn’t work.

      I’m not saying anarchism as a political concept is doomed to failure based on history (though one could make an argument) but when looking to the past for inspiration toward the future, a few years of anarchist political experiment in Spain does not instill much confidence.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Fontasia@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This feels like reading the headline “Promising treatment for cancer in rats discovered” and immediately sticking your dick in a microwave because apparently “you will be fine”

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain

  source

  • bearboiblake@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Liberals can’t help falling over themselves to claim anarchism always fails despite the fact that anarchism resisted fascism more effectively than liberal nations and despite the fact that liberalism inevitably leads to fascism.

    Liberalism is collapsing into fascism right now. It always has, and it always will. It is inevitable.

    If we want to resist the rise of fascism, it would be good to learn from an example which was more successful at doing so than every other nation in mainland Europe, no?

    How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?

    >Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop. > >Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining. > >The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed. > >So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups. > >To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked. > >That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.

    But can't capitalism can be reformed?

    > While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed. > > Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism. > >The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.

    source

    • Calfpupa@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Now let’s compare that to China, who won its freedom while fighting Fascist Japan.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Fontasia@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      So the system that lasted for less than 3 years before enabling Franco worked better than the system between Washington and Nixon? Fascism arises from popularism, someone giving three word answers to difficult questions, it’s always going to rise up and people like to unite under the idea they could get on with things witbout the world being messy and complicated. I quite like the idea of a head of state and cabinet being chosen by lottery, I believe it would have the exact same ebbs and flows of an elected person. but I know that eventually someone would come in and put a stop to it.

      And did Fidesz directly provide the crib notes or did they let you copy paste from r/politics directly?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • REDACTED@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I knew it was liberal party of MAGA that is bringing fascism

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Pretty sure the Spanish Anarchists lost to Nazis, so…

  source

  • bearboiblake@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Why don’t we compare to some other nations, to see how long they lasted before falling to fascism?

    • Greece: 7-8 months
    • Norway: 2 months
    • France: 6 weeks
    • Poland: 5 weeks
    • Belgium: 18 days
    • Netherlands: 5 days
    • Denmark: 6 hours

    source

    • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      That implies that the Anarchists ever took control of the nation away from the Nationalist party which knelt down to the Nazis IMMEDIATELY.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Both of your examples fared incredibly poorly under external pressure and collapsed. Which is pretty much what happens with every poorly aligned group of people.

  source

  • bearboiblake@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Image

    source

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      last i heard about the zapatistas they were being pressure and are in hiding.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • REDACTED@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Do you not understand what is a state? Zapatista is essentially Amish community

      source
• mr_anny@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  en.wikipedia.org/…/History_of_Somalia_(1991–2006)

  source

  • SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Somalia is a failed state, not a project built around anarchist organizing principles

    source
  • bearboiblake@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Somalia wasn’t organized according to any anarchist principles, it was just a total chaotic, disordered mess.

    source

    • mr_anny@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Anarchy in definition is not organized by any principles. It’s lack of ruling.

      The moment you insert governing factor, be it principle if you will, it stops being anarchy but follows some guideline.

      Lack of ruling is lack of ruling.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs

  source