PugJesusAny number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently
ZombiepirateAs an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it’s frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.
I’ve had multiple arguments with liberals who say I’m not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.
So yeah, I’m not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me!
PlebcouncilmanWhat you described is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.
umm. no. direction of change is crucial lol. some of us want capitalism to wither away as well as the state withering away. that is not conservatism lol.
Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.
I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.
i can’t explain it from an anarchist perspective but I can let you know a source for some great commentary on that exact matter if you’re interested?
I am. Shoot.
www.marxists.org/…/state-and-revolution.pdf
it’s well written and in a plain english form. a short read, honestly.
I’m already skeptical because of the author but I’m willing to give it a read. I do know that Lenin by the end of his life really did not like the state he had built so the ideas must be different than the practice.
oh legit “in practice” is always different than on paper. speaking as a software engineer and firefighter - shit always goes sideways. humans gonna human.
but as a polemic I found it to be a solid read.
now, I have never been good at determining “depth” of reads - english class always confused me “what do you mean theme? it’s a farm with talking animals on it.” so … caveat emptor.
The state is the mechanism that stabilizes class antagonism.
Why would it reform “5 minutes” after it is not needed anymore, because class antagonisms ceized to exist?
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done.
Why? How should I be able to? No one in feudal times could have predicted how things would be done in capitalism. Why should I be able to accurately predict how a free society would look like?
Who decides what gets done and how is it decided.
In my (limited) model? Federated councils. So the people have a say in decisions proportional to how much they are affected by them.
How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will?
How will these “smart people” be able to achieve such a following? Immediate hunter-gatherers have strategies against this kind of accumulation of power. For example by ridiculing people who are too full of themselves. Can’t find the youtube video that explains this concept, right now. It was one in this series, though.
Also: you do realize that liberal democracy has this exact problem of demagogues?
The natural state of humanity is hierarchical
Now where did you get that idea? Any sources for that? Also: naturalistic fallacy.
I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
Maybe. Anarchists are quite in favour of these guardrails, though.
I think you overemphasize competition in mankind. One foundational text of anarchism is “mutual aid” by Peter Kropotkin, which adds on to Darwin’s theory by stating (and observing) that cooperation within one species is a vital factor in evolution.
Edit: Found the video I meant
10.1 Do "Egalitarian Societies" Exist? David Graeber & David Wengrow’s "The Dawn of Everything"
I believe some anarchists believe that cooperatives are a good first step. This is maybe more stateless socialism, but an anarchists would prefer elected managers/leaders in such organizations be trained that their position doesn’t give them any real authority over others but rather just additional responsibilities. A small example could be the wording of these positions might be different; instead of managers, they might be called coordinators.
Cooperatives are, at least now, still currently subject to market forces, and people would would together to get things done. The sole difference being workers would have more freedom over their lives since they’d be the owners of the means of productions.
What happens when there is no consensus on an important decision and people split in half and one half tries to impose their will on the other? How is this mediated? And if they do not have authority what happens when someone doesn’t want to do what needs to be done? Who has the authority to punish coerce them?
And I have so many questions about security both domestic and foreign that I don’t even know where to start.
In the coop I was in, important decisions required 2/3rds majority for two meetings in a row. Talked to someone where they required consensus for all decisions, and they said it would sometimes take months of conversations until everyone agreed.
Once a system is in place that everyone agrees with, there’s hardly any need to enforce anything, but in the case there is, there’d be bylaws to fall back on to collectively enforce.
I’m thinking in terms of what a cooperative economy would look like, so corporations and business, manufacturing and production would be run by cooperatives. I imagine there’d still need to be larger state, but why not run state and federal departments like a coop too?
What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.
“Harm reduction is conservatism” is where we’re at.
Fuck’s sake.
That depends on the threshold for harm. But yeah, if you take the maximalist claim that any death or harm direct or indirect is unacceptable, you are basically arguing for no changes in society because we do not know the future and there is always uncertainty.
Conservative doesn’t mean reactionary literally, it is what it means now just like liberal now is taken to mean progressive, but that is not the real definition of the word simply how people use them as a sort of shorthand.
Stop using the term harm reduction. The crazies use that term to “subtly” push the “b b both sides same!” nonsense. Don’t fall for their framing.
Except harm reduction is a real and good thing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Call it incrementalism then.
This is not about “perfect behind the enemy of good” because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say “b b both sides same!” and they use the term “harm reduction” to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as “it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it’s harm reduction, it’s harm light, it’s harm, and I will not vote for harm!”
Well that's just fucking wrong. I'm not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.
What part of that is wrong? It’s two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
it's merely harm reduction, not actually good.
Reducing harm is good.
Are you seriously going to ignore what I said? That’s basically twice.
"it's merely harm reduction, not actually good."
"Well, that's just fucking wrong. I'm not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have."
What part of that is wrong?
"it's merely harm reduction, not actually good."
"Reducing harm is good."
I have been responding to exactly what you've said, and you think I'm ignoring what you said? Maybe you took "Well, that's just fucking wrong" as my saying that your claim about what crazy people think was wrong. I could have been clearer about that.
My point stands. I don't care what crazy people who are wrong think. And if some bystander is going to be swayed by an argument that harm reduction is bad, they're crazy, too. There's a lot of fucking crazies, and there's nothing I can do about that.
Ok we cleared up the last that you think they are wrong, not that I was wrong.
But you are still basically ignoring this:
It’s [the meme of] two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see. Never. Because it’s this scenario:
Except in this case you’re both using the same word to mean different things. Call them wrong, and they’ll call you wrong, and you’ll talk past each other forever.
Orrrrrrr call it incrementalism.
If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see.
As before, I don't care what crazy people think. I'm not wasting my time trying to convince unreasonable people to accept reason, and I'm not going to bend to suit what crazy people might accept.
I've spent many years trying to use reason as a tool for progress, and look where we are now. We're well past the point where reason is an effective tool. The crazy people have numbers on their side. Perhaps they always have, and it just hasn't been obvious until the last few years.
Sorry but you’re still ignoring what I’m saying. Whether you talk to them or not, you’re not even speaking the same language (see meme).
Frankly no wonder you’re frustrated because you’re talking past them, just like you’re talking past me.
As before, I don't care what crazy people think. I'm not wasting my time trying to convince unreasonable people to accept reason
Who's ignoring whom? *I'm not trying to change the minds of crazy people at all. I'm not "talking past them," because I'm not talking to them at all.
Except you, apparently.
“Harm reduction” = “I don’t care if foreigners dies I’m first world I deserve better treatment”
Look, there's one now!
The harm is only reduced for americans citizens. Which, let’s be honest, is all you care about.
And Ukrainians, and Palestinians. But I guess they don’t matter either, so long as you get to celebrate the deaths of some American minorities at the same time, eh?
You voted for the party under which 50k palestinians died, asshole. How dare you weaponize their suffering?
Beside I want to bet my left ball you’re a straight white male, gimme a break.
Congratulations on having the absolute dumbest take I’ve seen on Lemmy!
It’s not a take if it’s a fact.
Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, which is a modernizing, antitraditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses resulting from the misuse of social and political power. In The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), the American writer Ambrose Bierce cynically (but not inappropriately) defined the conservative as “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” Conservatism must also be distinguished from the reactionary outlook, which favours the restoration of a previous, and usually outmoded, political or social order.
Conservatism | History, Intellectual Foundations, & Examples | Britannica
Conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices and their gradual evolution under conditions of continuity and stability. They generally believe that government should be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life.
It’s embarrassing that you think this is a gotcha.
I don’t think it’s a gotcha, because I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass. I’m giving proof of why someone arguing for gradual change is the literal definition of conservative.
The only thing you’re proving is that simple definitions are for simple minds.
Ah the good old words mean nothing. Ok I guess we’re done here.
“You refuse to fit in the box I put you in, so I’m gonna have a fit about it!”
Get lost.
Am I having a fit? It’s just clear we’re not gonna get anywhere, so why continue arguing?
I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass.
lol
Lmao no, that’s not how this works.
There no polite way to put it, that’s dumb, stupid, and very wrong take. Conservatives want to regress. We aren’t in the Nixon times anymore where GOP will launch the EPA, nowadays conservatives are all about regression.
That’s because they are reactionaries not conservatives.
At best you are relying on comically outdated and outmoded definitions/ideas. What part of the current GOP do you see as wanting gradual progress? None. They want to regress.
Do I need to repeat it again? They are not conservatives, they are reactionaries. Two different things.
Conservative does not = GOP except as political shorthand. It’s like saying socialist = Democrat. Both parties are coalitions of many different views.
Do I and everyone else need to repeat it again? You are trying to rely on fucking hilariously outdated and outmoded ideas and definitions.
They don’t want progress. You are wrong.
Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.
That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeless, have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats in a few cases, but they still exist.
JFC. Ok seeing your other comments let’s parse this out between normal terms and what I’ll call etymological terms.
I’m using the normal usage of the terms. In which case you’re wrong. The modern conservative movement doesn’t want gradual progress. They want to conserve the 1950s America, which at this point needs regression (see below for how you put that as reactionary). That’s normal terms.
Or more normal terms, the conservatives (yes I’m using that term) of the Nixon era did some things like the EPA. In which case you saying conservatives want gradual progress is comically outdated.
Maybe you’re trying what’s best described as etymological use of the term. If you want to go to etymology, conservatives want to conserve. They don’t want gradual progress. They want to conserve the King’s power. Using these etymological terms yes you can say regressive means reactionary. But again using these etymological terms you can not say that conservatives want gradual progress, because conservatives want to conserve. You are wrong again.
Take your pick of the three scenarios, you are either wrong, comically outdated, or wrong. This is seriously not worth continuing.
Wow you wrote all of that and still failed to leave American politics behind. But even within American politics still did not address what should be the label for people who fit the definition of conservative (gradual change) if conservative now means reactionary. And they absolutely need a label because they are actually the larger faction in American politics, as most people would say that they do not want radical change. Independents then? Are they liberals? Centrists? We need a name to give to this politically significant group.
But you really just want to win the argument.
Here you go you win 🏆🎉🥳
I addressed what seems to be your attempted etymological use (non American). So now you’re just sticking your head in the sand.
At what “seems to be your attempted etymological use” hahaha my guy I gave you the definition out of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Like all of your definitions were “this is what this means in American politics” and oh “this is what it meant in the 17th century”. But you failed to retort that:
A) Conservatives exist outside of US politics currently and in the present day, and they hold conservative views, and call themselves conservatives yet do not hold regressive views
B) That conservatives exist right now inside the US, who call themselves conservatives, and they are disgusted by everything the Trump administration is doing and do not hold regressive views
But look my dude, you win bro. You got the updoots. You got the trophy. We can send a notification to the encyclopedia that their definition and article is sorely outdated and that they should change it.
You actually never gave me the definition. I saw you gave it to other people. So wrong again.
Like all of your definitions were “this is what this means in American politics”
You keep grasping at that straw, but I did see your definition (that you gave to other people) and addressed it. But you keep trying to pin everything as “AMERICAN!” somehow.
I really wonder if I should continue. I did start typing but it seems to be beating a dead horse. Have a great day!
Do you actually hold these views on politics and AI or are you just a social conflict junkie? I see you jumping to conclusions on things that, from your commenting and post history makes me think that it is intentional. I’m starting to suspect that you’re really not but engaging anywhere in good faith.
I do have these views. You can read all my comments, I’m pretty consistent on my stances and if I change them it’s because someone truly gave me reason to, with well justified arguments. I’m always open to changing my mind. The thing is i have evaluated my beliefs pretty well and the root is anti anthropocentric, so when your parting point is that humans are not special you tend to have friction with everyone because everyone’s views originate in human exceptionalism.
Also I find that like 99% of all political arguments are just tribalistic reactionary bs or emotionally charged, and I do not play that game.
Though I do enjoy debate, I’m not gonna lie.
Yes we get it you discovered other cultural forms of “conservative”
Which are different things than the voting base of the GOP, which were talking about.
You’re being intentionally dense and nobody should keep engaging.
I’d love for Mr. Definition to give a single example of a conservative who isn’t a reactionary, but I’m not going to pull his string again.
George F. Will comes to mind for his recent article calling Trump a progressive (pejoratively):