this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
476 points (94.7% liked)
solarpunk memes
3319 readers
541 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am advocating for anarchism, which is the basic principle that we should liberate ourselves from structures of domination by building horizontal power structures that undermine them.
There really is no reason why dominance hierarchies need to be involved. There are plenty of places in the world where horizontalist power structures have displaced the state, and many, many more where the mycelial networks of resistance are growing but are simply not yet openly visible. There is someone local to you who you could join and improve life locally now, and begin laying the groundwork for liberation. I can almost guarantee it.
If you advocate for the state, then you are advocating for your own domination by something you yourself have admitted is corrupt. If you ever think these corrupt structures whose whole purpose is to disempower you can be used for good, then you might be the bridge buyer.
Anarchism sounds great if you're a college freshman, but in reality that will devolve into even less progress than we currently have. Obviously there's no perfect solution, but anarchism has never and will never work at any kind of scale that matters. We need to purge the corruption from our current system and heavily reform it, but at the end of the day it's going to make more progress than a bunch of screaming college kids.
Oh wow "anarchism is for babies lol" is definitely something I've never heard. That's devastating, I'm going to completely change my whole political outlook.
There are plenty of examples of it working at scale. Let me know if you want more information.
I would love to know where it actually worked at scale, because I'm at least decently well educated in history and I've never heard of one instance. The key word here is "scale" by the way, it's important how you define that.
Rojava. CNT FAI historically. The EZLN is horizontalist, although they do not describe themselves as anarchist but as an indigenous movement.
Millions of people in each.
For some reason your reply never showed up in my notifications. Anyway, I just looked at these. Rojava has explicitly been labeled not anarchist but democratic-confederalism with liberal tendencies. They didn't do much in terms of running a country or region since 2011 but I'll read up more on this.
CNT FAI is a union with at most 1.6 million for a few years in the first half of 20th century, that's neither an actual implementation of anarchism, nor a scale where it is relevant. However once you get to several millions and last for a long time governing (or whatever you want to call it) in a country is when I'd give it some points.
EZLN like you said isn't even anarchist. I think you like the concept of libertarian socialism, which I also think has some merits if very carefully implemented. The general concept of local leaders controlling their own territory makes sense for the most part, but the problem is how they all are organized to work together.
The reason that these ideally anarchist societies (I say ideally because in theory that is how it should work) only developed is because they live close enough to each other to form similar culture and values.
However, you would notice that these ideally anarchist societies are being oppressed or at war with a bigger other societies. It is a common observation as to why anarchism won't work. A bigger and more war-like society will always try to bully and fight another society if the latter is deemed weak. Like I said on another comment, this is literally anarchism in action.
I concur with the other person that it has to do with scale. Groups living close together may develop ideally anarchist societies. But if you are from such a peaceful grouping and go far enough, the other group from afar may not share the same values as you. Tribalism is still a pervasive natural issue after all, in spite of humans doing all we can to deviate from what we might consider flaws of evolution.
Which groups? What are you talking about? Do you mean the EZLN and Rojava which have successfully resisted the attacks of much larger states and also have millions of people and are still functioning right now?
What do you mean that they're small and local? They cooperate with one another and act in solidarity across continents. Rojava hosts and benefits from the help of many thousands of international volunteers. Is that what you're referring to?
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Explain yourself. Literally give me one single fact that explains this claim you've made.
And also, are you actually curious to understand what I'm saying here, or are you just trying to tell me I'm wrong without listening? Because I'm noticing a pattern here in the way you're ignoring what I'm actually saying.
Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.
Look, are Rojava and EZLN internationally recognised by other countries? Could they put their guns down and feel at peace knowing that their bigger neighbours won't subjugate them?
Sorry mate, but this is anarchism in action whether you admit it or not.
So is your answer that you're not curious to understand what I'm saying because you've already decided I'm not worth listening to?
Anarchism by basic definition is a collective of self-organising society. What do you think nation state governments are?
This is wrong on every point.
Your definition of anarchism is wrong.
Nation states are not anarchistic.
Nation states are not "self-organising".
Let me know if you have any actual questions about any of this.
Anarchism assumes independent, self-organising societies working together on mutual understanding and cooperation. What do you think nation states are and doing now?
Just like communism, anarchism sounds good in theory but in practice does not work and empirically deviate entirely-- almost perversely different from the concept. They only work on a small scale with people of who are like-minded and similar culture to respect each others boundaries. Issues as wide reaching as climate change requires global scale solution; and not everyone thinks the same. It doesn't matter if you and I organise locally, if groups on the other side of the world are not pulling their weight to combat climate change. Going back to my initial comment, sure we both save water, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what is lost to pipe leaks or even other people using water excessively and needlessly. As we speak, some people in Arizona and China are playing golf, and golf parks always need constant watering. Those gallons water used in golf parks could be used to something more productive instead. Good luck with your community telling Arizonan and Chinese golfers to stop wasting water. I am guessing you did not even read the article on rich countries giving money to poorer countries to help mitigate the climate change, but poorer countries spend them elsewhere, even though they are the ones who beg for funds to help with transition to clean energy.
Maybe anarchism on global scale will work one day (I sure hope so), but it will take probably couple of hundreds of years of advancement in technology and communication to allow for cultural exchange that would permeate across the world, and thus lead to having a common global culture to facilitate the system. But at the moment, anarchism would not work to solve climate change. That is literally what is happening right now.
Nations states are dominance hierarchies, they are not self-organising and they do not depend on mutual understanding or cooperation. They depend on establishing a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Look at any law in a nation state. Push hard enough against it and you will find the barrel of a gun.
These laws are not established by consent, they are established by a ruling class that is mainly beholden to wealthy and powerful interests, far more than it is beholden to the rest of the people. That is not cooperation. There is science to back this up if you want it.
Anarchism is working in plenty of places where it has displaced the dominant state, and apart from that there are many groups that are absolutely "pulling their weight" as you call it.
Look at indigenous land defender movements all over the world, they have as a key part of their movements environmental conservation and combating climate change. In my country Gurridyula is an indigenous black rapper who sings about the years he's spent with his group living out on the land keeping the coal company Adani from mining there. He's fighting legal battles on one side and literally facing up against massive groups of police on the other. Is he pulling his weight? The state is trying to force him off his land so they can mine for more coal to drive climate change.
This is a common thread in decentralised resistance groups everywhere.
People aren't stupid, if we didn't have states sending cops to oppress us and physically stop us from tearing these corporations to pieces we would've done it long ago. The idea that you need a state to convince people to work in their best interests is absurd.
The fact you don't know about this resistance is emblematic of hierarchical programming. There is a lot more out there than you realise. I tried to tell you that, but you just keep on insisting that it simply doesn't exist. It's really strange.
There is a tipping point on the way. Two years ago most people didn't know what the fediverse was but it's slowly spreading, like a mycelial network of resistance, and now John Oliver is talking about it. Once it gets to some percentage of mainstream adoption I think it's going to tip.
Anarchism follows the same strategy. Did you know that federation as the fediverse practices it is literally an anarchist method? That practice of federation is how local cells link up and support one another.
So if you want an example of anarchism working, just look at this platform.
Anarchism works with consent from people, nation states are built with consent from people. Problem is, various groups do not agree with each other. Like I said, good luck telling Chinese and Arizonan golfers to stop wasting water and pull their weight. I am sure they will stop because they care about the environment same as you and I. As I mentioned to another comment, you and I may agree, but other groups from afar don't and don't care because they have different values. Some believe in peace, others are war-like. This is anarchism already in action whether you admit it or not.
Sorry, which is it? Are nation states built by consent and therefore anarchistic and therefore anarchism works, or is it completely impractical at scale and has never worked? Make up your mind.
If you really think that any anarchist would accept that states are anarchistic then you're just admitting you don't know anything about it.
If you think states are built by consent, why? How? When did this happen? I don't remember consenting, do you? What an incredible act of gaslighting.
And like... golfers? Really? Anarchism doesn't work because golf exists? Those are rich people, propped up by the state. That's nothing. That's not an argument that makss any sense to me.
Again, you will have to tell me that you are curious to understand what I'm saying before I continue.
Anarchism and nation state are one and the same. People from each group organise their society however they see fit. Some believe on horizontal societies, others believe in hierarchy (the nation state). So, that is a conceptual framework of anarchism. Each groups organise their own community however they see fit. But, some groups are violent and expansionist. Do you think EZLN and Rojava are not under threat from their neighbours who believe in might makes right?
Anarchism does not work, because some groups don't share the same values. Some groups value material wealth and personal property. I am guessing you haven't been to other places far from your own, or met other cultures from afar to observe that. Which is why organising locally to prevent climate change won't work if others are not pulling their weight. It is a global problem that requires globally organised and coordinated solution. And the problem in and of itself is that some groups don't care.
This is absurd. You're talking in circles and not responding to my words, and you have completely ignored me asking if you're actually curious to understand what I'm saying.
If you can't even pretend to be curious to understand me, and in the absence of any evidence that you are, I see no point in continuing to talk to you.
You can change that and bring me back by being reponsive to what I've said, although I don't hold out a lot of hope that you will.
Talk to others outside your culture. Heck, go abroad! You will realise how vast the gulf of difference the values of other cultures are. Too many people don't care about the environment and want to live hedonistically. This is why anarchism doesn't work in practice, because this is anarchism in practice. And this is why we are having the global problem called climate change (and global conflicts). Idealist anarchist such as yourself tend not to consider the reality that other people simply think too differently for idealised anarchism to work on a large scale.
That has nothing to do with what I just said. You might want to work on that "talking to other people" thing, because you're bad at it, and I'm not sticking around for you to inflict more of it on me.
Agree to disagree but the way the world works at the moment is just how it is and the reality.
If you never bother to listen to anyone else then you'll never learn anything.
Right, good luck pontificating to Egyptians, Chinese, Koreans, Somalis, Congolese, and Greeks to recycle, stop sprinkling golf courses with too much water, stop being materialistic and embrace anarchism. We will see if they don't get annoyed at you or look at you weirdly for doing it.