Both of you have a wrong understanding of what a state is, what a state does and what its relation to its people is.
I would frame it more like this:
Big Country #1: âI will use my people(if they want or not) to pursue my State interests and am willing to get a lot of my people killed to attack your sovereignty and expand my sovereignty"
Smaller Country: "I will use my people(if they want or not) and am willing to get a lot of my people killed to not loose my sovereignty and pursue my state interests"
Big country #2 :"We also have our interests and are willing help defend your state interests(that are not the same as the peoples interest) and sovereignty because they overlap with our state interests"
The mistake is thinking that the state interests of any state are the same as the interests of the people. The Ukraine does not ask itself how it can save most lives and if it may be better to not forcibly recruit their own citizens so that they don't die(same for Russia).
The thing is that the Russian people and Ukrainian people don't have to kill each other and would be better of dismantling their states.
That is the whole point of the Lenin quote, to take on a class standpoint and not a nationalistic one.
And to the original meme: I think it is delusional to believe that the Russian state has a special interest in killing as many Ukrainian citizens as possible. I also think it is a very bad idea to take the crimes of war, that happen in every war, for making an argument to continue a war where these crimes happen.
Here is a good article from a german marxist theory magazine(GegenStandpunkt(they are not ML'ers they have a strong beef with ML'ers)) on the topic: sovereignty-and-morality
And maybe you can also watch a short video not directly to the topic of war but on the relation of people to the state and leftists who think nations are in the interest of their people: https://youtu.be/M9rC_BRI_TU
Of course this cant go as deep into the topic as it would be necessary but the GegenStandpunkt has a lot of good texts about what a state is.
And not coincidentally, since I broadly reject the precepts of social anarchism.
So you literally reject the ideas of any remotely successful anarchist movement or society that has ever existed. Wild thing calling yourself an anarchist then.
then all freely choose to cooperate in its pursuit, thatâs not authoritarian.
yes.
I think that the moment that anyone takes it upon themselves to declare that âweâ need to ____, the philosophical basis for anarchism has already been cast aside, and replaced by the philosophical basis for authoritarianism.
When some participants of society freely choose to create something like a syndicate for administering for example a water system it is something that does not pressure anybody into anything and does not necessarily create the basis for authority. It is the same with the organizing of a union, that union can also be used to fight for the interests of the working class, it has not the authority to pressure anyone into join or obeying the union but it helps with organizing the fight against authority.
I think itâs plainly obvious that society cannot be âgovernedâ at all in anarchism
I agree that I choose the wrong word with "governed" what I wanted to say is "administered" and I do not think that it is inherently authoritarian because people can disobey and create alternative structures if they want to.
I reject all subdivisions of anarchism
You believe in a subdivisions of anarchism, there is no "pure" form of anarchism.
And I believe that any âanarchismâ that instead proposes some specific set of norms and requirements and prohibitions will and can only devolve into authoritarianism.
The difference between your subdivision and the ones you reject it that the ones you reject try to construct ideas of how we get to the point that everyone is entirely free to choose as they please. They do not set specific set of norms and requirements and prohibitions but pitch ideas of how we can overcome the current authority. You say "Any attempts to organize to speed up the process will necessarily involve forcing individuals to submit to stateless ideals" I would say everyone who does not organize is forcing individuals to submit to the state and capital. When you don't organize against the status quo you reinforce it.
Yes - theyâre âfreeâ to decide whether to live under the existing system or under your alternative.
No they can decide whether to live under the existing system or under a alternative where they can collectively decide how to live in their society and as a individual. What you say is that every alternative to the existing system has to work the same as the existing system. The whole point is that the alternative is not my alternative where I say how things have to be but that everyone can cooperate freely.
You donât create the freedom to choose by taking it upon yourself to establish a specific alternative, then saying âPick one.â
True but i never said one should take it upon yourself to establish a specific alternative but to organize and overthrough the material conditions that constrict people to freely decide how to live their lives.
You create the freedom to choose by butting out.
I am not sure how you want to archive this without organizing.
Frankly I find the whole idea of âhateâ even being treated as a possibility in such a context deeply unsettling.
I get it but I just tried to sound less rude because I had the fear it could come of as to rude.
I strongly disagree with your comment because it states some assumptions of how you imagine anarchism as facts about anarchism even when some of your points are simply just a subsection of anarchist ideas.
I will discuss what I mean by that.
The whole notion of âorganizing as a groupâ is inherently authoritarian, since it starts with the presumption that an individual can have a meaningful position regarding not only their own decisions, but the decisions of others.
I would say that this first point you make is one of the ones where I think it has just a little to do with anarchism and strait-up ignores social anarchism and only argues for a individualist school of thought.
"organizing as a group", is not inherently authoritarian it is more about how the group is organized and if the form of organization allows the accumulation of permanent power or creation of a hierarchy. That is the point where literally all bigger anarchist movements come to play, in difference to the status quo where one can accumulate power through the state and accumulation of capital they want to establish a form of society were this is not possible and where society is governed on a egalitarian line by the people for the people.
This is done through the âorganizing as a groupâ thing, that's for example the whole idea of anarcho syndicalism in short:
organize a big federation of unions -> over through state and capitalism -> govern the industry through bottom up, decentralized, democratic structures which are already prepared and build in the syndicalist unions(very short summary).
What I want to say in this point is that organizing is very important and one should not think of "personal freedom" and "organizing in a group" inherently as two opposite things. An other good read on that is "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow, in that book they also show how other societys organized as groups without compromising the freedom of the individuals in that society.
True statelessness will only be possible when all of the individuals in a given area (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference) have achieved the psychological and philosophical state of being wholly in charge of and responsible for their own decisions, and wholly ceding to others control over and responsibility for their own. And when enough individuals reach that position, statelessness will be the natural and inevitable result, simply because nobody will be either claiming or submitting to nominally rightful authority.
What this implies is that people just have to get into the right mindset for anarchism and just have to realize they should oppose arbitrary authority. I think that this is to short of an answer. Even when more people would realize arbitrary authority is bad they would still be in the material conditions that forces them to do their jobs and live their lives as they currently do it, thinking that it just needs a shift in the state of mind(even when it is also somewhat important) is to simple, it is also important to develop communal support systems and organize groups to make the existing conditions redundant and over-through the current conditions that force you into compliance. That is also done through organizing, the changing of the "psychological and philosophical state" can also be done through organized study groups
Any attempts to organize to speed up the process will necessarily involve forcing individuals to submit to stateless ideals, and will thus be authoritarian themselves and will thereby defeat the goal.
That is just not true, when you organize some system that changes the material conditions, so people no longer have to obey to arbitrary authority, especially when it is a dual power situation does not mean that they are forced to a new way of life, its more a creation of an alternative that people can choose or even construct.
Your whole argument assumes that the people currently participating in the society participate because they want to and ignores the material conditions that forces them to obey to the boss and state. Organizing can create a alternative which can change the material conditions and enable people to decide by themself how they want to live.
Your other points build on these arguments, so I will not go into detail about them.
Here are also some books or topics worth looking into:
Books:
Declaration of the Principles of Syndicalism - Rudolf Rocker
What Is Communist Anarchism? - Alexander Berkman
Topics:
Rojava, and Democratic Confederalism is interesting because their ideology is strongly inspired by Murray Bookchin and aims to create a stateless society.
Zapatista Uprising because they also have strong anarchist ideas they try to put in practice.
I hope this does not come as rude, I don't hate you personally I just disagree with some of your points on a stronger level but i truly hope you have a great day :]
vllt kommen viele dumme dinge von .ml und .world weil beide viele Nutzer haben und dementsprechend auch eine groĂe VariabilitĂ€t an (auch dummen) Meinungen.
Ich denke, dass wenn eine Instanz eine gewisse gröĂte ĂŒberschreitet immer der fall sein wird dass auch komische Leute dabei sind und man sollte nicht den Fehler machen die "Kultur" einer Instanz anhand dessen zu definieren. Allgemein finde ich das recht lost wie viel wert Leute in einer Diskussion legen auf welchem Server die Teilnehmer der Diskussion sind.
erstmal zum Schutz der demokratischen ideale ein demokratischen PrÀsident durch eine menschenrechts verachtende MilitÀrdiktatur ersetzen.
Gibt selten Schwarz-WeiĂ aber schon so etwas wie die Guten
habe kein auto, mache keine Fernreisen(auĂer selten mit zug) meine Anzahl an Garnituren belĂ€uft sich auf 4 und insgesamt ist das eigentlich eine peak Ausgangssituation, Ă€ndert leider nichts dran, dass wir im Kapitalismus leben.
Um die Frage "forced by what?" zu beantworten: forced by materiellen sowie sozioökonomischen Bedingungen
Ich seh dann nicht wo mit zweierlei maĂ gemessen wird. Ich wĂŒrde der grundaussage, dass es nicht fortschrittlich ist wenn ein Staat auf ethnischer/religiöser IdentitĂ€t aufbaut zustimmen.
Meine Meinung ist auch, dass die kurdische Bewegung ganz cool ist aber eben weil ein groĂer teil davon kein Staat will und progressive LösungsansĂ€tze prĂ€sentiert werden.
Wenn das so wĂ€re, dass ein Staat das Ziel wĂ€re wĂŒrde ich mich natĂŒrlich auch da ĂŒber ein ethnostaat aufregen.
Wirkt halt etwas Strohmann mĂ€Ăig weil du siehst ein Widerspruch in einer Argumentation die ich so noch nirgends gehört habe.
Both of you have a wrong understanding of what a state is, what a state does and what its relation to its people is. I would frame it more like this:
Big Country #1: âI will use my people(if they want or not) to pursue my State interests and am willing to get a lot of my people killed to attack your sovereignty and expand my sovereignty"
Smaller Country: "I will use my people(if they want or not) and am willing to get a lot of my people killed to not loose my sovereignty and pursue my state interests"
Big country #2 :"We also have our interests and are willing help defend your state interests(that are not the same as the peoples interest) and sovereignty because they overlap with our state interests"
The mistake is thinking that the state interests of any state are the same as the interests of the people. The Ukraine does not ask itself how it can save most lives and if it may be better to not forcibly recruit their own citizens so that they don't die(same for Russia). The thing is that the Russian people and Ukrainian people don't have to kill each other and would be better of dismantling their states.
That is the whole point of the Lenin quote, to take on a class standpoint and not a nationalistic one.
And to the original meme: I think it is delusional to believe that the Russian state has a special interest in killing as many Ukrainian citizens as possible. I also think it is a very bad idea to take the crimes of war, that happen in every war, for making an argument to continue a war where these crimes happen.
Here is a good article from a german marxist theory magazine(GegenStandpunkt(they are not ML'ers they have a strong beef with ML'ers)) on the topic: sovereignty-and-morality
And maybe you can also watch a short video not directly to the topic of war but on the relation of people to the state and leftists who think nations are in the interest of their people: https://youtu.be/M9rC_BRI_TU Of course this cant go as deep into the topic as it would be necessary but the GegenStandpunkt has a lot of good texts about what a state is.
The art shown in the post is not ai, the guy who made it even did videos about the workflow to model this stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB8rBDLw3iE
(The text to speach is shitty but the workflow is nice)
so your finges dont have to leave the home row. Its acually peak when you used hjkl for some time
So you literally reject the ideas of any remotely successful anarchist movement or society that has ever existed. Wild thing calling yourself an anarchist then.
yes.
When some participants of society freely choose to create something like a syndicate for administering for example a water system it is something that does not pressure anybody into anything and does not necessarily create the basis for authority. It is the same with the organizing of a union, that union can also be used to fight for the interests of the working class, it has not the authority to pressure anyone into join or obeying the union but it helps with organizing the fight against authority.
I agree that I choose the wrong word with "governed" what I wanted to say is "administered" and I do not think that it is inherently authoritarian because people can disobey and create alternative structures if they want to.
You believe in a subdivisions of anarchism, there is no "pure" form of anarchism.
The difference between your subdivision and the ones you reject it that the ones you reject try to construct ideas of how we get to the point that everyone is entirely free to choose as they please. They do not set specific set of norms and requirements and prohibitions but pitch ideas of how we can overcome the current authority. You say "Any attempts to organize to speed up the process will necessarily involve forcing individuals to submit to stateless ideals" I would say everyone who does not organize is forcing individuals to submit to the state and capital. When you don't organize against the status quo you reinforce it.
No they can decide whether to live under the existing system or under a alternative where they can collectively decide how to live in their society and as a individual. What you say is that every alternative to the existing system has to work the same as the existing system. The whole point is that the alternative is not my alternative where I say how things have to be but that everyone can cooperate freely.
True but i never said one should take it upon yourself to establish a specific alternative but to organize and overthrough the material conditions that constrict people to freely decide how to live their lives.
I am not sure how you want to archive this without organizing.
I get it but I just tried to sound less rude because I had the fear it could come of as to rude.
I strongly disagree with your comment because it states some assumptions of how you imagine anarchism as facts about anarchism even when some of your points are simply just a subsection of anarchist ideas. I will discuss what I mean by that.
I would say that this first point you make is one of the ones where I think it has just a little to do with anarchism and strait-up ignores social anarchism and only argues for a individualist school of thought. "organizing as a group", is not inherently authoritarian it is more about how the group is organized and if the form of organization allows the accumulation of permanent power or creation of a hierarchy. That is the point where literally all bigger anarchist movements come to play, in difference to the status quo where one can accumulate power through the state and accumulation of capital they want to establish a form of society were this is not possible and where society is governed on a egalitarian line by the people for the people. This is done through the âorganizing as a groupâ thing, that's for example the whole idea of anarcho syndicalism in short: organize a big federation of unions -> over through state and capitalism -> govern the industry through bottom up, decentralized, democratic structures which are already prepared and build in the syndicalist unions(very short summary). What I want to say in this point is that organizing is very important and one should not think of "personal freedom" and "organizing in a group" inherently as two opposite things. An other good read on that is "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow, in that book they also show how other societys organized as groups without compromising the freedom of the individuals in that society.
What this implies is that people just have to get into the right mindset for anarchism and just have to realize they should oppose arbitrary authority. I think that this is to short of an answer. Even when more people would realize arbitrary authority is bad they would still be in the material conditions that forces them to do their jobs and live their lives as they currently do it, thinking that it just needs a shift in the state of mind(even when it is also somewhat important) is to simple, it is also important to develop communal support systems and organize groups to make the existing conditions redundant and over-through the current conditions that force you into compliance. That is also done through organizing, the changing of the "psychological and philosophical state" can also be done through organized study groups
That is just not true, when you organize some system that changes the material conditions, so people no longer have to obey to arbitrary authority, especially when it is a dual power situation does not mean that they are forced to a new way of life, its more a creation of an alternative that people can choose or even construct. Your whole argument assumes that the people currently participating in the society participate because they want to and ignores the material conditions that forces them to obey to the boss and state. Organizing can create a alternative which can change the material conditions and enable people to decide by themself how they want to live.
Your other points build on these arguments, so I will not go into detail about them.
Here are also some books or topics worth looking into:
Books:
Declaration of the Principles of Syndicalism - Rudolf Rocker
What Is Communist Anarchism? - Alexander Berkman
Topics:
Rojava, and Democratic Confederalism is interesting because their ideology is strongly inspired by Murray Bookchin and aims to create a stateless society.
Zapatista Uprising because they also have strong anarchist ideas they try to put in practice.
I hope this does not come as rude, I don't hate you personally I just disagree with some of your points on a stronger level but i truly hope you have a great day :]
no he has not said that. this is about the theory of alienation
it has nothing to do with getting overwhelmed with freedom and choice
that's crazy, even I forgot where I took the photo
ich rauchfrei.
I am the Moon [VIOLENCE/NUDITY]
vllt kommen viele dumme dinge von .ml und .world weil beide viele Nutzer haben und dementsprechend auch eine groĂe VariabilitĂ€t an (auch dummen) Meinungen.
Ich denke, dass wenn eine Instanz eine gewisse gröĂte ĂŒberschreitet immer der fall sein wird dass auch komische Leute dabei sind und man sollte nicht den Fehler machen die "Kultur" einer Instanz anhand dessen zu definieren. Allgemein finde ich das recht lost wie viel wert Leute in einer Diskussion legen auf welchem Server die Teilnehmer der Diskussion sind.
Du bist literarisch das meme
erstmal zum Schutz der demokratischen ideale ein demokratischen PrÀsident durch eine menschenrechts verachtende MilitÀrdiktatur ersetzen. Gibt selten Schwarz-Weià aber schon so etwas wie die Guten
und mal wieder frag ich mich, denkt die Wirtschaft auch an mich?
i dont know if google shows lemmy results but duckduckgo does
no
Tux Paint
habe kein auto, mache keine Fernreisen(auĂer selten mit zug) meine Anzahl an Garnituren belĂ€uft sich auf 4 und insgesamt ist das eigentlich eine peak Ausgangssituation, Ă€ndert leider nichts dran, dass wir im Kapitalismus leben.
Um die Frage "forced by what?" zu beantworten: forced by materiellen sowie sozioökonomischen Bedingungen
denke ich versteh was du meinst
Ich seh dann nicht wo mit zweierlei maĂ gemessen wird. Ich wĂŒrde der grundaussage, dass es nicht fortschrittlich ist wenn ein Staat auf ethnischer/religiöser IdentitĂ€t aufbaut zustimmen. Meine Meinung ist auch, dass die kurdische Bewegung ganz cool ist aber eben weil ein groĂer teil davon kein Staat will und progressive LösungsansĂ€tze prĂ€sentiert werden. Wenn das so wĂ€re, dass ein Staat das Ziel wĂ€re wĂŒrde ich mich natĂŒrlich auch da ĂŒber ein ethnostaat aufregen.
Wirkt halt etwas Strohmann mĂ€Ăig weil du siehst ein Widerspruch in einer Argumentation die ich so noch nirgends gehört habe.