Post about it on the internet built upon tech enabled by the said class in today's world, from devices sold to us by the said class in today's world, in our homes with comforts the existence of which wouldn't be possible without the said class in today's world. Then go to work using infrastructure and means we wouldn't have without the said class in today's world, likely doing work we wouldn't have without the said class in today's world. Perhaps go buy some food the likes of which we couldn't dream of having access to without the said class in today's world. Maybe indulge in a hobby - a leisurely distraction, the kind that only exists because the said class engineered today's world where you have time and resources to waste on frivolity, while they decide what those resources are.

Anyone who wants to hold on to the comforts of modern life will have next to no power to make a change happen. Most of the money you spend goes into their pockets. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Option is to reduce spending, start exchanging favors without money (or develop your own currency with your friends) and if you have to spend money, prefer local goods and small services. Learn to fix things instead of buying new stuff. Offer community, food and fun to people with as little money investment as possible.

Make it work for you and people immediately around you. Get it to spread. This goes triple for you tankies out there. If you can't get this to work at a small level, you will not bring about systematic change. The game is theirs, it's rigged against you and bless your sweet honey heart, you somehow think you can win.

Not saying this is what I think everyone must do. I'll be dead soon enough and I don't have kids. But I am saying that if YOU want to see a change in the system, you need to start playing a different game that isn't built on money.

It wouldn't.

Anarchism (and communism) live and die by the idea that ALL people would have a completely unrealistic level of cooperation and selflessness. As fucked up as capitalism is, it can bend when people don't play nice and there's at least a theoretical possibility of anyone gaining power (money) to impact change in the system. Money itself doesn't inherently have preferences or moral opinions on what should be. Anarchism however breaks the moment someone behaves selfishly. It can work fine in small, like-minded communities where people can always leave (or be excluded) to find other systems that better fit their ideals. However, Anarchism on a societal level would demand that there is basically no other type of society available - which would lead to Sen's paradox. The reason we don't have true anarchist (or communist) countries is that they get wiped out by powers that function in sync with people's natural inclinations for self-interest (like capitalism). People like to argue that these attitudes are DUE to capitalism, not inherent in human nature. Even if I were to entertain the idea that that's true, we currently live in this world of self-interest. Unless you can press a reset button on humanity, this is what we are working with. Solutions that rely on the idea that we can just fundamentally change how ALL people in the world currently are, are not solutions. They're idle fantasies. The "argument" that "if the world wasn't shitty, we could have an amazing utopia", is not an argument at all, it's just a tautology with no power of utility.

The way db0 handled their defederation from feddit.org is a great example of how Anarchism fails even on small scale. They espouse ideals about democratic voting and rational discourse, but the moment the organizing body of the instance had opinions on how they think things "should" be, they used propaganda and political theater to get the result they wanted. Anarchist ideals couldn't function in a low stakes online space, it has little hope of functioning where people are driven by actual survival needs (and desire for power). Whatever ideological purity drove the db0 admins to present the "democratic vote" the way they did, will be the exact same drive people tend to fall to on larger scales as well.

Same thing can be seen in the Communist instances: they rely heavily on propaganda and people sticking to the "correct" narrative. Which also brings up the conflict: there has to be an organizing body that has opinions on what is "right" and what is "wrong". This organizing body will be the authority, no matter how people try to use rhetorical slalom to get around it and trick people into thinking the spade isn't a spade.

People can start to build small grassroots communities with these ideals. Please do, and once they gain enough power (money) in the system we are currently living in, perhaps they can impact policy changes etc. that are more humanitarian. That would be wonderful. But always be aware that the ideals are fragile and break under any corruption. Capitalism works with corruption (not merely despite of), which is why it's extremely effective at being the might that makes right.

(And because I'm aware how these discussions go: I'm absolutely NOT saying "capitalism good". I'm saying it has more functional power than Anarchism. And I find Anarchism to be far more ethical and appealing in theory.)

Not that I disagree with the sentiment but you are veering close to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox

You can buy a piece of land in bumfuck nowhere and try to live off it. Or you can join a community that tries to do that (more realistic). There's the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-grid thing

Problem is that most people want the conveniences of modern, globalist life, and many people don't have a realistic choice.

Personally I try to find a balance between Buddhist non-attachment and making do with the life I got.

Yet weirdly enough many people still let the psychos decide what "success" means.

If the game is rigged against you, stop playing it. Live by your examined values and get your priorities in order. If you really want tons of money, and power, by all means play the game. But if you actually value something else than money, pursue that. Money is often a shortcut, not an obstacle. People have more options than they think but the capitalistic mindset doesn't allow people to see them. Are you going to perhaps have to sacrifice luxuries that capitalism has granted us? Yeah. Is it just that easy? No. But how fucking ungovernable would you be if you you could settle for less?

Buddhist monks are doing pretty good. Not that you have to go that extreme but just to make the point: usually people reject modest living purely because they just gotta have more. And the system everyone is bemoaning in this thread is always ready to provide more and more and more - the price is just one's body and soul.

Most people in this thread could take a good, long look at their wants and needs and figure out which are actually which. And then decide for themselves what they can do that's actually worth doing as per their own values.

Holding belief that people are rational and able to follow logic :')

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with this if we define "evil" by destructive power at least (and always worth remembering that we merely have general agreements on what "evil" is, usually based on what is and isn't considered advantageous for human well-being. Absolute good and evil are religious myths.). But GK was also kinda interesting in that his conquests etc. were "honest". He wasn't trying to build some ideal society, he just lived in accordance to "Might Makes Right" and surprisingly indiscriminately applied that into his domain as well. Whatever one could claim for themselves, was theirs so long as they could defend it. Regardless of gender, religion, further cultural details etc.

I feel like he represents the logical conclusion of non-conservative right-wing ideals taken to the extreme. Individual power (however that manifests - raw strength, charisma) trumps everything else, so in a way, libertarian... but everything was of course to be absolutely subject to the Mongol Empire rule so, authoritarian.

If we go by ideology + destructiveness as a metric of "evil", probably Hitler.

It is a system where you share help, you give it and you receive it : one grows food, one builds houses and at the end of a day, everyone get a house with food.

This is exactly the problem I was highlighting. It's nice to construct the idea where people get along but how do you incentivize them to actually do that without using coercive methods? "We can make this work if everyone just gets along" is just another tautology. Unsurprisingly, any system will work if all people would just cooperate.

Not to even get to the general logistical difficulties with deciding how many carrots one should get for building a house, and if that's fair. And the free rider problem.

If people don’t play nice, either it’s a few people and that’s no big deal, either it’s a lot and they’re defederating and that’s a valid possibility, anarchist systems are precisely adaptable.

And what if the people who disagree decide to subjugate (and possibly erase) the anarchist system? What if (as is likely) people decide that they want is personal power and authority over others?

It does not mean that anarchy fails by itself, it means that it fails when a state destroys it,

It fails internally due to it's fragility in the face of corruption. And when scaled, it would have to compete with anyone who decides that might makes right (by any means necessary). Pure, non-coercive anarchism inherently cannot withstand an attack from anyone who is willing to be coercive in order to gain power.

Also i don’t really understand what is the big deal with db0 defederation.

(Also to @[email protected])

They can defederate all they like. The problem is in the way the "democratic" vote was presented. Their method of conducting the vote (with very clear bias) shows that the Admins had a strong opinion on what the correct result of the vote should be. This is abuse of power - which should not exist in an actual Anarchist setting. The exact same driving forces can be copied and pasted to other scenarios: the organizing body of an Anarchist community has a Strong Opinion about a matter, and they put the matter to vote "democratically", but they use extremely loaded rhetoric to push their own agenda so that people vote the way they want. It's consent manufacturing, and thus, not Anarchism. I highly recommend reading Animal Farm.

And to be clear: I'm fine with db0 admins doing whatever they like, but calling it an "Anarchist" instance is then misleading. It's rather just another informal, progressive oligarchy where the appearance of democracy is used to mask centralized platform governance. Anarchism failed, because the moment they created that farce of a vote, they stopped being anarchists and became authoritarians. Anarchist ideals did not do what they needed to do for the db0 admins to get the results they wanted.

War is never desirable, but this does not make pacifism a virtue. Rather, peace must be guaranteed by strength

Yeah.

Once someone decides that Might DOES make Right, everyone is in that game whether they like it or not. Of course one can totally surrender, if they are okay with the consequences of that.

That said, Might also does Make Right in the sense that those who wield power get to decide what "Right" is. It's just that the more it departs from common human sensibilities, the more they have to wield Might to make it Right.

Claiming any of these things only exist because of billionaires is absurd. They take over and destroy.

But if they ‘took over,’ then by definition, the things that exist now - including the infrastructure you’re using to complain about them - exist because they allowed it. What you (and ![email protected] ) have actually described is a world where billionaires are both all-powerful and completely irrelevant. That’s not a critique. That’s a paradox. And it’s a useful one because it lets you feel angry without actually taking any concrete action.

After all the Quanon stuff and the general population increasing their awareness of how conspiratorial thinking works, it's weird to see "my side" use the same rhetorical tactics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_fascism&useskin=vector#Umberto_Eco

"Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will."

I might be misunderstanding you but there seems to be an assumption that I'm making the claim that the kind of modern life we have can't be possible without capitalism. I am not. It's completely irrelevant to me (and my point).

If people want to insist that a world like ours can be possible while resources are shared equally, great. I have nothing against making the attempt at that, please do. But that's not the world we live in right now. The world we currently find ourselves is the one where capitalism has made all the luxuries etc. possible, and we are very habituated to it. To the point that many people are reluctant to let any of that go, while simultaneously demanding for a systematic change. Hence the "can't have your cake and eat it too". People are demanding revolution but precious few have any actually actionable suggestions on how to bring that about. I'm suggesting things that anyone can do by themselves, as much as is possible for them. Doing those things doesn't require that everyone agrees with you, because you start with yourself. It doesn't require a massive systematic change, because again, you start with yourself.

If anyone has suggestions on concrete actions to take to bring about massive systematic change, please let me know. Let everyone know. But keep in mind you'd have to persuade people that it's going to work and it's a better system. Revolution is very easy on paper.

Tell me you had a certain experience without telling me you had a certain experience.

Were you taught to not talk in certain terms about how your world "shattered"? Because I was.

Unironically, you are 100% correct.

We really need to have more wisdom teaching in the world... Try to give this a read: https://d289p81wn41b34.cloudfront.net/library/The_Way_of_Liberation_Ebook-2024.pdf

Sure it will. We aren't the first creatures or even people to witness what we take to be the end of the world. You can grieve it and do your best to resist it if you so feel called. If you can do so out of love for whatever it is that you value. My gratitude and respect if so.

Just stop believing that it is "bad". Which is NOT the same as saying it's "good". It's just the natural consequence of everything that has happened so far. Or do you shake your fist at the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs? Have you given a good talking to at the volcanoes in Siberia for wiping out nearly all life in the Great Dying? Or any number of other events that led to mass extinctions. Human nature is also just a natural consequence and we're a microscopic blip in Earth's history. Cherish what is here now and do what you're called to do out of love for what you want to protect but you'll spare yourself a lot of meta-suffering if you can give up the idea that there's some right or wrong way for history to go. There's just what is advantageous for humanity and what isn't. I'm aligned with the former but I don't believe that humanity should or shouldn't exist.

People don't know how good they have it. It's ironic that being on Lemmy is likely to speak volumes about one's level of luxury yet people here really, really don't like to be reminded that they are probably doing way better than most people in the world. Definitely unimaginably better than most people in the world in all history.

Yeah the top 1% sucks and capitalism has to be reigned in but there's a lot of people here who are only interested in wallowing in their self-pity with the occasional whimper about how Communism/Socialism/Anarchism etc. would be a totally better system if not for capitalism and if everyone just agreed to do it (and somehow they actually don't see the problem with the argument). They make these posts and then pat themselves on the back about what good activists they are and then return to bitching about things happening half-way across the world but never give a single thought to doing something in their local community (because that would require actually dealing with real humans).

It's kinda like the flip side of people who bitch about taxes not doing anything, while using infrastructure, probably in some level of safety, benefitting from public healthcare (if applicable) and schools etc. but because they're just used to it, they don't realize how big of a difference it makes. Most people on Lemmy have 0 concept of what it's actually like living in an oppressive and corrupt regime. They are addicted to misery because it gives them the reason to be inactive and permanentley outraged. They buy into all the doomscrolling (on their luxury devices, during their luxurious amount of free time) about how much things suck and of course, this just aids the capitalistic system because passive people seething at home about the injustices in the world are always better than active people on the streets trying to actually make a change happen.

What people would need to do: consciously practice gratitude (this gives you energy) over what they have and especially who they have in their life, find LOCAL opportunities to engage in activism and connect with people (opportunities to practice what you preach too).
What's easier to do: sit on your device, get angry about another injustice in the world, feel exhausted with "all the bad stuff in the world", don't do anything but post another meme that perpetuates the cycle.

Also, inb4 Mr. Gotcha meme. Yeah, go ahead, compare yourself to a serf who couldn't even imagine the level of comfort you're living in.

You are absolutely correct on all points. Now what do you propose we do about it?

You’re arguing with a straw man. The point isn’t that billionaires are the sole reason these things exist in some abstract sense - it’s that, in the world we actually live in right now, they control the levers that determine whether you have access to them at all. Nothing that we have right now could be possible if not for everything that came before it. So unless you invent a time machine, you're arguing beside the point.

It's a treacherous intoxicant. People love recreational outrage but for many people it turns into active, seething hate that colors every interaction they have. It's the lens through which many view the world and it becomes self-perpetuating. People will have angry and hateful interactions with others, begetting more hate, begetting more hate, begetting more hate.

The fury feels good in a moment. Makes you feel strong. Find some like-minded people angry at the same things and you get to feed off each other's rage. You'll not only get more reasons to hate, but you'll feel justified in the hate. You are in the right. The others are wrong. How dare the others be wrong. You must hate them because they are evil. See how they respond to your hate with more hate, further proving how justified you are in your own hate. It warms your chest, it rushes through your veins like the best alcohol you can imagine and you're not feeling so helpless. It makes you feel like you're accomplishing something. It masks the feeling that you are just one, small person faced with an impossibly complicated world, that is often filled with incredible injustice. It keeps you from realizing that you're a tiny little cog in the same machine that causes both all the suffering and all the joy in the world. It tricks you into thinking that you are both apart from the world, yet powerful enough to impact it.

Every hateful comment you leave adds more hate into the machine. Every act of kindness adds more kindness. But hate is easier. Kindness feels weak. It's vulnerable. It's fragile. Even if you're kind, the hate that others keep adding may reach you and bite you. Most people can handle having their teeth kicked in only for so many times. It's easier to shut down and hate. But that doesn't mean that commitment to kindness is impossible. It's just harder.

And so it goes, and so it goes.

Yeeees and unfortunately it can get very meta: "I need to think critically" is another "what" to think. Most people would agree that critical thinking is a good thing. Yet, they still fail to actually do it. When pressed, many people can't even define is means to think critically and even get really pissed when this gets highlighted.

Also to @[email protected]

Not really all that interesting. It's just the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox wearing the cape of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Without the fancy jargon, the argument is "All people must be free to do whatever they want (the paradox part they don't say out loud is: except form a consensus)"

If you resolve the paradox, what you're left with is exactly the same world we have now: everyone is free to do exactly what they want, including forming a consensus (that may restrict the freedom of the individual)

It's a philosophical sleight of hand that's easy to hide in grandiose and virtuous rhetoric. I've seen it often from the Libertarian Right, and I suspect so have others on Lemmy.

I recommend you check out analytic idealism instead:

https://philarchive.org/rec/KASAIA-3