faxed

joined 7 months ago
[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

That's a very rudimentary anarchistic concept but power is so inherent to human relationships that anyone would either quickly abandon it or find themselves very frustrated.

If you are interested in a short and easy to read article that goes through the whole idea of "no powerful people", look up Freeman's Tyranny of Structurelessness. A classic text particularly among anarchists.

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

I mean I believe you because obviously something unusual has happened.

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But which crow is the owner

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Really? Interesting. Do you have more info?

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

These conflicts are irreconcilable because it is the nature of the relationship. This is the concept of "class war". It is inherently violent.

People who are pro capitalist are not on the left.

They might be liberals. Liberalism is not a left wing project.

Far from being no-true leftists, there are many millions of leftists globally. Every one of them works in their way for the abolition of capital.

Whether you agree with the ideas or not is no issue here. The question is where they are characteristics of the Left. If you disagree with the ideas, you are not on the left.

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Certain breeds of dogs have been intentionally made to be that way by humans. The comment I responded to was regard to an unqualified statement about animals in general and as a whole. That there is some inherent sense of "ownership" present to all animals. The argument being best backed up by a domesticated animal shows how silly it is.

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

In all honesty the argument is silly because the concept of "ownership" has a lot of human fluff on top. Animals use a certain area. From a large territory to a single small nest.

Consider the seagull with her nest on the North side of a beautiful artificial garbage island. Her wife and her have their eggs and babies there. They do not also go to the South side of the garbage island and build (or take over) a bunch of other nests that nobody can use without paying rent. The modern human concept of property encompasses this situation. In this example we could also have the gulls refusing to fix defects in the nest while prohibiting the tenants from doing so. Does this sound like typical bird behaviour?

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If #2 isn't true, how can #1 be true?

As to #3 not being true.... that's just a Negative Nancy.

A person with any beliefs can describe themselves with almost any label. I can call myself a Brony even though I've never watched My Little Pony, don't know anything about it, I'm no Bro, and don't intend to change. But would I be accepted by the other Bronies?

In other words, those people are wrong. They might be proto-leftists. :) Or just libs.

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don't entirely agree with it but I heard once that the left wants powerful people to work in a context of commensurate accountability, whereas the right wants powerful people to be safe from accountability.

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • there is no territory on earth occupied by a single animal. All animals rely on others to help maintain the environment.
  • How do you explain a hundred birds in a single tree, with no fighting?
  • Roaming is far from universal
[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Don't worry, you can keep your razors and brushes. :)

[–] faxed@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

I think this is on the right track. I'd like to make a clarification that will probably be agreed with. (Caveat: Haven't read Proudhon; am describing the colloquial use.) Which is that "thing" here doesn't apply to personal items or work tools of everyday life.

When I was a kid I recall being told that under communism you didn't own your own socks. That is not it.

"Property" certainly refers to land, infrastructure, large equipment, intellectual property, factories, buildings, large vehicles like cargo ships. You could also include housing, personal vehicles, livestock and other substantial but personal Capital as anywhere between public and personal.

On the other hand, while "property is theft" does not disallow personal items, that only goes so far as what one can reasonably use. Hoarding up valuable items is not appreciated. And it would certainly not be allowed to claim

The tragedy of the commons demonstrates how things owned in common or public use can become quickly destroyed.

False. Invite you to further investigate both the historical basis of that idea and any contemporary example you can find.

Capital which is publicly owned can be and often is well managed. There are all sorts of structures to get this done. Depending on the context, the people involved can have their pick. If you heard a public good you appreciate


a school, road, software, utility like power or water, library, museum, park, transit system, hospital


was getting "privatized", how do you expect the experience to be? Generally it fucking sucks. Whereas when the opposite happens it's generally awesome.

view more: ‹ prev next ›