• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 28th, 2023

help-circle
  • Wube (creators of Factorio) have the best customer policy in game development.

    • Don’t go on sale so you will always pay the cheapest price.
    • if you have the game on steam you can download a DRM-free version directly from their website. (alongside all old versions)
    • Encourage the community to create mods, host your own mod portal accessible inside the game.
    • Make a good game.
    • Be open about game development through monthly blog posts.

    The only way I would like it more is if the game was open source but since that’s impossible to sell I will take this.


  • Val@lemm.eetoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldEvery dang day
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.

    Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.

    Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.

    But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.


  • Val@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneKick tankies out of 196
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s why I think there’s significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

    That is exactly what I am saying. That is the anarchist revolution. Changing society to be non-hierarchical. It isn’t replacing one government with another. It is transforming people to organize in non-hierarchical ways. The revolution is long and takes time and has been going on since the first anarchists thought their theory. It isn’t fought with swords and guns but with thoughts and ideas. That is the revolution

    (or to put it in another way)

    The revolution I’m talking about isn’t a coup. It isn’t using weapons to destroy the government. It is teaching people that there is nothing inherently hierarchical about human society and we can live without it. If any government falls because of anarchism it will be because non-hierarchical associations have replaced the government or the government tried to stop anarchists from organizing and the anarchists fought back.

    I hope that by clearing up what I mean about revolution. The other questions also get solved.

    tribalism seems baked into the human existence

    That’s right, it seems baked into human existence because that’s how most humans are raised. I believe humans are capable of moving past that.

    I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse

    I don’t see how the ideas fall apart when scaled up. When applying the way you interact with others to interacting with other communities the same rules apply. instead of organizing society between individuals you organize society between collectives. Same basic structures apply.


  • Val@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneKick tankies out of 196
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I apologize you couldn’t find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
    (hopefully this doesn’t come off as patronizing)

    I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn’t in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

    To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don’t the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

    Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.


  • Val@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneKick tankies out of 196
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn’t lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

    What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

    An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

    The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.



  • Val@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneKick tankies out of 196
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don’t need to clarify it further.

    Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.



  • Val@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneKick tankies out of 196
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is why for any such society to exist there must be a widespread cultural belief in opposing authority. All of the members of society need to call out those who try to consolidate power. The entire community must be opposed to any individual power grab. They must not be given the opportunity. That is the only way to sustain the system.





  • the most dependable members become a governing core.

    Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.

    This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.

    what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?

    The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.

    Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.