Gorilladrums

@Gorilladrums@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  If that’s what you got from what I said then your reading comprehension levels are non existent.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This isn’t reddit, you can simply just scroll through my account history and see. It seems like you can’t comprehend that someone exists on here who isn’t irrational or bloodthirsty

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  However, killing them is the accountability and we’ll keep doing so untill they accept jail instead. It is the punishment for what they have done. I’m willing to settle for jail. But I don’t know about the rest of the world. Because remember they are killing us because it hurt thier bottom line and we’re undesirable.

  I think you’re missing the point here. The difference between tyranny and justice is the means of delivering accountability. I’m in favor of the rich and powerful facing justice, however, it has to be done in an extremely principled way. We have to give to hold them accountable for breaking laws that apply to everyone else, and those laws have to be based on universally applicable principles. Not only that, but they need to be given fair trials and appropriate punishments.

  In simpler words, you can’t punish billionaires on misguided emotions, justice has to be just at every level. For example, you can’t just grab a random billionaire and execute them for being a billionaire. Why? Because we would be condemning a person for what is essentially a lawful act. If we were to do that then the law would lose meaning and we would create a slippery slope to tyranny. Therefore, you have to punish the specific billionaires for specific acts that violated the law. Just like anybody else they have to go through trial, they’ll have the right to a defense, and the court shall judge them appropriately based on the evidence provided by the prosecution. If they are deemed guilty then they have to punished within the confines of the law.

  Again, it sounds boring and unsexy compared to movie styled executions, but these technicalities matter a lot as they are the very foundations of society. If they are not taken seriously, then you’ll be creating a fragile society that’s prone to collapse because it stands on nothing.

  But I will fight you on the hierarchy bs. It may be “nature” but, we do things that go against nature all the time to benifit others. Vaccination, antibiotics, gmos, and other similar items. Going down that nature argument is a slippery slope that leads directly into thinking that others are lesser, the lie that you and the right belive.

  You have fundamental misunderstanding of what hierarchies are. They are NOT optional. They are our innate biological mechanism that allows us to socialize in large groups. In order to have a functional society, you need to have large groups of people to specialize in different thing and coordinate to deliver common goals. Hierarchies do this by breaking up complex tasks into smaller chunks via labor division, streamlining abstract processes like coordination efforts and decision making, and by providing a clear social structure like a chain of command. Societal organization like this require leadership on multiple levels. Leadership positions by definition are a supreme as they have special privileges that grant them more power than the positions below them.

  However, this type of supremacy has nothing to do with the supremacy that you’re talking about. Position based supremacy is completely different from the idea of inherent supremacy. For example, take a country like France. The president has the most supreme governmental power of any individual in the country. That person stands at the top of the political hierarchy. However, they are not superior or inferior to anybody else. They’re just a normal citizen that’s equal to all others who was voted in by society to serve as a leader by holding this position for a period of time. An individual being the president of France does not make them superior or inferior to other French people. The idea of inherent supremacy, aka, where people think they’re born superior to others, is the problem, but that’s a very specific type of supremacy that is demonstrably false.

  Ideologies like anarchy have a completely misinformed understanding of what hierarchies are, and thus they treat all hierarchies as evil because they think they’re the source of inherent supremacy because they have positional supremacy based on vertical social organization. That’s just a flawed understanding of many different topics.

  “What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?” the number of deaths to that provides a deteriant to prevent any one from having that much power again. And that number, will be surprisingly low. Mark my words. Especially if we kill them in ways that they beg for death and make them stay alive through every ounce of pain they have caused.

  That’s just… unhinged. History has shown that cruelty is one of the weakest long term deterrents because resentment and desperation are much stronger drivers in humans than fear. Cruelty is tyranny, and tyranny never stops where it was originally intended. The goalposts will always move and there will always be new targets, pushing the populace in to a corner where they will eventually lash out and destroy it.

  If you think that the violence would stop at the billionaires then you’re greatly mistaken. It will quickly expand to include critics of these policies, multimillionaires, people who propped up billionaires (lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc), and so on eventually expanding all the way out to the common people where a new reign of terror will take place.

  Again, what you’re saying here has already happened in recent history, more than once to. I’ll once again, bring up Mao as an example. He killed every capitalist, every businessman, every lawyer, every intellectual, every critic, he killed so many people that his reign of terror has become the standard example of democide… and has it worked? Nope, the cruelty he employed was supposed to be a strong deterrent, but China literally readopting capitalism shortly after he died because his economic policies almost brought the country to collapse again.

  You will be useful in the end, you will be one of the few that will be a guardian of the innocent.

  Is it not concerning for you that you don’t view yourself as such?

  You are right that more rich people will replace them, but, if those rich that replace are not evil and do things that truly benifit humanity and are looser with thier wallets and willing to be accountable, then maybe, just maybe we can have a better world. Untill then, death to evil rich and thier loyal servants.

  The issue here is that evil is an inherently subjective term. It’s not something that can be quantified or measured. In other words, your entire view here is not based on something that’s grounded in reality. The idea of inherent evil has the same exact problems as the idea of inherent supremacy. They both make the assumption that there are people that fundamentally different from others, which is not true. We’re all the same regardless of wealth, status, or race. If all people are the same then that means your conclusion has to be false, and something else is at play… which is in fact the case. The issues with our current society is entirely systematic, not individualistic. Things are what they are because of flaws in the systems we use to structure our society. That’s something that has to be fixed by legislation based on data and reasoning, not violence.

  And using history as a lense, the system changes came about only after a large number of deaths.

  This is not true. History is full of peaceful power transitions, system reforms, and revolutions.

  Im proposing to limit death to those who are rich, racist, and currently hold the reigns of power for evil. Simple as that.

  But this is literally the mentality of the most evil people in history. Like I said before, all the most evil people have the mentality that the world would be a better place if they just killed the people they didn’t like. They all thought that they’ll restrain themselves to only what’s necessary and that history would look kindly on them once they see the results. However, that’s never the case, for a reason.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Happy Kirkday!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Just an FYI, it originated in India. It’s called Arabic because it was introduced to Europe via the Arabs, however, both of the numeral system that are widely used in the Arab world came from India.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The point that I made completely flew over your head. I didn’t ask you what you thought the appropriate punishment should be, I specifically criticized the notion that you think that the world’s problems can be solved by a quick fix, which in this case is getting rid of the billionaires.

  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this shallow line of thought is flawed. It oversimplifies all the world problems to a single source, which is never the case, and it tries to sell a one time silver bullet solution that promises to immediately fix a lot of the world’s problems quickly, which also never happens. For all your talk about Nazis, this mentality is ironically one of the biggest drivers of evil ideologies in history. All the most bloodthirsty dictators have the same idea of “if we just get rid of all the people we don’t like, the world will surely be a better place”. They all think that history will look kindly on them for doing what they’re doing, but that’s never the case.

  Take Mao as an example. He did exactly what you want down to the letter, and the result was the worst man made catastrophe in recorded history. He is responsible for the single highest death toll of any state leader ever, and he is globally recognized as a monster. All of that, and his original goal of getting rid of social classes failed. Despite all the killings and deaths, it changed nothing. China has the highest number of billionaires in the world.

  Do you know why Mao failed and why your wish here will fail in the same exact way? It’s because it’s not based on grounded reality. Billionaires just represent a tip of an iceberg. They’re just the top of the economic hierarchy. If you kill them all, they will be immediately replaced by the people right under them, and if you kill those, they will be replaced the people under them, and so on and so forth. In a hierarchal system, vacant positions at the top will always be filled by the next in line. So what is your master plan? To keep killing people until there is no one left? What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?

  The next thought for people with beliefs like this is they think that if they can’t solve problems by killing people then they’ll just destroy the system that enables the current hierarchies… but that’s also stupid because you’ll just replace them with a different set of hierarchies. Take a look at the Soviet Union. They tried to get rid of the capitalist hierarchies based on economic wealth by having the state seize and redistribute private wealth. While they got rid of their economic classes, they introduced new political classes that took over as the new elite. The power and wealth that was with the tycoons transferred over to government and party elites. It’s the same problem just reskinned, that’s actually why the USSR collapsed.

  This is because you can’t actually get rid of hierarchies. Inequality is literally one of the definition hallmarks of civilization. We are social animals, and all social animals are hierarchal. That’s how we organize ourselves and our societies. It’s a part of our DNA, so trying to get rid of it is a battle lost before it started. That’s why any serious ideology needs to factor this in order to be pass the bare minimum of being considered pragmatic.

  As it turns out, history has shown how we can fix the issues we’re seeing today. The reason why Germany, Italy, and Japan were able to rebuild and move past their fascist chapters is because they were forced to rebuild their system from the ground up based on liberal values, not by killing all the Nazis… that’s just historical illiteracy. Things like secularism, democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, equality of opportunity, and most importantly, check and balances is what transformed those societies into the advanced and open nations that they are today.

  In America’s case, that’s what’s missing. There is no accountability at any level. The checks and balances that used to be there aren’t being applied anymore. The branches of government aren’t keeping each other in check, the constitution isn’t being respected, the economy isn’t being regulated, the people are largely apathetic to the abuses of power, laws aren’t applied universally, and opportunity is not given equally. The lack of accountability erodes trust in the country and its intuitions, which just fuels more distrust creating a vicious cycle. This isn’t an issue that can be solved overnight by killing people or destroying things. It’s a multifaceted issue that requires education, great coordination efforts, and a politically active public… which unfortunately a lot of people don’t find sexy enough of a problem or solution to do something about it and so we’re stuck with ideas like yours for the time being.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You would have to be an actual lobotomite to think that killing all the billionaires is going to change anything. All the people under them would just take their place? Are you just going to keep killing people endlessly, what’s exactly is that 200 iq play here?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is such a shallow view of the world. No, if every single billionaire died tomorrow, literally nothing will change. The people below them will rise to the top. People who think like you also think that if they got rid of the hierarchy, then surely the problem will be solved… But no, when one hierarchy is gone another will take its place. This is because humans are social animals, and like all the other great apes, we evolved to exist in hierarchal societies.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fuckin CEO's and billionaires gotta go⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  “If we just kill all the people we don’t like, the world will surely be a better place” - All the most evil people in history

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Min wage in most states is so sad⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Critical thinking doesn’t exist on this platform. The mainstream narratives on Lemmy are built on shaky foundations and can’t get past basic scrutiny. It’s why the more ideologically zealous have so much censorship. This isn’t a left, right, whatever issue. It’s an education issue, and it’s impact is reflected by every demographic in the nation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨BREAKING: Bernie Sanders just introduced the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act — a bill to guarantee at least two weeks of paid vacation to every full-time worker in America. Over 90 other members of Cong…⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Actually, if the US offered 42 paid days off a year as in my hypothetical bill, it would rank first in the developed world alongside Monaco who also offers 42 paid days off. Also most countries in the developed world don’t mandate things like personal days, bereavement, or paid time off for mandatory civic duties. For the few countries that do, it’s very limited.

  For example, a couple of countries in the Balkans offer 7 days of paid bereavement time per year, and that’s the highest in the world. Most countries offer only a couple of days or nothing at all. So offering 10 days for every loved that passes away in a single year would make this the most the most generous paid bereavement leave in the world.

  Still though, we currently have nothing so anything would be nice at this point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨BREAKING: Bernie Sanders just introduced the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act — a bill to guarantee at least two weeks of paid vacation to every full-time worker in America. Over 90 other members of Cong…⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  We really should. It’s up to us organize and push change. Our complacency is what brought us to this point. We have to be active and demand our rights.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨BREAKING: Bernie Sanders just introduced the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act — a bill to guarantee at least two weeks of paid vacation to every full-time worker in America. Over 90 other members of Cong…⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I think this is stupid. We need the bill to be way more aggressive, ambitious, and inclusive.

  Here’s what needs to be happen for this bill to bring meaningful change:

  1. Increase the guaranteed paid leave time to at least 20 workdays. Having just 10 workdays off is a joke, we need to raise our standards to match the rest of the developed world.
  2. Expand the coverage to include part time workers and contractors. I think it’s fine if part employees get slightly less guaranteed time (like 2/3 of what full timers get) and contractors get more nuanced rules, but they need to be included. If they’re not then just opens a loophole for corporations to continue not giving people the vacation time they deserve
  3. Include paid sick time in the bill, and explicitly separate it from vacation time. These are not the same thing and should draw from the same pool. Guarantee all employees get a least 5 workdays of sick leave that can be expanded up to 10 workdays if the employee provides a doctor’s note.
  4. Add paid sick leave that is NOT paid sick time. The Federal government needs to follow the Massachusetts model where workers are eligible to take up to 20 weeks of paid medical leave for their own serious health condition, up to 12 weeks of paid family leave to care for a relative, or a combined maximum of 26 weeks per benefit year.
  5. Just like MA, this money doesn’t come from the employers but from the government. That means the federal government needs to create a department in every state that processes these claims and pays people properly when they need to take time off to ensure that the benefits are guaranteed.
  6. Require companies to give at least 10 workdays of paid bereavement leave. Employees should be eligible to get this benefit any time a spouse or close relative passes away (parents, children, and siblings).
  7. Make all 11 federal holidays (technically 12 with Inauguration Day, but that happens once every 4 years) paid by default, and add election day as the 12th annual paid federal holiday.
  8. Include a stipulation that mandates companies to provide a paid day off for any holiday that falls on a weekend either the Friday before or Monday after. Employers also need to provide essential workers that need to work on holidays, their paid day off within one week before or after the holiday.
  9. Provide guaranteed paid maternity leave for up to 24 weeks all mothers for every child, where they are eligible to start their leave at 4 weeks prenatal. Just like with the sick leave, the federal government will guarantee 100% of their pay for all 24 weeks.
  10. Provide guaranteed paid paternity leave for up to 16 weeks. Fathers also need to bond and take care of their newborns as well as the mother of their children. The federal government will guarantee the first 12 weeks with 100% pay, and the last 4 with 67% pay.
  11. Have the federal government guarantee paid time at full rates for any mandatory time off taken for civic duties like jury duty.
  12. Mandate employers provide employees with at least 5 paid workdays that count as personal days that can be taken for any personal reason such emergencies, ceremonies, errands, or extra sick time or vacation time.
  13. The federal government needs to explicitly ban employers from firing or retaliating against employees for taking any of the time off provided and guaranteed by the bill, maintain their health insurance while they’re gone, and be legally required to give employees their jobs back or provide them with an equivalent position that has the pay and benefits once they’re back.

  Now THIS is a serious bill. It guarantees a generous 42 workdays (20 vacation + 5 sick time + 5 personal days + 12 holidays) worth of paid time off annually which that finally puts this country not just on on par with the rest of the developed world, but ahead. If the US is to serve as the leader of the free world, this is how it has to be done. This on top of the mandatory employment protections and extra paid time off for specific scenarios, makes this a truly worker friendly country. This kind of bill would increase happiness, improve health, and reduce stress for people hundreds of millions of people.

  Now, I’m not naive, I know Republicans and corporate Democrats will try to water this down. However, even if we only end up getting 2/3 or even 1/2 of the benefits and guarantees on here then that’s still a huge win. You have to start negotiations from a high a place, so you’ll end up with something that’s at least acceptable. What Bernie proposed is starting from a low place to appease people who are genuinely greedy and apathetic to the point of evil. You can’t do that. You have to hit him hard and rally the people on your side. People will whine about me letting perfect be the enemy of good, but I’m not. I’m against letting mediocrity stop us from achieving anything meaningful. If the Democrats did less performative shit and focus on real change like my hypothetical expanded bill, they would sweep the GOP into oblivion.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Friends.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  People today really do lack basic critical thinking to the point where it’s not just concerning, but could outright explain the decline of our society. I think it should be common sense to consume media while being mindful of its era and audience as well as being able separate the art from the artists. I think it’s ridiculous that there are people who are attacking actors for playing an outdated joke on a show 30 years ago. Like how fragile and miserable do you have to be to get that riled up while trying to watch entertainment to relax.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Friends.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I thought it was okay. A lot of the humor relies on awkward social situations being funny which is a hit or miss.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Friends.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  To me the issue with Seinfeld is Seinfeld himself. He’s just a very bad actor and he sticks out like a sore thumb with the other characters. Watching his deadpan face in every episode kills the mood for me.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Friends.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I think sitcom hate has gone overboard. It became trendy and cool on sitcoms for some reason. I personally am okay with sitcoms if the characters are well written and the writers can write gags that naturally fit with their personalities.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Friends.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Idk why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. The shows first few seasons were great because the humor felt original and the chemistry between the characters felt organic.

  I felt like all of the characters declined. Chandler’s sarcasm became more and more forced. Ross getting divorced again and again got repetitive, I also didn’t like how they handled him having a kid. Joey’s character was lobotomized and he went from being a funny womanizer to being a child in an adult’s body. The girls stayed more consistent, but I felt like Phoebe’s shtick kind of wore off and became annoying. I also hate the ending.

  I think the first half of friends is one of the best sitcom products that American TV has produced, but the second half is just mediocre.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Friends.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean if you understand that they’re satire, then they can be funny.

  That being said American dad past season 9 and Family Guy past season 7 have severely declined in quality to the point where they’re not funny to me anymore.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Censorship" ☠️⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The fact that people are arguing over this at all is crazy lmao

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Censorship" ☠️⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lol wut?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨🤔 Interesting⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No, my point was the French revolution wasn’t exactly a success because it was followed by two other revolutions in 1830 and 1848 that also aimed at overthrowing the monarchy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Finally an explanation⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lemmy in a nutshell

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨🤔 Interesting⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  But exactly do you think this will accomplish?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨🤔 Interesting⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This only sounds good to people who are ignorant of both economics and history. Wealth caps, rent control, fixed prices, etc all sound nice until you take a minute to learn about the side effects. These sorts of policies aren’t knew, but they don’t work which is why they haven’t stuck around.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨🤔 Interesting⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It led directly to Napoleon conquering Europe and crowning himself Emperor of France…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO BITCHES?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  True, but even in dating apps where you can easily access individuals in this demographic, they still struggle. Women in general are just extremely more selective than men. Gay men, for example, don’t have this issue.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO BITCHES?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  One of the funniest things is watching women who talk down to guys having trouble dating women by calling them ugly, insufferable, or creepy, only for them to struggle just as much, if not more, to do the same.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO BITCHES?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve always wondered what kind of person is on the other side of these comments, I imagine it’s someone that everybody in their life finds them unpleasant

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nice⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I see you chose to go down the second route that he described

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just give me someone to vote for who is normal⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If feel like, that was what my comment was about.

  Kind of, but I was wondering if there more to it than just Marxist communism?

  We need to work hard to be open minded and challenge our most basic assumptions.

  But wouldn’t the same apply to you?

  That is just wrong. Marx was actually stonchly against authoritarianism, he argued for workplace democracy and was against nation states as a concept.

  What? This is just pure misinformation. Marx was a notorious authoritarian. This isn’t some secret either, he was very, very vocal about it. He went out of his way to criticize, mock, and demean the pacifist socialists of his era as being naive, stupid, and weak. Just look at criticisms of Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Charles Fourier or Henri de Saint Simon. He’s literally famous for favoring violence over peaceful alternative in his works.

  He defined communism as a stateless, classless society. So, even though the Soviet Union pretended to be Marxist or communist, they were wrong. At least if you go by what most leftists thinkers understand as communism.

  Communism was just his idea of a utopian society, it’s not his ideology. Marx’s ideology is about how he thought societies should get to this utopia of his. His ideology instructed that a society should overthrow capitalism in a revolution, workers should seize all property and means of production by force and kill all those who resist, and then establish a transitional socialist state that represents the workers that rules with an iron fist in order to bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Since communism is a utopia, it’ll never be achieved, and that’s why all the attempts at it in history have always stopped at the tyrannical transitional socialist state stage… the Soviet Union was such an example, Maoist China would be another.

  You seem to be conflating authoritarianism and violence. Yeah, a revolution might be violent. But the status quo is already incredibly violent, so it might be the most sensible option we have.

  So you’re not an anarchist, but a Marxist? Anarchy as a philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the idea of using organized violence to coerce society into doing things that are against people’s will.

  What makes you think that? There is actually quite a bit of evidence pointing to the contrary

  I wasn’t giving an opinion there. That’s literally how civilization is defined:

  “All civilizations have certain characteristics. These include: large population centers; monumental architecture and unique art styles; shared communication strategies; systems for administering territories; a complex division of labor; and the division of people into social and economic classes.”

  Source: National Geographic

  Community does not necessarily need violence towards outsiders. In fact, according to a lot of scientists, human societies were very peaceful for a very long time

  Did you read the article that you linked? It doesn’t make this claim. It’s saying that we have new evidence of prehistoric wars, but it’s still too limited and vague to determine the origin of warfare, because the interpretation of that means is also too vague. It doesn’t say that humans were more peaceful or more warlike.

  Humans, like all the other great apes, can be violent and can have physical fights between different tribes, and we did. Evidence for human on human violence is present in every era and everywhere. It just that it used to be that human communities were small and nomadic, and if they ran into people, they would just move to another area. The only times people fought was if a group was threatening another group or if there were scarce resources. However, around 10,000 years ago, we developed agriculture and people depended on the land they were on. Population and population density both increased due to the increased food production, which demanded more land and resources… and it’s not hard to see why competition, and ultimately war, became more intense.

  Almost as if there were other authoritarian systems, that tried to protect the interests of their ruling classes before capitalism.

  Yes, and Marxist socialism was no different. Instead of the elite being royalty and nobility or economic tycoons or the clergy, it became the rulers of the new socialist government. Every single Marxist attempt in history devolved into being a dictatorship of sorts where immense power was concentrated in the hands of a few who had all the say and no oversight who ended up wrecking havoc on society. This is actually one of the biggest reasons why Eastern European countries despise communism as much as fascism, and rightfully so.

  Apes are racist and wage war? That seems interesting, where can I learn more?

  I know you’re being facetious, but what I said is factual. Obviously apes aren’t racist, you just misinterpreted what I said. I said that humans, like the other great apes, are tribalistic. For us modern humans, that has manifested itself in the form of something like racism or whatever other type of bigotry. The point is that the underlying cause for it stems from evolutionary trait that we evolved in nature. The same goes for war. Great apes, specifically chimps, our closest relatives, do have wars of their own.

  Again, I’m not babbling nonsense, this is something that’s both well studied and well known. This research is literally what made Jane Goodall famous. She studied the Gombe chimps in Tanzania for 50 years, and she found that chimps are very similar in behavior to humans. They made and modified tools, the had complex social hierarchies, they had wars, they were tribalistic, they ate meat, they share bonds and emotions like people, and so on. You’ll be surprised by how much of our behavior is actually evolved rather than conditioned. Human nature is very complex and runs very deep.

  Almost as if every capitalist government is doing everything they can to strike down these attempts because if they became successful, they would make other systems look bad.

  You can’t blanket blame capitalism for everything, that’s just lazy and dishonest. During the cold war, for example, the Soviet Union spent a comical amount of effort trying to take down capitalist societies. They committed genocides, overthrew democratically elected governments, started civil wars, invaded sovereign nations, installed puppet dictators, launched countless propaganda campaigns, and the list goes on and on. They were after all the other half of the cold war. Yet despite their efforts, which were on par with the US, they failed and capitalism came out on top. That didn’t happen because of the CIA, it happened because capitalism just happens to be a better, more functional, and more resilient system than socialism. Accountability is often better than deflection.

  In this case, Rojava was actually supported by Western capitalist democracies, and it got taken down by islamists backed by Turkey. The anarchists in Spain were on the side of the Republicans who were defeated by Franco and his fascist army, who were supported by fascist Germany and Italy, so there wasn’t any notable capitalist society that opposed them. As for the Zapatistas, they were never sovereign, they’re just a rebel group that hasn’t really done much. Even the Mexican government doesn’t care about them. You talk of a grand conspiracy against anarchist attempts by the big evil capitalist governments, but there really isn’t any evidence to support that. They failed to achieve anything, they failed to sustain their movements, and they failed to defend themselves when it mattered.

  And yeah, it is really impressive to build an egalitarian, system with flat power structures amidst overwhelming resistance by governments with hugely powerful military force.

  But they didn’t do this. The Mexican government controls all of the territory they claim, and Mexican law is the rule of the land. Do you have any actual evidence that they achieved this? More importantly, do you have any evidence that this led to anything tangible at all? As far as I’m aware, they only make grand claims, they haven’t done much. They didn’t build infrastructure, improve healthcare, raise the standards of living, advance science, build universities, decrease crime, they didn’t gain sovereignty, or anything really. If anything they did the opposite. They opposed a train project by the government to connect them to the rest of the country in 2020. They dissolved the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities because they couldn’t get a handle crime in 2023. They seceded their claims to sovereignty by trying to participate in Mexican elections in 2018, only for their candidate to not be able to garner enough signatures to even show up on the ballot. This is impressive to you? Like come on, what are we even talking about?

  Also the crime thing, what I meant about coming together as a community was assembling councils of people that have expertise in how to handle this, who decide together and enforcing the decisions not through state violence but through collective action by the community.

  I pasted this from your other comment for convenience. Based on your evasive wording, I think we both understand that fundamental flaw with the ideology here. Societies require order in order to keep the peace, however order can only be achieved with a certain degree of force (i.e. threat of punishment for breaking the law)… but that directly contradicts anarchism as a concept because anarchy is against order in general because its inherently hierarchal. So you can either have a functional society or you can have anarchy, not both.