Public Modlogs
Check the mod logs of any subreddit that uses /u/publicmodlogs
Soldiers dont fight for freedom (whatever country your from). Thats Propaganda. Father in military,2 brother was, me (liké them raised to be) for 2 years. Where IS freedom when you help a dictator, or keep him in charge against thé population because it supports the économie and industrial intérêts of your country (and it's own financial interest doing so and impoverishing it's citizens). Even thé Germany soldiers WW2 they were told they were fighting for freedom. It's the first things WE are taught from youngest age:soldiers fight for freedom, because everybody wants to défend freedom, but no one will ever tell you thé freedom of what and who. When you start to think about it, thé house of cards crashes.
A German vet of WW1 describes killing a man with a bayonet in a trench. They go on to elaborate on why this was wrong, questions why they had to kill another human being who they had no ill will towards and how he was compelled by the State to not see other humans as such as to be a good soldier.
You value the freedom of animals... but you want to kill them? What the fuck?
Or you know, just shot in the street.
Just be one. I don't take part in actions, or do a lot of what some people think anarchists do to show they are one. I simply live my life and when discussions go in the direction of talking about human rights, government/religion, or world news I just speak my mind. I've had people give me some interesting looks and a few people have actually engaged in conversation. It doesn't always have to be huge events, but can be a lot of little ones too.
I think it reflects poorly on anarchism that it doesn't contain insights or ideas for you in your own life, and instead seems to point outwards to activist causes separate from you.
Maybe instead of thinking what you can do for anarchist ideals, think about what you need and want in life. Maybe investigating anarchism and its Venn diagram buddies of socialism and counterculture can help you expand the way you look at your life, and identify your own needs. Then, perhaps think about what it'd take to get those needs met, individually and collectively.
I don't know. As a jaded anarchist who used to do activism, this is how I think about things now. And I think it's probably more relevant than "lets go out there to find the struggle/cause that will accomplish X-Y-and-Z" which I used to do.
I wish you well, even if that means without anarchism.
CointelPro is alive and well in the United States. But, tell me again how China is a threat to privacy?
I'm tired of mostly white vegans talking so damn loud all the time. Like chill out cuz I'm not the nigga factory farming sthu.
I'm tired of mostly white vegans talking so damn loud all the time. Like chill out cuz I'm not the nigga factory farming sthu.
I'm a professional artist (animator) with a bfa. Here are my thoughts-
Besides pointillism (see other comments for the history and significance of that) visually, we have 4 people working together, men and women, and the harvest is shared by being given to everyone in their *individual* bucket. There are 4 buckets in this shot- they're not working together to hoard wealth either for themselves or a conglomerate, they're working to help each other fulfill their individual needs. Also, it appears that the harvest is only possible to reach with that stick- even though only one person is able to pick the fruit, it's still being distributed directly to individuals who need it. I also find it interesting that the landscape is at an exaggerated curve like they're on a very small world. This decision could've been made to hint that what we're seeing is a microcosm of what life under anarchism could be like. The trees on the horizon almost look like elephants migrating on that curve, possibly showing the passage of time. It's a wonderfully subtle (and yet clear) depiction of what life under anarchism could feel like.
I looked up les châtaigners at Osny and this is not it might be same artist…
On the videos of the event, you can hear fascist motos "la France elle est à qui, elle est à nous" and "LePen replace Macron".
The far right is strong in Bordeaux and has a lot of beef with the green major, so I'd be prudent before cheering.
I won't cry about a fire under a city hall porch, but targeting a socdem town hall seems strange for anarchists atm.
Workers should enjoy the fruits of their labour without a parasite siphoning most of the value off the top. We need to transition from a profit based economy to a needs based economy. This focus on eternal growth is cancerous and what has killed our planet, and doomed our species.
My mom who spend her life working cleaning rich people house died last year at 66 from cancer. So non, la loi est extrêmement injuste more ever for women and working class
perso que les gens soient aigri ou optimiste tout me va tant qu'on se bat du même côté !
What happens now in France is quite different to the protests in the US.
The US protests/riots were the materialization of people's rage over cops killing black people.
France has stronger unions that are striking (blocking/reducing the economy), stronger leftist anarchist/leftist movements and more. They have recent lessons (from the yelllow vests and 2016) that they can use to their advantage. They have strong majority popular support (and unfortunately it definitely includes nationalists too).
In other words, the french movement is more mature and more "diverse" in tactics.
There is no need to think "what will happen in 6 months". Every day might bring a big change. This is too big of a time frame to think for an insurrection (not that I would consider France an insurrection).
You can read a relevant crimethinc article that has an in-depth analysis.
https://crimethinc.com/2023/03/22/france-the-movement-against-the-pension-reform-on-the-threshold-of-an-uprising
Qui vivra verra.
>l'aigri originel
Certainement pas l'originel, sûrement pas le dernier.
Mdr l'aigri originel ??
En termes de nombres c'est factuellement les plus grosses, plus que 95 et GJ. Mai 68 il me semble qu'il n'y avait pas de décompte.
Oui pour les violences autrement qu'à Paris les exemples que tu cites sont vrais, mais le plus récent est 2005 ça fait 18 ans. C'est donc comme je le disais très rare.
On verra pour la suite, moi je suis assez optimiste vu la tournure que ça prend.
>Macron is despising us so obviously despite the biggest demonstrations in history
Mai 68 / Gilets Jaunes : on est des blagues pour toi ?
May 68 / Yellow Vests : are we jokes for you ?
>normally never happening
J'ajouterai 2005 et les banlieues en feu à mai 68 et les gilets jaunes, oh, et 1995 aussi (plus grosses manif' depuis Mai 68)
I would add 2005 and the suburbs on fire to May 68 and the Yellow Vests, oh, and 1995 too (biggest protests since May 68)
I do not know how old you are but if you think those are the biggest protests in recent history you're making me laugh. We had 3 major events in the last 30 years.
>I think we will win against this law and possibly force him to resign.
More like they'll fuck us in the ass once again.
But, keep up the good fight !
Qui ne tente rien n'a rien.
I would start with simple easy reads or audio books around pedagogy and the experiences of anarchists of the past. What questions do you have if you don’t mind my asking? I’d be happy to answer anything.
I think your kinda projecting your own experience of “self righteous punks” onto Flower Power.
I didn’t interpret the article as endorsing a lack of responsibility, it’s more so talking about how “coming of age” is a trap because it’s wrapped up in many societal norms. And when some people decide to live lives outside of traditional home-bound atomic-family life style, it’s always seen as irresponsible.
I'm tired of mostly white vegans talking so damn loud all the time. Like chill out cuz I'm not the nigga factory farming sthu.
Das is jetzt zwar nicht spezifisch anarchistisch aber auf insta werden immer sachen angekündigt zB am 28. Jetzt eine demo, folg halt den antifa accounts und geh zu den treffen, dann findest du sicher auch anarchisten (wenn du nicht in wien graz oder Innsbruck lebst wirds halt kritisch)
I know only Tāmaki Makaurau in Aotearoa (Auckland NZ).
IWA AIT (international workers association) should have a section in Australia too!
It’s a popular and almost universally beloved song that both celebrates the natural beauty of the North American landscape while promoting a vision of making a commons of it. That makes it a rare and powerful piece of anti capitalist art that has embedded itself deep into American culture.
It is not a song that promotes an indigenous or landback perspective. The left at the time of Woody Guthrie was interested in forming a movement out of the working class majority, which in the US is overwhelmingly the descendants of immigrants, refugees, and settlers, as well as including most indigenous people. In fact, this was a period of low activity for indigenous self advocacy as well, as the militant resistance to colonization had been defeated and repressed around the turn of the century at the latest in most of the country, and the Red Power movement and AIM wouldn’t arise until the 60s/70s.
So, left wing folk singers of his day were unlikely to sing songs specifically advocating for native people, unless they were doing something like chasing out the Klan from their territory (see: Malvina Reynolds and the Battle of Maxton Field). These voices and issues wouldn’t re-emerge as a noticeable part of the political folk music tradition until folks like Buffy Sainte Marie, Peter La Farge, and Johnny Cash all put out songs in support of native struggles (of these three, I think only Buffy was indigenous- there were of course other artists too).
If Woody had lived longer he probably would have had learned a lot more and had a lot to say about indigenous issues. It was a blind spot for him, and besides songs where he’s just advocating for the communalization of land while not mentioning the colonial history of that land, there are also songs of his where he casually refers to historic campaigns of violence against Native people without raising any objections to them, or even viewing them as part of a march of progress. Roll on Columbia, about the river, is a great example, with him singing warmly of “Sheridan’s boys” who “shot every Indian with smoke in his gun”. In another song, Trail of the Buffalo, he speaks of “Indians waiting to pick us off in the hills of Mexico” as the narrator and other cowboys hunt Buffalo for an employer who will ultimately cheat them of their pay. The cowboys kill the wage-thieving boss and “leave his bones to bleach on the range of the Buffalo”. It’s a song about class struggle in miniature, but the “Indians” are presented as one of several forces of nature the cowboys contend with.
I think whether or not to sing this song depends on how you intend to answer the question: How do we grapple with the legacy of colonialism in an empire where around 2% of the population are indigenous, and the rest of the population came here as immigrants, slaves, refugees, or conquerers? Is there any future for that society that isn’t shaped by the fact of colonialism?
I’ve been a political folk singer for many years, at all sorts of events, and I’ve generally found that this song awakens a very basic and deeply felt understanding of class solidarity and communal feeling among most working people, across racial lines. But many indigenous audiences have a problem with it- and many educated activist audiences have an even bigger and more vocal problem with it. If I played this song at a typical union rally I would expect cheerful and enthusiastic sing-alongs from the audience- which is what I’ve always gotten when it’s asked for at such events.
If I played it at an event full of activists who profess very radical politics, I would expect rolled eyes, people interrupting my performance, possibly physical attempts at deplatforming me. If I was asked at an anarchist event other than an extremely syndicalist one to play this song, I would probably decline and offer to play Bread and Roses instead. Part of being a labor folk singer today is that almost every old song has verses or lines that people object to. But some people (in my opinion, usually not indigenous people themselves, but other activists) really vehemently and sometimes forcefully object to the song.
That I have to organize with assholes who want to martyr me and all "lower-members" of the group just to achieve some sentiment of progress.
I have seen 10 organizations rise and fall since Occupy back in 2010.
None of them actually enpower people: all of them "ambulence-chased" themselves to exhuastion and killed the spirit of the members of their orgs.
If it actually acts as self defense effectively. I don’t think just going outside and shooting a cop in broad daylight would do good in the world. It would trigger a response to raise police funding and scare people off from any idea you wanted to promote, as well as yknow, kill someone’s family member. I think there is a good reason as to why especially marginalized communities don’t retaliate with mass shootings nearly as much as white men. Even with radical black movements in the states, they were very controlled and tactical with their violence. Violence is not good.
I think your interpretation might be a bit off. The article "ADULTHOOD IS A TRAP" is mainly about questioning societal norms around adulthood and encouraging readers to rediscover the freedom and joy of youth.
I think your idea that the article promotes hedonism and fetishizes youth might be an overreaction. The author's message is more about challenging conventional ideas about adulthood and maintaining a sense of curiosity and playfulness in life.
While the author does touch on anti-establishment and anti-consumerism themes, they don't explicitly endorse irresponsibility. Additionally, your assumption that the author has ulterior motives or is promoting morally questionable actions doesn't seem to be supported by the article.
Instead of assuming the worst, I think we should have a more balanced and nuanced discussion about the article's central ideas and how they could be thought-provoking and valuable. Let's focus on exploring those ideas rather than assuming negative intentions.
I think your interpretation might be a bit off. The article "ADULTHOOD IS A TRAP" is mainly about questioning societal norms around adulthood and encouraging readers to rediscover the freedom and joy of youth.
I think your idea that the article promotes hedonism and fetishizes youth might be an overreaction. The author's message is more about challenging conventional ideas about adulthood and maintaining a sense of curiosity and playfulness in life.
While the author does touch on anti-establishment and anti-consumerism themes, they don't explicitly endorse irresponsibility. Additionally, your assumption that the author has ulterior motives or is promoting morally questionable actions doesn't seem to be supported by the article.
Instead of assuming the worst, I think we should have a more balanced and nuanced discussion about the article's central ideas and how they could be thought-provoking and valuable. Let's focus on exploring those ideas rather than assuming negative intentions.
> How it is above private ownership and should be respected.
> There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
> Sign was painted, it said private property;
> But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
> This land was made for you and me.
> Well, as I was walking, I saw a sign there
> And on the sign it said "No Trespassing"
> But on the other side it didn't say nothing
> That side was made for you and me!
It's not about respecting private ownership, it's about shared ownership and rejecting private ownership of shared resources e.g. the land.
The song has a long history of being edited, changed and used for political purposes even Woody Guthrie himself did it with a version in 1944 to quote wikipedia `In 1944 during World War II, Guthrie prepared another version which drops the two verses that are critical of the United States from the original: Verse four, about private property, and verse six, about hunger.` - [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_Is_Your_Land#1944_version_lyrics)
*reposing, because I quoted what was written on his guitar and it triggered an auto-remove* (I get why, not complaining about that)
>I think your interpretation might be a bit off. The article "ADULTHOOD IS A TRAP" is mainly about questioning societal norms around adulthood and encouraging readers to rediscover the freedom and joy of youth.
>I think your idea that the article promotes hedonism and fetishizes youth might be an overreaction. The author's message is more about challenging conventional ideas about adulthood and maintaining a sense of curiosity and playfulness in life.
>While the author does touch on anti-establishment and anti-consumerism themes, they don't explicitly endorse irresponsibility. Additionally, your assumption that the author has ulterior motives or is promoting morally questionable actions doesn't seem to be supported by the article.
All of this. I think the people commenting about 'irresponsibility' and 'fetishization' are being way too literal and rigid about the use of the word 'adulthood', when, in my reading of the piece, it's way more about rejecting the societal expectations of adulthood and what accompanies that, and rather, embracing the feelings of joy and wonder and learning that we remember experiencing in our own youth.
People like yourself kill animals because they enjoy doing so.
> How it is above private ownership and should be respected.
> There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
> Sign was painted, it said private property;
> But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
> This land was made for you and me.
> Well, as I was walking, I saw a sign there
> And on the sign it said "No Trespassing"
> But on the other side it didn't say nothing
> That side was made for you and me!
It's not about respecting private ownership, it's about shared ownership and rejecting private ownership of shared resources e.g. the land.
The song has a long history of being edited, changed and used for political purposes even Woody Guthrie himself did it with a version in 1944 to quote wikipedia `In 1944 during World War II, Guthrie prepared another version which drops the two verses that are critical of the United States from the original: Verse four, about private property, and verse six, about hunger.` - [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_Is_Your_Land#1944_version_lyrics)
*edit* Coffee was done.
> Guthrie himself was a known communist. And wrote "This machine kills fascists"
Yup! A great phrase, but he was also human and as human had his flaws. He supported the invasion of Poland and Stalin, he later switched these stances. He at times was deeply racist and also helped support african-american musicians and civil rights. He tended to switch stances when one became unpopular with the left.
TL:DR it's a complicated song with a complicated history, it doesn't mean it is inherently bad, or can't be used for good. There are just layers of complication that need to be addressed and dealt with.
Personaly as someone who lives in the United States, it's an OK song, there are better and there are far far worse songs about this state.
[Here's the whole Makhno comic for those interested](https://www.docdroid.net/PhtLwKv/mhn-pdf)
We're launching an indiegogo for a special edition of issue #2 tomorrow (Tuesday 2/21/23) at this URL:
[https://igg.me/at/Durruti](https://igg.me/at/Durruti)
You can get signed issues and a bunch of other swag there (also digital issues if you want to read it on a budget)
30% of all pledges (less shipping, taxes and fees) go to 501c3 "Razom for Ukraine" to provide critical mutual aid to injured and displaced Ukrainian civillians.
You can also get issue #1 inexpensively from AK Press:
https://www.akpress.org/durruti-shadow-of-the-people.html
I guess [the anarchists were wrong yet again](https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/134806/entry-points-politics).
Nope. In purely apolitical and horizontal relations, it is decisions that form and dissolve groups, also known as the principle of free association or "constitution by association". In hierarchical relations, it is the other way around — groups are authorized to make decisions.
As soon as we start authorizing the constitution of a group's social relations, character and purpose — as soon as we start acting and relating in the name of "the group" — we are in the process of forming a democratic government.
No. Are we done here?
[OP, four days ago:](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/wrrxex/comment/il42vnm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>Of course an anarchist society needed laws and law enforcement.
[OP, two days ago:](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/wudigm/comment/ilcw033/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>Of course we need police and prisons, and courts in an anarchist society.
[OP, two days ago:](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/wudigm/comment/ilar6rk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>an anarchist society can decide to protect itself and its citizens by setting up a constitution of rights, police, court and rehab/prisons.
Something like direct democracy.
Sure. The text is right to condemn Öcalan's antisemitism. But OP is obviously using it to peddle their governmentalism.
Both Bookchin and Öcalan rejected anarchism, favoring majority rule. [Rojava turned out to be anything but anarchist.](https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/144621/psa-don-t-be-taken-by-a-colonialist-homophobic-state)
For anarchists, there simply is no good reason to get defensive about any of this shit. At this point, claiming communalism or democratic confederalism amounts to a denial of the possibility and desirability of *anarchy*. Don't invite this trash into anarchist spaces.
Hey Comrades!
I'm the guy behind those Durruti Comics. We're releasing a special edition of Durruti #2 (which feature's Durruti's real-life meeting with Nestor Makhno). Since most of the issue is spent on Makhno and the Makhnovischina I thought it was important to do something for the people of his homeland, locked as they are in their own struggle for liberty against Russian invaders.
If you can please share and pre-follow the Indiegogo, you can get a ton of really cool stuff (including a signed and embossed copy of the Calvin and Hobbes Durruti print I shared here last week) and you'll be contributing to critical on-the-ground Mutual Aid in war-torn Ukraine via a top rated 501c3 Razom for Ukraine:
https://igg.me/at/Durruti
Yeah, it's fine to be vegan (or queer or spiritual or anti-civ or syndicalist or platformist), but just keep it to yourself and in your own space so we can yammer on about what's *really* important for Anarchism...
Back into the closet you marginals!
You want to wage war on the US military?
Well, I don't want to shit on your plan, but I don't think you're gonna get very far.
Allow me to tell you what I think we should do.
Before we even think about combat, we need to control our own material needs, that is to say, food, water, shelter, tools, machinery, etc. One way to do that is to build, and confederate communes, syndicates, cooperatives, and the like into a web of formal, and informal cooperation through gift economies, decentralized planning, etc, and expand those structures, until we have enough people that the state can't order its goon squads to fire on us without telling them to shoot at their own family, and loved ones, and enough military power to strike back, if they do it anyway.
In 1993, a KKK chapter planned a protest of a Gay Pride Parade in Chattanooga, TN. Anti-Racist Action, Love and Rage, and others organized a large counter-demonstration with a range of groups and localities represented. They vowed to run the Klan out of town, by force if needed. After years of militant action, this promise was backed up by experience. The KKK ended up canceling their own rally to avoid an embarrassing rout. The anti-fascist demonstration still took place, and anarchists marched with this banner.
Image transcription: black and white photo of a group holding a banner at a demonstration. The banner reads: "Do the right thing, not the white thing. Smash white supremacy. Love and Rage." Next to the text, a fist is shown punching a hooded Klan member.
>Simply put, we want to make ruins of domination in all of its varied and interlacing forms. This struggle inhabiting every social relationship is what we know as social war. It is both the process and the condition of a conflict with this totality.
>
>In the discourse of queer, we are talking about a space of struggle against this totality — against normalcy. By "queer," we mean "social war." And when we speak of queer as a conflict with all domination, we mean it.
Image description: Black and white photo of anarchists at the 1993 queer march on Washington. One banner reads "Anti-Racist Skinheads & Punx Against Homophobia." Another reads "We have found new homes for the rich" with crosses indicating a cemetery.
Hi u/Absolutedumbass69 - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi u/Aegean_828 - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't understand transphobia. I just want to live my fucking life in a way that doesn't make me want to kill myself every time I see myself
You know nearly nothing about me and most of what you think you know, you made up. You made up that my apparent non-vaganism is due to vegans being mean, for example. The thing is, you must know you made that up. You cant be that lost to reality. Really, vegans like you just think they have an excuse to be nasty to people and you do so whenever you get the opportunity, as you keep showing over and over. For example, when you dissappear up your own backside, waxing lyrical about flowers, nazis and high fives as the self appointed divine arbiter of anarchism.
All you've shown is that you want to climb on your high horse and kick off at people, othering and out-grouping them in an attempt to coerce them into doing what you want them to do, all in the name of anarchism of all things. Its clear that all you want is to be nasty to people more than anything else because you never even bothered to ask if I eat meat or not. I mean, why would you right?
Because, I said, its not about that. Its about having an excuse to vent your anger and frustration at people. Its pathetic really and will end up pushing people away from what you want them to do. But then you would have more people to be angry at so, I guess its a win: win really.
Anarchism existed before the animal rights movement. There are meat eating anarchist groups. You giving it all this "so-called" just shows that you care more about animals than you do people and you havent bothered to look at history. Your attitude confirms it.
I mean, you literally admit to being a nihilist (nothing-ist). As in, someone beleives in NOTHING but also beleives veganism and anarchism. Even then, thats if you can somehow manage to look past the self refuting paradox of nihilism in the first place. Youre not a serious person, yourself.
Yeah, well done for finding two things you beleive justify your antisocial behavioral issues. Its *definitely* everyone elses fault. They **made** you do it ;).
Anarchists understand that labor still needs to happen for our basic needs to be met.
Anarchists are against coercive hierarchies, such as the state, whose selected laws you're forced to follow based on conditions outside your control, or capitalist modes of production, wherein the fruits of your labor will go somewhere that is determined before you're even a worker.
Anarchism goes hand in hand with workers gaining more freedoms from the hierarchies forcing our labor to kill our communities. As such, most practical Anarchists will have at least online solidarity with actions against the aforementioned coercive hierarchies.
The bourgeois controlled mídia in my country showed this news yesterday on the biggest tv show, in prime time. Funny thing is that they cared to carefully explain the aging demographic pyramid and why it is needs to be done. Something similar was done here in 2018-2019. Increasing up to 10 years in some cases (for when the person starts working later on his life 25-30 years old) and none in some cases (rural workers)
That’s kinda where I stopped being an AnCom and started just being a Com.
Through a lot of my interactions with Reddit anarchists, even though they talk a big game about hating cops and identifying them as oppressors, they don’t really seem to have much ideas on what to do about them post-revolution. They’re not just going to magically disappear into thin air.
I mean, if a Fascist in a Blue Uniform spent his entire career using institutional violence to throw single mothers out on their ass for refusing to pay their landlord and unpayable rent payment, do you really think they should just walk free? Because I sure don’t. They deserve nothing less than being shot with a ball of their own feces for deciding that their job was worth more than her situation.
Not to kill the mood, but a lot of people are probably in support of the fascists there. (Not specifically in this protest, but in general) So getting rid of the conservative macron would give us the fascist Le pen. Not an upgrade whatsoever sadly
I got the feeling its pretty alive in germany with a lot of more people being active after the Lützi evictions cause the whole camp/occupation was good in mobilizing and radicalizing a lot of ppl
How can an uncontroversial anarchist analysis of the Commune get so many downvotes in an anarchist setting? What gives, compañero/as?
I've got some questions and comments if you'll indulge me:
1. Please share both the full "commune rules" as well as the language and structure of the articles of incorporation for your nonprofit. Its fine if the language is incomplete at this time. One would assume both of these things would be 100% available and transparent to potential commune members, as well as broadcast to the world to attract potential members, so sharing it now should be easy. This is the foundation that the rest of the commune sits on, so I expect you should take no issue in being 100% transparent. Feel free to omit/redact any identifying information.
2. Is there a mechanism in place that allows the commune to take a vote for *you or other founders* to leave the commune? If no, why? If yes, how is the nonprofit affected? Would you have the ability to extract your "investment" in the commune if you're asked to leave for whatever reason, even if the commune has only been running for a short time? Do regular commune members have this ability as well? (assuming they relinquished any money/property to the commune when joining)
3. Is there a mechanism in place to change the "rules" of the commune, or are they fixed? If no, why? If yes, please describe the process to change them. I assume a vote is called, if so, what is the threshold? (consensus, majority, 3/4, etc)
4. Is waiving all liability a condition of entry to the commune?
5. Do the founders of the commune (or any specific members) retain any special power that is not available to a "regular" commune member? This could include things such as veto power over household/non-profit votes, or the non-profit deferring to specific individual(s) wishes in lieu of a commune vote, or allowing only certain members to access commune funds and/or make purchases for the commune. Please list all instances. Additionally, for these instances, are they revocable or transferable to other members, or they innate to certain individuals?
6. Was any specific theory or body of work used as a basis for formulating the structure of your project?
Thanks in advance for satiating my curiosity.
As for the project, it certainly seems like a commune, however these seems to be a lot of stuff baked in that is antithetical to anarchism. Please think about the below for both "prospective" commune members as well as ones who have lived at the commune for a long time and have nowhere else to go:
1. Right off the bat, the "non-profit" is an instrument that is backed by the violence of the state. While there is no avoiding utilizing these mechanisms, they have to be very carefully constructed and have their scope of actions highly constrained. From your previous post, you mention that you have not only property but businesses that are being rolled into this corporation, which serves to increase complexity and require individuals to manage the upkeep. Since (I assume) 5 of you are fronting the money/property/etc to get this thing off the ground, I expect you've built in mechanisms to avoid hostile takeovers, which would effectively relinquish control to certain privileged commune members in all matters relating to the nonprofit. Commune members are either being added to the board of the corporation, or possibly signing contracts in order to validate their membership. Conversely, if a member is "voted out" their lack of standing in the nonprofit or terms of the contract are used to define them as trespassers and legally remove them from the premises. If certain privileged members have direct control of the non-profit then this is not only an obvious way to bypass the will of the commune but also an easily abusable tool to coerce individuals or group members as a whole.
2. Property enforcement as it relates to commune members' personal/private property or funds. Firstly, how is the commune even able to ascertain an individuals' property and funds? What tools are you using to accomplish this? When joining, are you requiring them to submit to background checks or other forms of scrutiny to ascertain what they have? Are they contractually obligated to do this? If so this is no different than the egregious invasion of privacy that employers use against employees, as well as another instrument of coercion, in particular the relinquishing of all money and property. You stated that the commune will make up for this by helping exiting members to find a place to live, a job, maybe some money or a car so they can transition away. Is this a promise or just words? Unless you have this promise baked in to your contract/corporation, where your commune is legally liable to provide this relief, then it is just empty words, and another mechanism of coercion, in particular the threat of kicking someone out and leaving them nowhere to go after you've taken their money, car, and deed to their house. Furthermore, how is this continually enforced? If an existing member inherits a home or a trust fund, will they face being kicked out if they choose to do something with it other than give it to the non-profit? Say, for example, giving the house to a family member, or sending their trust fund money to charities/donations of their choosing? Once again, how is the non-profit even able to detect that any of this is happening? Will you be monitoring communications of all members to ensure they are compliant with your rules? If no, then your "rule" about everything going to the commune is unenforceable. If yes, you've just built a highly authoritarian framework which can be easily abused. Lastly, who decides what is property that the commune deserves? For example, items of highly sentimental value; imagine a commune member that had a jewel/diamond encrusted broach passed down in their family for generations. Are they obligated to relinquish this to the commune? What about the kit car they built with their own hands? What about the family home they inherited, the house they were born in and want to give to their future child? Just about anything can be sentimental, and the slippery slope is obvious when we ask: "Who decides?".
3. bodily autonomy - How do you plan on enforcing your drug rule? Are you going to force members to submit to urinalysis? I do drugs every day but you wouldn't be able to tell just by observing me. Who decides which drugs are bad and which are OK? Who defines "sober"? (for example, I personally do not consider adrenaline junkies to be "sober" people)
4. Rules - I am under the assumption that some or all of your rules are not subject to review and modification. The constant reevaluation of hierarchy and power dynamics is core to anarchism. If any of your rules are inscrutable by default, its not anarchism. If your commune does well, you should expect both the makeup of individuals as well as the rules, values, and traditions to be radically different in the future compared to where you started. To resist this change is to literally constrain the freedom of individuals.
5. If you do not have a plan to abolish the nonprofit, (save for using it simply as a container to "own" the property you're on) along with relinquishing all the capital, wealth, and businesses it holds, as soon as the commune becomes self-sufficient and successful, then you're going against your own self-stated goal regarding private property.
6. Your mechanisms for group decision making, based on what I read int he previous post, seem dubious and/or incomplete. This should be the most concrete and transparent part of the entire project. Again, "who decides?" also, how?
I could go on. It seems like you're building an "intentional community" rather than building anarchism. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread it is like a "mini-HOA", and the more I think about it the more it seems to fit. A healthy anarchist commune will see people coming and going at will, and they wouldn't get shaken down/piss tested/background checked as they came and went.
I'll know more once I've read all your rules as well as articles of incorporation.
Caging in nature is wrong, that leads to unnecessary destruction such as deer deciding to walk in the roads. Raccoons going through trash, people littering in the parks just as they do in the cities. The rotten air kills off all wildlife and plants, but you do your damndest to keep them all alive just for what? To suffer? There is no good that comes out of parks. Sure you can enjoy the view… while it lasts. But as soon as you introduce people that have no respect for the environment and decide to try to fence everything in, that leads to death for nature.
Deer when they hop fences often get their testicles ripped off, so even if they do escape the parks, they will often bleed out. Many of the animals are so keen to seeing people they aren’t afraid of them, so even if their is the slightest chance they make it back, they will most definitely be killed by a hunter.
The only true way to celebrate nature in a park is places like Yellowstone, but even then you get the psychos that cut down the trees to make fire wood! It’s a sanctuary for animals, not meant for humans, nature is not meant to be held in some box! It must be set free! To grow to expand! And y’all are always stopping forest fires! Let em burn I say! The trees emit nitrogen when burned, it’s good for the soil and new trees sprout up in the new nutrient rich soil. And besides, there is nothing better than the real thing.
I have many more things to tell you why parks are bad but this is getting too long.
What about natives? What if there is a tribe that does not do drugs because it is in their culture? Should strangers be allowed to come and disrespect their culture and natives not be able to have their own place? Colonialism much?
Edit: most people do not see killing animals as harming anyone (or anything as you put it). For them animals = furniture. Therefore, the example stays.
We do not see anarchism as "everyone can do whatever" we see it as "we decide how we behave as a group within that group and not other people"
Gee, I'm sure the cow will feel less pain if I bludgeon it to death out in the field, or the coyote will feel better that it got shot 10 times out in the woods instead of elsewhere.
That’s not remotely the same. Killing animals actually harms something and is an ideological belief consistent with anarchism. You feeling bad because you see yourself as a saviour, and feeling powerless when people don’t submit to taking care of themselves exactly how you want them to, doesn’t count as “harm”.
Taking drugs does not fundamentally harm others. It may hurt your sensibilities but you are not harmed.
Edit: and as for your point about religious communes, why do you think i’d be in favour of that lol? especially if they claimed to be anarchist and then enforced their ideology upon the commune? They’re not anarchist, and neither are anti-drug “communes”
I didn't say anything about queer people attacking straight people, what the hell are you talking about? And yes, I understand that being vegan isn't ideal for some. Didn't malign those folks, did I? Think you're looking for something that ain't there. Still isn't an excuse to not consider how we treat animals and how worthy of condemnation it is. Also, Jesus kinda exacerbated the problem tenfold by purging any worldview that might hold Nature in high regard.
That is still the same fundamental issue. Having a contract that’s basically signed under duress (or not signed at all, if your commune exists long enough for future generations to enter the picture) for anyone with limited access to housing (as is often the case for people likely to use drugs) isn’t magically erasing the fact you are dictating what others are doing to themselves.
You are not “harmed” by their actions, your unhealed trauma (or lack of emotional maturity if this isn’t coming from anywhere else) is doing all of that. You are fundamentally deciding what people can and cannot do regardless of if it hurts nobody else. Again, this wouldn’t be the case if it was a recovery commune, but from the sounds of it, it’s not.
Would you kick out people who don’t exercise enough? What about smokers? Would you allow piercings? What about neurodivergent people who need it for medication? Where does your control over peoples bodies begin and end?
That's why I called you out for moving the goalposts, you transformed it to an issue where there is a single factor.
You mentioned "a tasty burger" that the only difference is the killing of an animal. This is more than "oversimplifying" the issue.
Do you think that I am going out of my way to kill animals or that I derive pleasure from it? No.
> Do you consider animals that eat meat superior to the animals that don't?
No? I don't think anything makes an animal inherently 'superior' to other animals. Superior can have a lot of meanings here, but I'll assume you meant superior in value.
>but also scientifically inaccurate.
Ok but their moral agency is vastly different to ours. They probably don't have enough moral agency to stop themselves from killing their prey. That was my point.
>I could still argue how this is not (by itself) and act of supremacy, but the goalposts are now moved so far
Ok, my bad, I moved the goalposts. I'm a disingenuous person or whatever. Now please argue to me how *choosing* to eat a burger rather than a beyond burger isn't an act of supremacy?
Key word here is choice.
You are going in circles.
I am not asking you whether or not "natural law" inherently includes the notion of superiority. Nor am I asking a non-human animal their opinion on the notion of superiority.
I am asking you, a human, your honest opinion about something. Do **you** *consider* animals that eat meat superior to the animals that don't?
> Because animals have no moral agency
Also, axiomatically accepting this is not only humanist bullshit, but also scientifically inaccurate. Our research shows that there are species except ours that exhibit signs of moral reasoning.
> If you can eat a tasty burger without killing an animal but you choose to do so anyway
And now, finally, you are presenting a situation where the only difference between eating plants and meat is the killing of an animal. This is either extremely lazy, or completely dishonest.
Essentially you are presenting it as if someone that eats meat does it solely for the pleasure of killing itself.
I could still argue how this is not (by itself) and act of supremacy, but the goalposts are now moved so far you can't even see the original field.
We all agree to curtail freedom of each other to avoid causing potential harm to ourselves and others. Why should not we be allowed to do what we want and find beneficial for us? There is no consent broken.
There was a post at some point where it was asked whether domination kinks are allowed under anarchism and it was a resounding yes from the reddit community. How come we cannot basically do the same but for a reason that does not involve sex and get bashed, called all kinds of names and posts removed for it? It seems to me that many people here see "no drugs" and just get seriously offended.
If a person starts using drugs and dialogue does not work then they most probably would have to leave. We are going to arrange safe departure, of course.
I'm pretty sure humans put themselves on top long before Jesus came onto the scene. Pretty sure early hominids felt similar. But that's besides the point. I don't think there is anything about queer people that can kill a straight person. Like if a straight person tried dating a queer person, that's not going to kill them. Going vegan can legitimately kill people. Should those people just accept that and die to "knock them down a peg"?
There are people who cannot be vegan. They simply can't. It will kill them. Should we let them die? Should we tell them that their lives aren't worth saving?
Ehhh… I think parks are destructive. I don’t like nature being caged! I live out in the backwoods, I could die at any moment! And I love it! I’m at peace, truly one with the cycle of nature, not being embalmed and stuffed into a box to never rot…
the only downside to this is that damn coyotes ate my fucking cat, and my other cat killed one in revenge. The other cat is a fucking badass. I also have killed a couple of coyotes when they ate my cat, since they are a bit overpopulated and I wanted revenge. I found the one that ate my cat after five kills. I cut open all their stomachs and searched for the fur. I collected all the pelts and sewed myself a nice coat! I then cut up the coyotes meat and fed it to my dog and cats.
But anyways back on topic about getting rid of parks and having true nature instead! There are no cops! It’s peaceful, secluded and you can do whatever you want! You use tech less because wifi sucks! All kinds of positives are to be had in true nature! So build yourself a shack today!!!
I’m sorry for the weird comments OP, I know exactly which post you’re talking about and you’re right about the comments it received. It was the post made by the commune-founder in Estonia looking for advice.
I personally thought that his proposals had too much room for potential exploitation. It’s not like no one or everyone owned that land, this one founder did. He was also overcharging them and taking *all* of their resources. This is not anarchism, this is one person owning/taking everything at the potential expense of others (sound familiar?). Anarchism is about everyone being able to support themselves and others as per their abilities and *personal preferences*. Not about being forced to give up everything of yours to someone else.
One of the other comments put it nicely, there is a distinction between personal property and private property. The commune-founder didn’t seem to have much regard for *either*, that isn’t something anarchists generally support. And again the private property was all owned by one guy, as opposed to being fairly divided or not owned by anyone at all. Fairly divided property is acceptable, disproportionate ownership/power is the real problem.
But what about other people who care about that person and for whom it is devastating to see how that person is killing themselves due to ignorance?
In our case the answer to that was that these other people should be able to intervene. We think that we have a right to protect others that we care about from harm. Even if they harm themselves.
not hard to answer that at all.
should we keep breeding animals like pugs, for example, just because they already exist, and if it werent for the sake of people wanting to own a dog who struggles to breath because they find them cute, those dogs wouldnt even exist...
better to never have been born than being born just because someone else wants to gobble your dismembered body and the only reason someone takes care of you is because they cant let you die before they have the sick pleasure of killing you themselves.
people who claim they give an animal a good life before they kill them (or pay someone else to do so) must have some twisted desire for power or control.
>Why? Because the answer is obviously no?
Because animals have no moral agency. Their only motivation and "choice" is to survive
>Did I say anything about laws of nature?
Your original question was whether I thought superiority was inherent in nature.
>But why? You haven't given any reasons.
If you can eat a tasty burger without killing an animal but you *choose* to do so anyway, how would that not be you expressing your superiority over that animal?
I have to say I find this argument really strange, considering we already have this more or less in reverse.
We are legally free to kill and eat (certain) nonhuman animals. However, in most places and in most situations, nonhuman animals who cause harm to humans are executed, regardless of reason.
So in our current society, we expect those with the least power to behave the most responsibly (or, at least, we kill them if they don't), and that's.... more ethically consistent, somehow?
Hey, the last thing I said in my message was, feel free to ask me about my thoughts. You and others seem to be using my comment as a strawman for your moral agenda.
Don't shame people because of your perceived view of their choices. Don't shame people for not choosing to struggle and fight a fight. That's fine virtue signaling, moral impressive suggesting crap.
I lived without using a single fucking dollar for hair-a-decade and having chickens and goats were essential to that.
They up cycle waste into higher did sources and create rich fertilizers. I don't believe it's immoral to kill a goat. Eating animal products can be a tool to dismantle capitalism.
I call l could make wild assumptions about veganism based on my biases, too. Let's try it! All you ethics-lacking assholes want to claim superiority while importing much-needed coconuts and avocados from near the equator. Who harvested that? Are you saving the world with the gas you needed to burn to get those here? Etc.
The point is your prejudice is showing. You're biased to your prescribed lifestyle and I don't want that on me. I don't want your morals either.
When you raise animals, they're your friends. They only have one bad day if you do it right. That partnership can be used to enrich your lives, and even save animal genetics that capitalism has no incentive to work to keep on the planet.
You think so? In my experience, usually everybody congratulates the killer on a ',humane, clean kill' and gloats about how delicious the animal looks.
>Screw off with your forceful beliefs.
Oh hey, I'm trying to tell you human supremacists to do the same! See, we do share something in common! We both hate forceful beliefs! Human supremacy/anthropocentrism is a belief that humans are entitled to the bodies of animals. This belief is materialized in the form of slaughterhouses where animals are tortured and killed!
>transgenders need special expensive medication
The exact same medications that cis people sometimes need. In fact all our forms of HRT are more commonly taken by cis people than trans people, except for injectable testosterone
You might as well rant about women constantly needing expensive medical intervention, due to childbirth and menopause. Or people with mental health issues needing very expensive therapy. It's nonsensical to fixate on the healthcare some of us trans people require, especially when it's made as difficult to access as it is. If it is a big conspiracy of the healthcare business, then they're not doing a very good job of it since transsexual healthcare is next to impossible to access in most countries
Not sure I get the questionbut CrimethInc has book called Recipes for Disaster
Exactly as predicted, you have jackshit.
Asking you for sources is not the same as trying to prove you wrong. Trying to equate one to the other is sophistry and pointless polarization. In times of panic, clear thinking is needed, and false dichotomies are antithetical to that.
> These are facts based off of publicly available data.
I'm all ears for proof of "the global banking system [being] on the verge of collapsing". I have never heard of such a herculean study that would allow to show that, since it involves knowledge of the economy of a large number of countries (so speaking dozens of languages is required too), but I'm not a specialist, and I don't know how to find it. Since your expert skills and knowledge are so advanced that you do not realize non-experts cannot find reliable sources as easily as you do in the vast pool of "publicly available data", I'm sure it will be trivial for you to make use of your knowledge organization system and pull up at least one set of keywords, or some reference.
I hope all of the anarchists that voted for him because "at least it's not Le Pen" reconsider their stance.
Solidarity.
Lol that’s some bullshit, show typical people footage of people shooting and skinning an animal and they’ll be disgusted. Let alone factory farm footage.
You don’t have to kill anything, the animal could die and you're standing in the vicinity. Bam! Guilt-free nutrients that don’t come from plants.
i'm kinda curious what's up with him because i might have personal experience. i'm a firm believer in not getting people ~~killed~~ **edit after automod message: hurt! not getting people hurt with bad dietary advice! hell idk, you tell me how to phrase this**, and even in *generally deferring to experts*, if that helps, but honestly, i'd probably have no idea whatsoever. feel free to direct him to my reddit history or DM me if you want
if this is a closed case: best of luck to you all
Nah. Almost nobody is uncomfortable with the concept or action of killing an animal and processing it's body. For most people, ending the life of an animal is as easy as ticking a box or stimming rocks against the lake. Animal life is pretty damn cheap.
I said that you should figure out what is the most likely point the person is making. We know that transphobic people exist and so if someone says “kill all trans people” then it’s likely they’re saying what they mean. Nice try though.
And once again the argument is being pivoted away from the main point. I’m not overly concerned with forcing this edge case of indigenous resistance fighters that you bring up to be vegan. Although I do find it interesting how someone on an anarchist sub is insisting that we uphold their tradition and not at all try to challenge their worldview. Hopefully you are against FGM for example which is traditional and commonly practiced in some locations.
The actual argument is: if you have the means to go vegan but choose not(please no more edge cases), then you can’t be a leftist.
Way to cry "muh anthropomorphism" and ignore your own anthropoCENTRISM and supremacist ideology.
Here you go you slave-driving POS: https://our-compass.org/2014/06/13/slavery-its-still-a-thing-christopher-sebastian-mcjetters/
Edit: Apparently I have to be more careful in how I say your comment lacked any semblance of critical thinking.
No? I literally said indigenous, why would you inject something irrelevant I never said into the convo?
Also nah, fulfilling the role of a predator in a balanced way with nature can often promote life in the area in general. It’s either that or we kill both predatory animals and prey animals so we’re not killing animals anymore, or we get rid of all predatory animals and micromanage all natural ecosystems by managing the breeding of every prey animal in the wild so they don’t overrun the ecosystem. Delusional shit. Humans can fulfill the role of predator in an even more humane and less hierarchical way than many natural predators do.
I'm not even saying Veganism is morally wrong. Just that it is a hierarchical belief system which expects those with the greatest power to behave the most responsibly.
There have been plenty of hisorical hierarchies where people considered morally better are more restricted in action.
The caste system of India is one historical example. People of the Brahmin caste are not allowed to eat meat or handle anything leather because killing and death are related with spiritual corruption. Similarly they are not allowed to be served food by someone of a lower caste because someone lower cooking food is considered a type of taining the food. Brahmin however are expected to give out food and alms to people of lower caste.
An example in fiction is the proles in 1984. The proles are just regular people who are considered almost like animals by members of the Party. But otherwise they are pretty much free to do as they wish, they can even mildly criticize the Party so long as it doesn't verge into real possible revolutionary action. Meanwhile Party members are watched 24/7 for any deviance.
Very few people resort to cannibalism or have ever done so in circumstances of desperation, though. And it's funny how there are tons of 'killing animals for food is good because people need to eat', yet cannibalism is always wrong regardless of context.
Look bud, my comment on your post wasn't an attempt at a debate. I think you know how often this topic comes up in this sub and how it always turns out, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have seen a pattern here, and my comment was to point out that pattern. You have done nothing to stop the pattern in your own post. So here's the pattern:
Vegan says they want to do a poll and asks how many vegans there are here,
Because this is a poll and non-vegans believe it to be in good faith, they respond (because that's how polls work. You need both a yes and a no, not just a yes.)
Vegans see the non-vegans and go after them. Some are kind and just asking questions, sure, but others go down the route you have chosen and call people murderers and slavers and other, frankly, other very strange accusations,
The comments become a toxic wasteland.
So let's pretend for a second that I think you didn't intend for that to happen, as I'd hoped last night. I would rather offer a warning in good faith back in the hope that you would at the very least keep it in mind and be kind and offer grace towards those who aren't vegan. Sadly, you didn't do that. But, frankly, idc. It just proves to me that all these "poll to see who's vegan" posts are the trap I thought they were. So no, I'm not going to humor you with a debate. You are the one making the positive claim, therefore it is your duty to first prove why one must be vegan to be an anarchist.
Oh yeah, you’re totally right. The the reason the cover is like this is that it makes for a more compelling image. Showing a more realistic cover where the gunner is firing behind or to the side is less effective for an image like this because the action is moving away from the viewer.
No gunner should ever do what ours is doing, it would be too easy to accidentally hit Makhno or one of the horses.
I'm sorry??? Mind pointing me to what the fuck you're talking about?
>Constantly repeating this doesn't magically make it true.
I've posted reasons why this is the case and examples of it in practice, including actual examples of long standing and successful gift economies. The reason is simple, I'm not going to work on behalf of others if they don't provide me with my own needs and wants in turn.
>mandates exchange you keep responding with that every economic model mandates exchange and that's quite simply not true
"Mandates," is the wrong word here. All economic systems involve exchange, including personal relationships. If one doesn't get what they want out of a relationship they end it. Anything else would involve coercion of some sort, which in relationship terms equals abuse.
>The reciprocity of a gift economy, for instance, is not an exchange in the economic sense
Yes it is. Again, look at how historical gift economies worked, they take "careful note of what others ate, owned, received as gifts, and whether or not they were sufficiently generous in return." The Maori people, who had a gift economy would sometimes even kill those who constantly failed to reciprocate. These are historical facts, not something I'm simply making up.
The same thing happens in markets expressed the terms of exchange are expressed as a number, prices.
>much is not a feature of a normal gift economy
Read Graeber, read James C. Scott, read Kropotkin, read Gelderloos. Literally pick up any piece of anarchist literature and you'll realize how wrong you are. Don't just take it from me. We're debating historical facts and the only way you'll realize you're wrong is through verification. Altruism cannot be the basis for organizing an entire economy.
I am personally not going to be altruistic if my own needs and wants aren't met, I'll tell you that much. Where would I fit into your imaginary utopia?
>it's not a gift if you expect something back.
Even the first few lines of the Wikipedia article proves you wrong on this. There is an implicit expectation of future rewards in gift economies, otherwise there's no point in providing gifts as people need to *survive*.
Different morality like what? There's nuance in the extremes but the basics like don't intentionally kill, exploit, oppress animals are pretty clear cut.
Like your depressive episode example, you're not vegan when you're eating animals, just like you're not sober when you're drinking. But slip ups happen and you can get back on the wagon.
>I think humans, as social animals, will virtually always understand when other humans are exploiting them, even where they're otherwise impaired or incapacitated.
People are unwittingly exploited all the time. Not nearly to the degree to which animals are, and often not in a physical sense at all, but still. Financial scams are a great example - people sometimes donate to con men, grifters, etc not out of an expectation of return on investment but out of a sense of moral duty, so to them the money lost is worth as much or less than the sense of moral gratification. But it's founded on a lie. Is the grifter morally off the hook then?
"What they don't know won't kill them" just doesn't seem like a morally tenable position to me. Especially when...what they don't know WILL kill them, lmao.
There is no left in Southern Europe because the fascists killed quite a few, and everyone left (pun intended) is afraid. Police forces in these countries are full of literal neo nazis. We live in a far more dystopian present than we would like to believe.
Here’s their [website](https://n2thewoodsproduction.wixsite.com/blackrainbowmovement?fbclid=PAAaarKajeN7ZxCj7ZRFJLzNn-q0L2DJjNJGhnnW8rNJM9FkMo6lXb7VNqYms)
I think the film would have to star a queer BIPOC is the only stipulation. I’m not 100% sure though.
> you’ve never eaten a cat’s bodypart
Also I haven't eaten crickets, tofu, clams, dragonfruit, or avocado. Because those choices have never been presented to me (in the grocery store). I am not the one making the arbitrary division. I do live in a speciesist society. But, I would eat all of those species if I had the chance.
Also, the divide is not really arbitrary, its more of a practical one. But I get why you wouldn't care about it.
> there’s really nothing about IBD or IBS that says one should eat certain things, it’s a disease which to manage the symptoms, it’s recommended to avoid foods that trigger symptoms
What if your symptoms are triggered by everything but chicken body parts?
> And to add, why would I cause suffering to others? Last thing I wanted while I was going through my intestine pain, is to eat the intestines or vital organs (or limbs) of another animal. I had physical pain, which is a natural part of life, since we all will one day get sick and die. Why would I want to be the cause of extreme physical pain to someone else?
Everything we do is to maximize our comfort. Your morals dictated that being the indirect cause of discomfort to another being was to be avoided even at the cost of your pain/pleasure, and this is a net win for you.
Not everybody has the same morals as you though.
This is actual praxis because the cop now has to go back to the station and change and that time isn’t spent harassing black people
Queer, crip, vegan anarchist
Queer, crip, vegan anarchist
>Where did I say anything about encouraging? Acknowledging is not the same thing.
Fair
>Who's them anyway? Do you think the same reality applies to mice, elephants, seals, starlings, buffaloes, puffer fishes, and crocodiles?
No, animals differ a lot. I tend to group all animals together in a discussion because they are discriminated against as a group, not just as individual species. Speciesists also tend to shift the discussion to *which* animals are worth ethical consideration after awhile, being all encompassing about animal liberation prevents this a bit.
>Do you see how seeing the world as a binary is ridiculous?
The binary of supremacy being bad and liberation being good is fine by me. Binaries can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean every single one is wrong or misguided. Government is bad, all government is, that stance isn't exactly leaving much room for shades of grey and yet I have a feeling users here will agree.
>There's accounts of female chimpanzees killing all the males of their group because they were too violent and rapey. What do you think of that?
I think animals in general are more intelligent than we give them credit for, and that the ethical capability of individual species varies greatly. Chimpanzees, being such close relatives us, likely have more ethical agency than a mouse. They show far more understanding of the harm suffered not just to themselves, but to their community. Ultimately though, another species ethical capabilities are not our concern because we lack effective means of communication with most of them, when we discuss what action is appropriate in society, what behavior should be encouraged, we are discussing what behavior we accept from humans. We should not be content with humans who torture, rape or murder, and yet we are *just as long as their victim isn't human.*
>I am not judging them for murder. Because there's no point. Their reality isn't ours, even though there are similarities.
A very good point, judging others when their perspectives are fundamentally different is problematic. Holding animals to our ethical standards without being sure of their ethical capabilities would be ableist.
>The way they live is valid. Whatever change happens to they way of life is valid.
>The same applies to us.
Here's where you go off track. Nevermind the difficulty of pinning down what you mean when you say our "Way of life" is valid. I would contend that a murderers way of life isn't, nor is a rapists, and i'm not interested in splitting hairs about which of their victims "counts", killing an innocent being is murder, straight the fuck up. Why does an animals lack of understanding of ethics, or difference in ethics, or capability for ethical action have any bearing on our actions? We can recognize that we are different than animals and not hold the supremacist view that these differences make us better. In trying to better understand our behaviors as humans we have to analyze how we treat others, as well as who we deem is an "other". Our constant dehumanization of animals has caused us not to view them as individuals who deserve ethical consideration, and other bigotries operate on the same principles of dehumanization. [Seriously, racism, sexism and ableism are inherently linked to speciesism.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/nonvegan_leftists_why_not/j94ivug/)
Saying, "what we do to animals is like slavery," is analogous and not equating the two. If you look at it through their perspective, I think it would be hard to see the difference. My moral scale says human slavery is worse than animal slavery, but both are bad, so I think we shouldn't participate in either. When you buy an animal product an animal has to die, it's the intention. Products can be made in ethical ways, sure most aren't, but slaughtering an animal unnecessarily will never be ethical.
What happens to your chickens when they stop producing eggs? You kill them right? Because they have stopped producing a product for you, so their only worth to you is their eggs and meat. What is the chickens benefit of being raised to over produce eggs and then slaughtered well before the age of its normal life span? Did the original foul that the modern chicken came from ask for this to be done? Does the chicken need you for protection? Of course, but if it wasn't bred in the first place it wouldn't need you. Should we breed them out of existence? That is a much larger philosophical debate that I have with myself often, but using that as a crutch to continue to harms animals in the way that we do, billions of murdered chickens a year just for pleasuring our taste, is not a good excuse.
Veganism isn't going to happen over night, supply and demand will always keep balancing. No one is forcing you to eat meat, the less you buy, the less incentive they have to raise and murder animals. Sure the government will continue to use meat propaganda and subsidies to keep it going, but that can only last so long. If no one is buying it, then they will give up.
Yes we are factory farming a single breed of chicken, well primarily two. The broiler chicken is raised for meat and is used in most factory farms around the world, invented in America. Can't remember the primary hen laying chicken, but once again it was selectively bred to produce the most eggs and is primarily used by egg farms.
In this "war" you could just stop eating animals.
**"Raising animals, in my thinking is the best way for us all to survive this"**
Lol, who's all of us? Just the humans right? I don't think the animal is like "The best way for me to survive this is to have my throat slit"
Bank crashes are psychological phenomenons in that everyone has to lose trust in all of the banks at the same time to create a run on their money. SVB was unique in that all it's assets were long term bonds that tanked when interest rates were hiked up via the fed. Anything above 50 percent is considered ridiculous and they had all of it in long term 10 year bonds. The rich folks, including Musk and Peter Thiel, created a run among their very wealthy peers. A lot of the startups followed suit. The response of the fed to cover uninsured accounts via a tax levied on other banks is likely going to do enough to ensure public trust in the bank down the street doesn't crater. The narrative that svb is the rich people startup bank and not just an average working class bank is helping to stem fears and stop a run on local banks. This likely means that a serious collapse will be avoided and things will bounce back. As for your buddy looking into bank asset selloff, yeah, banks are in a bad spot. It only hurts them in a big way if a run happens though.
How is it not superiority to kill an animal just to consume it? I think that might be the peak of superiority. Thinking that you're so superior that your taste buds are more important than other lives.
P.S. I'm not vegan, I just agree with their prescriptions and I'm a hypocrite.
Yep recently got downvoted for saying I agree with veganism but, after trying to pull my diet back closer to veganism and almost ending up in hospital after losing 4kg drastically, I simply can’t…like..I’ll die. And I know what I am doing with cooking, macros, fibre, low FODMAP etc etc. And if I lose weight drastically my baby will have to drink formula because I can’t nurse them (and no shame on those who prefer or need to use formula, fed is best). Formula which I can’t afford anyhow btw. So…As much as I support posts like this, would it kill OPs to consider disabled people.
>We can only agree that we must satisfy beyond the need to dominate others to get satisfaction which begins with post-scarcity.
Animal agriculture dominates the lives of individuals who could be much happier outside it's abusive and fatal grip.
Not dominating others isn't always satisfying. In those situations, I think ethics are more important.
>Any will even a vegan one is fundamentally a will that is imposed on animals.
I agree with this. However, not being vegan imposes on pigs, chickens, cows, fish, and other a animals on top of ones killed in crop production to feed those animals.
Animals only convert a small amount of resources to food, the rest is wasted.
Yeah idk if you know this but animals have to eat, and feeding 70 billion of them every year requires us to grow crops, which wouldn't ya know it those crops are grown by exploited people!
Also, you can grow corn without killing someone, but you can't have a beef burger without murder. Sure, no consumption is ethical, but to pretend that there isn't more ethical consumption choices is absurd. If you can live on soy burgers, and the cost of that is poor working conditions for the laborers, that sucks, but it is in fact better than buying orphan meat burgers.
You realize workers in slaughter houses get PTSD, commit suicide at a far higher rate, and are more likely to commit violent crime, right? You know, because killing defenseless animals all day is traumatizing.
Oh and you realize that most crops we grow go to animals, right? 80% of soy production is for animal feed, so say goodbye to the Amazon rainforest and hello to climate change that disproportionately effects developing countries!
> I don't come from a lineage with a strong background in being enslaved, and the parallel still offends me.
The comparison is apt, and those that have faced oppression often agree.
>“In the midst of our high-tech, ostentatious, hedonistic lifestyle, among the dazzling monuments to history, art, religion, and commerce, there are the black boxes. These are the biomedical research laboratories, factory farms, and slaughterhouses – faceless compounds where society conducts its dirty business of abusing and killing innocent, feeling beings. These are our Dachaus, our Buchenwalds, our Birkenaus. Like the good German burghers, we have a fair idea of what goes on there, but we don’t want any reality checks.”
- Dr. Alex Hershaft, Warsaw Ghetto survivor
The link between speciesism and racism is undeniable to any that have studied it, I would encourage you to do that, perhaps starting [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/comment/j94ivug/).
>Lmfao, this is some classist, ableist bullshit right here.
Carnism relies on ableism, many arguments for why it is ethically fine to kill animals rely on them not being intelligent or capable in the same ways we are.
>Whatever your personal moral feelings are about veganism,
Fuck morals, fuck ethics. I'm anti hierarchy and speciesists aren't.
>the fact is that many people in marginalized communities cannot afford, find, or prepare a 100% plant-based diet due to any number of factors.
Yeah veganism is cheaper, and ingredients tend to cook faster too. No consequences for eating raw soy or raw beans, but raw meat will fuck you up.
>What about lack of access in food deserts?
You're telling me that your isolated location doesn't have rice and beans? The only source of protein is meat? Seriously?
>Physical/mental disabilities that prevent people from preparing a diverse and healthy plant-based diet?
Probably the fairest point in your whole comment, still doesn't make the oppression of animals right though.
>Lack of knowledge or education on veganism due to say, I don't know, working three jobs just to survive?
Oh so I can torture, rape or murder so long as I am busy enough not to know it's wrong. Gotcha.
>Gatekeeping leftist ideologies from a classist, ableist perspective dripping with privlege is cringe AF.
Given that rich nations are the ones chowing down on animal corpses, I'd say eating expensive, resource intensive foods like meat is the privilege. Your average American eats 124kg of meat every year, your average Indian? 4kg per year. [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption)
Here's an idea, fight supremacy even if you benefit from it. [Speciesism is bigotry, straight up](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/comment/j94ivug/), and you can't call yourself a liberationist while you support the torture, rape and murder of others just because they are different than you.
Where did I say anything about encouraging? Acknowledging is not the same thing.
Why do you apply human concept to animals if we are different from them?
Who's them anyway? Do you think the same reality applies to mice, elephants, seals, starlings, buffaloes, puffer fishes, and crocodiles?
Humans are different, and all the other animals are the same? Yet somehow, it's the meat eaters that are human supremacist?
Do you see how seeing the world as a binary is ridiculous?
There's accounts of female chimpanzees killing all the males of their group because they were too violent and rapey. What do you think of that?
Do i think we should emulate them? No. I simply understand that chimps, just like us, have agency and thoughts. And came up with a solution. I am not judging them for murder. Because there's no point. Their reality isn't ours, even though there are similarities.
We are no more or less different from them than they are from hyenas.
The way they live is valid. Whatever change happens to they way of life is valid.
The same applies to us.
>The consumption of meat is not a crime against anything
you literally have to kill an animal. From the eyes of the animal it’s definitely a crime.
>you can shit talk me for being a scavenger but your outlook is fucking lame.
That’s not what I’m doing. I’m “shit talking” you because you eat murdered animals.
>It's my thought that a lot of animals wouldn't exist the current world if we don't bring them with us. In my mind, it's sorta a defacto genecide by attrition if we don't raise animals and keep them safe by our modern understanding of the world.
We only bring these animals in the world to imprison and murder them, we also bring them into the world in numbers that they could never realistically reproduce at.
As for your "genocide by attrition" sentiment... Are you really arguing that forcefully breeding a group, imprisoning them and then killing them forever is better than letting them die off? Even if that is your stance, it still reeks of prejudice. You're treating these animals as a monolith without wants or needs. They never consented to being bred and imprisoned, that is enough reason to stop doing it. Additionally, these are individuals, and subjecting millions of individuals to pain and suffering cannot be justified simply because it continues their species. A chicken cares about having enough room to spread its wings, not extinction.
>On the subject of slavery. I don't think that is appropriate to call animals slaves. I think they aren't our equivalent or experience our world in the same way we do.
A pig sees through its eyes, just as you do, it breathes through its lungs, just as you do. Each part of a pig mirrors your body, it smells with its nose pumps blood with its heart, hears with its ears.
So by what magic would its brain not be like your own?
I concede that you are not identical to a pig, but to pretend that you and I do not share similarities:this is self deception.
Animals feel every emotion you do, if you or a pig is struck with a bat, you react the same. If you think that animals do not experience the world in a similar way you think incorrectly, and without regard for our scientific understanding of biology and sentience.
>A human enslaved experiences these things and I think it's not the experience of my goats and chickens and dogs and cats.
I am quite confident that if you own only a few animals, your relationship to them is kinder than most. Factory farms are the modern concentration camps, but that doesn't mean that individual farming isn't problematic. By what right are your animals **yours?** Why is there a relationship of property rather than camaraderie? When did you first start believing you were entitled to another person's body?
First of all, fair point on the india abstaining from meat for religious reasons, but that list still has all the developing countries at the bottom. Exploited areas are poorer and meat is a luxury good, that is a fact, carnism is privilege.
> Perhaps to you personally your next meal is not so important but that’s specific to you. To me skipping a meal can have dire consequences.
As dire as what will happen to the animal you ate? I doubt it.
>If I inadvertently fast for too long I can, and do black out, and while running heavy equipment that can be less than ideal.
I'm not asking you to fast, eat something that doesn't have feelings and a life.
>I did learn a new word today “ specieist.” To be honest I don’t quite understand what it means. I am all for human equality but do you honestly assert the life of a squirrel is equal to that of your child?
My child would have more worth *to me* than a squirrel, this says nothing about what their lives are worth, it says only that I value one more than the other. My discrimination is also an emotional one, rather than one built on speciesism.
Could you name the trait a human has that an animal does not have that qualifies humans for ethical consideration?
In other words, why is it wrong to murder a human, but not an animal?
Like if you breeze over everything else I write, sure, fuck it, but *why is it wrong to rape and kill a human?* Tell me that, and if you can, then explain why it's fine to do it to an animal.
>You invoke cannibalism as a social taboo to drive home a point, failing to realize cannibalism is almost instinctive in a survival situation.
I meant murder and then cannibalization, my bad for not being clear. I have no ethical qualms really with eating a human or animal corpse in a survival situation, but eating someone who is already a corpse is different than making someone a corpse and then eating them, also last I checked you weren't in a survival situation. If you eat meat when you're stranded on an island with no other food sources, good for you man, but right here, right now, you're surrounded by plant based options which are cheaper and don't incur a obligate cost of life. Keep your hypotheticals and engage with me regarding your real, actual circumstances, rather than random situations which are not likely to ever happen.
>I’m not even going to talk about your last comment. All omnivores are racist? Really?
I don't know what this comment is referencing, I don't recall ever claiming this. My claim is that racism operates on the foundation of Speciesism, not that every omnivore is racist.
>I think it’s safe to assume you don’t hunt/ trap. I’m not big on hunting either. But, do you not fish?
Obviously not, it isn't my place to take another persons life for my entertainment or amusement.
They are killed at a year old after being trucked off to an execution chamber in terror. Where is this decent life you speak of?
I think they were owed 175 billion and there are potentially 200 billion in assets to bw recouped.
HOWEVER it seems as if Goldman Sachs bought a lot of it and was actually the buyer who triggered the 1.8 billion loss that started this run. However I'm having trouble finding more info on that to be honest. It's SEEMS as if they probably made out from this. Which is par for the course with those bastards...
I would assume the assets are actual instances of liquidity they have as assets not the startups they funded right?
Most people are okay with killing animals to eat. Except for me.
It actually can be applied. Our psychology is a real thing and if some action gives us psychological trauma then we can arrive to a conclusion that that action is immoral (like killing animals, hence veganism). Otherwise, logic using our community's mission as a premise can be used. That is how we got antinatalism, for example. Bringing people into this world subjects them to unlimited amounts of suffering and results in their death anyway. Also, there are other people that already exist who we can help to live their life happier, hence antinatalism.
Oh i see. Thank you for enlightening me.
So I should give people the benefit of the doubt when people say "kill all trans people" because surely the doesn't actually really mean "kill" or "all" .... Right? That would be arguing in bad faith if I disagreed with that statement... Right?
It's not just a minority of people with health problems, I'm also talking about the majority of indigenous resistance fighters who certainly are not "vegan". Do you not consider their struggle a left wing struggle? You gonna practice more colonialism by telling them to change their traditional diets? Decolonize your perspective.
My point, If you care to really hear it, is that when people throw this phrase around they are essentially gatekeeping the left (something which we don't need) based on an extremely western philosophical version of ethics and morality (which TBH barely hold up to much scrutiny) and is exclusionary of the practices of many indigenous and first peoples. Which in my opinion is a bad thing. For the left. But ya'll keep patting yourselves on the back for being oh so morally superior.
That is true, but we should always be wary of venerating anyone like that lest we fall into the same trap
Assuming you were healthy and you were being killed within a fraction of your lifespan, are you being genuine in that you wouldn’t care about being killed for unnecessary sensory pleasure?
We can do all that without the brutality though. We don't need to kill animals or eat their products to survive, or to be healthy. We don't need to kill animals to grow plants either.
Live and let live, do what you want as long as you don't cause others harm. This goes for animals too.
If you can be vegetarian, imo there are no ways at all to ethically eat meat. You're choosing to kill an animals because you want to, not because you need to. Imo it's obvious that that just is never ethical, no matter how quick and painless you do it. Imo, unnecessary killing is inherently evil.
So you're actually fine with being killed because someone else wants to eat you...? Mind you this is not 'you die from old age/whatever and someone eats you afterwards', it's literally 'you should die because i want to eat this'.
And usually you won't live a long life either. Even on the best farms cows don't live much older than 5-10 years maximum. Cows can become around 20 years old.
Imagine you getting killed at 35-40. Is that a good life?
I appreciate your well thought out response. You’re quite clearly articulate and passionate so Iwill respond as best I can from the cab of my excavator. Forgive me, I am not the most educated anarchist to ever grace our circles. India, for example is as a former colonial state poor, but simultaneously the fastest growing economy in the world. They abstain from beef from religious reasons and I am not that well read on Indian history to hazard a guess as to the genesis of their beef aversion in the religious teachings.
Perhaps to you personally your next meal is not so important but that’s specific to you. To me skipping a meal can have dire consequences. If I inadvertently fast for too long I can, and do black out, and while running heavy equipment that can be less than ideal.
I did learn a new word today “ specieist.” To be honest I don’t quite understand what it means. I am all for human equality but do you honestly assert the life of a squirrel is equal to that of your child ? I find that astounding. Sure, I would value the life of my dog over the life of a stranger, as this dog provides service and utility. But if the accusation is, I value human life over that of an earthworm or a trout then unequivocally, yes. Again yes, my family’s life and happiness is the single most important thing to me as a person. You double down on this equality philosophy so again I must ask, idk if your house had ever been on fire and I pray you have never had to experience the utter horror of such an event, but in the hypothetical would you ponder the hierarchical importance of your children vs your pets? Bah!
You invoke cannibalism as a social taboo to drive home a point, failing to realize cannibalism is almost instinctive in a survival situation. Every society throughout time devoid of adequate protein sources organically devolves to cannibalism. From Africa, to Asia, to the islands. Humans must consume protein to survive. Here I will cite Diamond’s “guns, steel, and germs.” So again you presume from a place of moral superiority that I would agree cannibalism is in all ways bad. We disagree. One must do whatever is necessary to persevere and I do not fault the Donners or the Chilean soccer team for surviving. I’ve personally, during quarantine surveyed my children in this exact topic. How many meals until the Joneses are in the smoker…
I’m not even going to talk about your last comment. All omnivores are racist? Really?
In closing, I appreciate your heart felt ideological response but I repeat your passion towards your diet, if anything has strengthened my resolve. Good night though.
Edit* side thought. I think it’s safe to assume you don’t hunt/ trap. I’m not big on hunting either. But, do you not fish?
Let's separate a few things here:
There's the NAT, the North Atlantic Treaty, which comes from a defensive alliance originally started by Britain and France in the wake of WW2 with the main goal of not just helping each other in defence (they were already doing that) but specifically integrating equipment for 'defence'.
Most people will tell you that it was founded to stand against the USSR and that's certainly not untrue, but it's not the whole truth either. After World War 2, Britain and France were the only major imperial powers left in Europe.
The USSR was certainly powerful, it had shown that in its ability to essentially doing single handed on the Eastern Front what it took the combined forces of Britain, the US, France and several other European government-in-exile to do on the Western Front. ^((US nationalists will make a big hullabaloo about US lend-lease helping the USSR early on and that's not unfounded, but the tens of thousands of T-34 tanks the USSR built itself probably had a slightly bigger impact on the later end of the war effort than the couple of hundred tanks that had construction flaws that caused them to be rejected for US service, but not for export, that the USSR received through lend-lease).)
The USSR was, however, also quite busy with both rebuilding itself from the German invasion and establishing control (and puppet governments) over the countries it 'liberated' in Eastern Europe.
The treaty that was just between Britain and France, the treaty that was the precursor to the NAT, was more to prevent Britain and France from going to war with each other over the colonial possessions that became available (read: not possessed by a European power) after the collapse of the German, Italian and Japanese empires (and the weakening of the Netherlands and China) than about defending from any external threat.
And the idea of expanding that treaty into the NAT came about in no small part due to the fact that US wartime propaganda against the Japanese had focussed heavily on opposition to their colonialism (and racism, lots and lots of racism, but that's less relevant to this subject) and now the European powers were quietly (or not so quietly) re-establishing control over those colonies. The idea of a defensive alliance based on the model of the one between Britain and France became a way of preventing the US from insisting too much that the European powers emancipate their colonial possessions.
Essentially the notion of forming an alliance against potential aggression from the USSR was a way for European empires to shift the focus of US foreign policy away from anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism (now that there weren't any worse abusers to put that focus on than themselves) and towards the growing anti-communism. (It's therefore kind of ironic that these days most of us see NATO as a tool for US imperialism, since curbing US *anti-*imperialism was a big reason why the European powers wanted the NAT to exist in the first place and they succeeded a little too well in that).
Now, that's all the NAT, not NAT***O***.
Because those are not quite the same thing.
NATO is the organisation that was created to make sure that the NAT works. A big part of the NAT is that its members try to use standardised equipment. During WW2 was discovered that it's incredibly unhelpful if the countries trying to fight a war together on the same side use completely different measurement systems and completely incompatible equipment. There were a lot of mistakes where, for instance, a French commander would call in an artillery strike at a position 1000 meters away and an American artillery battery would shell a position at 1000 yards away (which is nearly 100 meters off).
A large part of what NATO does is oversee the standardisation of equipment, terminology and protocols.
NATO *does* function as a tool for US imperialism, but not in the sense that it exercises political influence on foreign nations outside the NAT (that's simply not something that falls within what NATO is for). Instead NATO serves as a tool for US imperialism because the US has such a massive arms industry and military budget that the US basically gets to dictate the measurements and standards that all NAT members have to use, because if the US refuses to use a certain measurement or standard, then even if *all* the other nations in the NAT use that standard, the majority of any given NATO force will not be using that measurement or standard.
And therefore non-US NAT signatories are forced to use a lot of US manufactured equipment (which, of course, makes the US arms industry a lot of money), because using their own equipment manufactured to their own standards defeats the purpose of the NAT and can even actively be dangerous. (See, for instance, the number of friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan that resulted from other NAT countries, after decades of not being involved in active wars alongside US troops, refusing to bow the US trying to set all the standards and ending up with IFF -Identify Friend or Foe- equipment that was sending 'We're NATO, don't bomb us' signals at frequencies that US jets couldn't actually pick up.)
In todays society I would say a smartphone is a necessity (and probably a laptop). Participating in society would simply not be possible without one (think about work or college etc).
Besides, animal exploitation is inherently unethical. Killing and using animals in never ethical. Production of a smartphone can in theory be ethical.
I'm a vegetarian and likely would have been one much sooner had it been more acceptable to be one without having ethical problems with eating meat. I'd rather not get into another debate about this, but not all anarchist moral systems even have the capability to form a moral issue with eating meat, namely egoism.
In the end, what made me decide to switch was realizing that my dietary choices were distressing to some in my community (in real life) and I didn't want to be a cause of distress. Turning it into a moral crusade actively prevented me from reaching this conclusion as, as you can probably imagine, it's hard to be concerned about a group of people when you get replies calling you a psychopath and a fake anarchist every time you say you aren't one of them. I have never and will never find moral issue with eating meat. I don't find "moral" issue with anything, and eating meat doesn't really have any material down sides for an egoist. The only thing that could change my view on the morality of eating meat would be to stop being an egoist and I don't see that happening any time in the next decade.
Rather than trying to build a case for why people should want to be vegan, what appears to be a fairly sizable section of vegans have instead decided to spread a moral doctrine as immutable fact which amounts to one of the very apparitions of the mind that I as an egoist base my critique of hierarchy on in the first place. If you personally dislike the idea of eating animals and protecting them gives your life meaning, good for you. That's healthy and I'll even go out of my way to accommodate that for you. If you want to kick people out of the movement if they don't happen to have the exact same moral framework as you and assuming rational people can't disagree with you and must be compromised as a person and an anarchist is toxic and hurts everyone.
I am genuinely so sick of this discourse. All of this is just childish moral sectarianism. Anarchism is a broad economic and political framework that includes many tendencies and moral frameworks within it. The whole point of decentralization is so that individual moral disagreements don't splinter us into a million different fighting subfactions. If you want a central moral program you want to force other communities to adhere to, you missed the point.
So if I kill and eat you it's fine so long as I don't torture you first? I mean, your flesh will help me live and there's nothing inherently evil in that.
In that case you bring your mother to our commune. We have a gift of universal healthcare in Estonia.
Sure, everything has an emotional aspect and it has to be taken into account. That is our point. To be aware of our biases and not shoot ourselves in the foot. Are we really arguing that using scientific principles is not the best way to come to a correct conclusion?
Not a vegan. Industrial farming is horrible, looking down on animals is foolish, but not eating road kill… such a waste.
Also sentients based off Human perception is flimsy and evolving. The idea that some organisms can be ethically consumed because our understanding of their relation with pain and suffering is very human centric.
A vegan diet is ethical in that it doesnt INHERENTLY require the exploitation of another being. The system in which vegan food (ie plants) is produced can be unethical but it is the PRODUCTION of that food that is unethical. In a perfect world a vegan diet would be 100% ethical but even if capitalism was abolished and farm workers were treated great, the animal being killed for food would not be consenting and thus even in this utopia a non-vegan diet would always be less ethical so long as an animal was being used for its body.
I have to eat meat because of a variety of health problems I have, namely IBS an anemia, which unfortunately so far haven’t been controlled on a vegetarian diet + iron supplementation. I still try to limit my consumption of animal products and hope that once my iron levels are back in normal range that supplementation alone can fix it.
I have literally struggled with thoughts of killing myself because I am unable to live on an ethical diet. Can you please stop with this rhetoric.
> Any human who consumes animals is guided by a human supremacist morality
Since when? It is a pragmatic question. When in the history of homo sapiens did we start to become human supremacists?
> entitle them to a "right" to the bodies of non-human animals
You can kill somebody without having the right to. Rights don't exist anyway.
> Industrial society is human supremacist logic epitomized, and capitalism drives an ideological "right" to consume all who are deemed "commodities".
You just throw buzzwords together. Didn't people consume meat before the industrial revolution/capitalism?
Indeed, capitalism and industrialization has changed dramatically our relationship to food, other animals, nature. But the discussion is not about this, it is about the morality of consuming animals. Are you claiming that consuming animals *now* is immoral but consuming them 1000 years ago wasn't?
> Amazing to see supposed "anti-capitalists" supporting the ideological framework of advertising non-human animals as products for consumption.
So if nobody advertises animals as products, we will stop eating meat?
Present. <3
I couldn't agree more with ya! Took me a bit to kick that cheese (casinoid) addiction! lol. Well worth it for so many reasons in the end!
It occurred to me there was less text on the flag but my reading of Cyrillic isn't that good, especially when it's this small. But I can make out with some effort
смерть насильникам трудящихся
Which translates to "Death to the rapists of the workers". According to google at least but I assume the translation can vary a bit.
Build a social circle with a lot of people who have anarchistic leanings and practices.
Do mutual aid.
Act based on your personal morals and basic kindness. Thinking about legality should only come into the equation for the sake of managing the risk of breaking them.
Find joy in breaking stυріԁ laws.
Make the world more like the world you want, in little ways, every day.
it's all good, friend! I'm just not hip to Spain Spanish cop slang... I know "la pasma" from Cataluña... that's about it. Now I know "madero"... Gracias
>I use some indigenous lifestyles as examples of how eating animals can be non parasitic and hierarchical,
When you say “indigenous”, do you mean Native-American? I don't see how human-supremacy becomes acceptable simply because it comes from the Americas.
>I’ve never actually heard a good argument against many of these circumstances which are typically even more ethical than any vegan lifestyle under capitalism
Any vegan lifestyle under any system is more ethical than killing an animal, for the same reason that any not-killing-humans lifestyle under any economic system is more ethical than killing a human.
I was raised veggie and kept up with it as an adult. It's just a personal feeling that I couldn't kill an animal so I don't feel I deserve to eat it. (Not sure I even can anyway, accidentally had a slice of pizza with chorizo on it once and Christ my stomach nearly fell out 😅).
I don't think I've ever told anyone they should be veggie, but if I'm with people and say 'ah no thanks, I don't eat meat' I have to listen to a half hour sermon about the importance of protein and how nice bacon is. I seriously think the whole 'preachy vegan's thing is just projection of the worst kind.
As an ex-Muslim, I am so happy to see this post. I see westerners shit on mainstream Christianity so much (as they should), but if I say ONE critical thing about my Islamic upbringing..suddenly I’m racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, blah blah blah.
MAINSTREAM Islam is horrific. You only need to see how women are treated across Muslim countries (especially Afghanistan!) to notice. If you want to see more, have a go at the Traditional Muslims subreddit. We *absolutely* should be as critical towards Islam as we are towards Christianity. It is not a better religion. It is a religion that actively subjugates women and calls for the murder of apostates and other minorities, ffs. Progressive Muslims are the only acceptable ones, but they are NOT the majority of Muslims and I want you all to understand that.
Just like radical Christians, a huge swarth of Muslims *want you dead* if you’re a leftist/feminist woman or a member of the LGBTQ+. Stop falling for the trap that Islam is better.
>I personally consume meat, but I also oppose animal cruelty.
Paying corporations to harm animals runs counter to opposing animal cruelty.
I do think taking life unnecessarily is cruel regardless if it's instigated by a business or not.
Anyone who says it's not the consumer's fault lacks an understanding of supply and demand and how overproduction affects profit.
If the goal is to stop supporting the unnecessary taking of life, it helps to not to give money to those that do.
>Genetically speaking, our bodies are almost indistinguishable from plants and animals.
The presence of the central nervous system is a key distinguishing feature between plants and animals, save for sponges.
>Humans’ contribution to our world is no more valuable than that of invasive weeds.
I agree humans are an invasive species.
>Instead of cutting meat out entirely, we should create a new system that prioritizes ethical, peaceful death for our companions.
I've heard stories that animal liberationist Rod Coronado consumed road kill for a period of time.
A plant based food system would be more ethical, peaceful. Corporations won't support a more ethical vegan food system until consumers change their behavior.
I don't believe in waiting for radical changes to stop supporting oppressive animal exploitation industries.
Thanks so much! I did. Well, technically I had my friend artist Evie Moore make it and I just did the logo...but it was my idea. Thought of it a month ago while reading my kid Calvin and Hobbes.
We made it to promote a fundraiser I'm doing for "Razom for Ukraine" to help provide critical humanitarian aid to Ukrainians, using my comics series "Durruti: Shadow of the People".
Here's a link if you're interested. Pre-follows help the algorithm. The first issue of Durruti is available through AK Press pretty inexpensively, and if you want signed copies or swag, you can get them via the indiegogo or on the next kickstarter.
https://igg.me/at/Durruti
I'm not talking about pleasure here. I'm talking about survival mostly and maybe civilization. for every infrastructure that humans build is against the interest of some animals. See for example in europe how many boars are killed in their attempt to cross a road.
I would say that that's not really the most logical question.
The most logical question, to me, is 'If you can't produce food, or do literally anything, for that matter, at all, without it costing some animals their lives, is it okay to pretend that plant-based food is superior because it *doesn't* kill animals?'
To which the answer is: No, it's not, because that's just ignoring reality.
Because that's all that matters here. This particular response was not about discussing the relative superiority of any food production method, this response was solely about dispelling the notion that plant-based food is 100% free of animal victimisation.
>If not all animals are equal, it’s obviously implied that “don’t torture loving emotional animals” is not the same as “don’t kill mosquitoes”.
Of course! So is there a scientific categorization of which animal goes where?
Because there are animals (like the pubic lice) that it is ok to kill and there are animals (like sheep, pigs, etc) that is not ok to kill.
If not all animals are equal, it’s obviously implied that “don’t torture loving emotional animals” is not the same as “don’t kill mosquitoes”.
Insects have not been proven to experience emotions beyond natural instincts, like avoiding harm and breeding and eating, etc.
Reptiles, birds, and amphibians, have all been shown to have unique emotions, beyond plain instinct. That’s why you can befriend a snake, crocodile, chicken, and probably a frog if it wasn’t so small it thinks you’re a giant moving mountain.
But I assume you don’t want to eat snakes, crocodiles, or frogs, so I don’t really understand why you ask.
Kind Of A Long Shot
Hello comrades. I'm reaching out to you today as I'm kind of out of places to turn. I'm in quite the predicament, I've been taking care my grandmother for the past couple years, and was recently laid off and don't have another job starting for another week and a half. I spread myself pretty thin paying for heat and whatnot and I'm trying to find some help. I need to figure out somewhere in the ballpark of $50 to cover some medications and some food for the rest of the week. We have a big storm coming tonight into tomorrow and possibly the following day and I'm just crazy and over my head. If this isn't the appropriate place feel free to take this down or flame me in the comments. I just don't have anywhere else to go and look for help and I was hoping somebody else in the leftist community might be able to show a little solidarity and throw some help my way.
How are you defining consciousness? If it’s simply awareness, than most life is conscious. If it’s the awareness of awareness, a very limited number of life forms have consciousness. I’m not arguing that eating meat and eating plant material are morally equivalent, but that plants should be extended moral consideration because we don’t actually have a very concrete idea of what consciousness is. It is, at present, a subjective term with no functional scientific definition. Personally, I would rather kill a chicken than a 200-year-old oak tree.
What exactly makes the relationship between predator and prey exploitative?
>you wouldn't advocate for imprisoning and killing animals when we could simply not
Oh right, I forgot that factory farming is the only possible relationship we can have with animals if we're not vegan and that there are absolutely no other possibilities.
And what about all the people who would starve otherwise? The Inuit might not need to rely on hunting to survive anymore, but that's only at the expense of being forcibly integrated into the capitalist system and being dependent on cross-country shipping to get plant protein sources to them in the first place.
>There are definitely ways of killing/eating animals without exploitation
Could you give an example?
Bookchins libertarian municipalism might be a good place to start. Rojava has their own variation of this system called democratic confederalism. Basically society would be organized by a complex system of councils that are organized from the bottom up.
From Rojava to the Zapatista’s, we know that there are many different ways of organizing the world.
If you really consider yourself a “whatever works ist”, consider being anything but a capitalist. Not only is capitalism killing the planet, but it’s forced billions of people around the world into crippling poverty. I just spent the last month in Nicaragua where people on average make 300 a month, never have a day off, struggle to afford food on a daily basis. Why? Because their surplus labor is extracted from them by the capitalist system. For example, banana farmers get only 3 percent of the total capital made by the banana industry because the multinational corporations that own the industry own the entire vertically integrated supply chain. It’s the foundation of capitalism as an economic system: exploitation.
How should we do it differently? Use your imagination. Maybe first off we abolish the class system(thus, fully compensating people for the fruits of their labor) and create a real democracy that’s organized from the bottom up.
Pigs also go feral very fast when not regularly cared for by humans. When feral, they will kill/eat humans.
An exploited animal that when left alone kills violently but can seem decent is somehow not a good choice for you?
Pigs are part of livestock for humans and during the holocene extinction event their population continues to grow (like funds put into police budgets), but they still are not a good choice for you?
Confusing.
If you're hunting or raising and killing animals for meat yourself, then yes, stop that first. In that situation the relationship between the action and the harm is very direct. Another action that falls into this category is stop killing bugs, something that many people who call themselves vegan do.
When we talk about what products we consume, the relationship between the action (buying a product) and the harm (an animal being killed in a field or slaughterhouse) is much less direct. Animal industries are heavily subsidized, have powerful lobby groups, and generally waste a lot of food, all factors that reduce the strength of the relationship between someone consuming less and fewer animals being raised and slaughtered.
Vegan ideology has been very successful in convincing people that seeing animals as food is the only way we perpetuate speciesism, but there many more things we should unlearn. A major one is how we share our spaces with other animals, including bringing bugs outside when they're trapped indoors, changing how we think about "pests", and seeing our companion animals as equals. Eating meat can be on this list too, because we generally don't eat the bodies of people who we respect, but it's just that, a way we can take a stance against speciesism in our personal lives among other ways.
Lastly, if we think that we're so responsible for the things we purchase that we can't contribute to related social change unless we don't contribute to that production chain, we should refrain from purchasing pretty much all products. It's not consistent to treat this one industry differently from others when we know that so much human and nonhuman suffering and exploitation goes on in pretty much every industry. Solutions to this would be to advocate to consume less, grow your own food, buy at thrift stores, repair your products, and dumpster dive. I think advocating for these things is more consistent than advocating for boycotting the animal industries, but it's only feasible to live like this for the few people who have the time and space to do this.
This question is THE missing piece in an organized revolution regardless of what your endgame is, and I would consider it to be a very dangerous line of questioning to pursue. The government is fine with you objecting as an individual or owning guns as an individual because these things allow us to symbolically exercise first and second amendment rights. Organized, collective action has the power to actually disrupt the status quo and tends to be the common factor among those the FBI targets and dismantles.
I've been meaning to do some research on Fred Hampton and I'm nowhere near educated enough on the subject to give you an answer in this post, but I do know that he was extremely popular among white people (including conservatives, many of whom threw away their confederate flags after working with him for a bit.) If anyone has figured out how to do it, it was most likely him. But to reiterate on my previous point, his agenda made him a bigger target than MLK, Newton, or Seale.
The Black Panthers in general had a pretty effective three-pronged strategy: Feed, educate, arm.
The unfortunate truth is that there's a lot more noise now than there was during the civil rights movement. Propaganda has improved in terms of quantity and effectiveness, and it's reaching a point where I'm not sure any level of reasoning can keep some people from shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly (and then blaming someone else.)
But, in a general sense, persuasion has a lot to do with finding common ground and finding a way to prioritize that common ground over differences. Sometimes that can mean sucking it up with regards to policies you really don't like. Your views on abortion or trans rights needs to be set aside, there's time to fight over that after you've gotten the bigger job done. The person you're trying to reach may think George Soros ***really*** has to taken out. Don't argue their point, simply negotiate until you find a common enemy.
You can also go through the back door with some of the common issues and approach things from a totally unorthodox angle. For instance, when talking about police reform/abolition, I like to frame the issue as an internal issue with police. Good cops and whistleblowers are often ignored, threatened, or fired for speaking out against misconduct. Another chilling possibility is that the rate of police suicide isn't actually going up, but rather that objectors are straight up murdered and their deaths are reported as suicides. Framing this in terms of blue on blue violence (or protecting our whistleblowers in uniform) is a narrative that the Blue Lives Matter folk have no good rebuttal to.
I'm interested to see how far vegans would be willing to go in a society where anarchism exists but people don't accept the vegan gospel. Would we see a militant movement willing to kill people for cows and chickens?
I think the uncomfortable truth for vegans is that humans are prey animals, and most people do not and never will have any qualms about eating meat or consuming animal products. The only way to stop them would be with violence, and I don't think it's the kind of movement which will ever have the numbers to impose veganism by force.
I think the best they can hope for is to reduce the amount of meat people consume, but even then only for practical purposes. Maybe they can curb the most ruthless of agricultural practices.
But if politics is the art of the possible, it seems like a snipe hunt to me.
That is my opinion as well. Nothing suggests our species has a special role to be the overseer of all nature beyond the point of our own interest in keeping the natural world in a state where we can survive as a part of it, and there is no form of life that has ever existed without inflicting harm on other life, one way or another. Even plants and single-celled organisms kill one another, and not always indirectly- and there's growing evidence that plants have their own form of sentience that isn't nearly as obvious to us as that of animals. Ultimately, that means that we end up causing living beings suffering when we eat them no matter what we do.
The only way to really remain true to that kind of impossible ideal is to commit suicide, thus eliminating the ability to do any kind of harm to other life forms at all. Obviously, that isn't a preferable option by a long shot, assuming that you too want to live. Instead, its best to just accept that life is like that- it could certain be made more humane, but the natural process that allows the existence of parasitic wasps whose larvae effectively brainwash the caterpillars they victimize to care for the very larvae that have eaten them from the inside out is hardly interested in avoiding suffering. That is (for better or worse) a purely human concern.
After all, other animals certainly don't seem to care if their prey suffers.
Things like "family" are human concepts, and if humans shouldn't be allowed to hunt animals then why is it fine for other animals to do so? Is their nonhuman status enough to exempt them from the moral quandaries that happen when we do it? What difference is there between a human that hunts for sport and a cat that toys with a mouse before killing it- would you condemn the latter as strongly as you do the former?
In a way, it's just the same speciesism with a new face. The only difference is that instead of exalting humans as the greatest of animals, it condemns them as the worst of animals.
I disagree. It doesn't matter for a much simpler reason- in matters of survival (and eating is always a matter of survival), morality is little more than a useless, tacked-on extra that only gets in the way. Given a choice between eating an animal (or even human flesh!) and starvation, even the most devoted vegans would find themselves hard-pressed to choose death over life.
As I've said, I've accepted that those animals had to suffer, and while I would be pleased to learn that more humane methods of killing them (as far as any kind of killing could be called "humane) existed and were implemented and believe that the meat industry as it exists under capitalism is inherently wasteful, I take a much simpler approach when it comes to the actual act of eating meat: I act no differently than any other predator would when I eat meat, and if I am guilty of being cruel to animals then so is every other species of carnivore and parasite on Earth. Remember, morality is a _human_ concept, and a notoriously arbitrary one at that matter.
You missed the point completely on several levels.
First, morality is for the most part an arbitrary construct- one made by humans and for humans. Not only does it make very little sense to apply it to nonhumans (which in any case seem to get along just fine without morality anyway), it ignores the fact that it's based on premises (e.g. that life is an inherently valuable thing, that killing is wrong, and that there is some objective measure of behavior outside of us) that are themselves very shaky and unprovable- the ideals that they're based on can still be beautiful, but when all is said and done they're ultimately just assertions of "I don't like this thing" and can only be backed up with some form of force. A "moral framework" is at best a subjective thing, capable of (usually) governing one's own behavior but becomes little more than a set of chains when applied to anyone else against their will- just ask anyone who's grown up in a fundamentalist household. I'm sure you mean well, but when you try to guilt-trip me about all those things the underlying message is "you're not like me, be like me or you're a bad person". And that's hardly an anarchist viewpoint.
Second, you're conflating the meat industry with the act of eating meat in itself. The former is just another facet of capitalism to be opposed whenever possible, but its brand of evil is hardly a unique one. Carnivory in itself is a personal diet choice, one that should be left up to the individual to decide. Same goes for all those other acts of cruelty, they're an inevitable part of a system that places a greater value on profit over anything else.
>I will say this, animal agriculture is bizarre and grotesque compared to what other species do to one another.
You clearly need to learn what parasites and parasitoids do to their hosts. For all of what you said, we don't mind-control other species to protect our young after said young have eaten them alive from the inside out like several species of wasps, and unlike most predators on Earth we have the courtesy to make sure our prey is dead _before_ we eat it. And I suggest you remember that the science of the human diet has gone through its fair share of upheavals in the past, so I'd keep quiet about what you don't know lest you end up looking foolish down the line and allow me to accept the risks of my own behavior rather than telling me that I can't be trusted to know what's best for me.
>Given the amount of pain forms of human intelligence causes and the self-eradication that is not addressed by those same forms of human intelligences, I find it ironic when a member of our species uses those same traits as a reason why we are superior to our non-human counterparts that lack them.
"Different" is not "superior", and human intelligence is far from perfect. But when all is said and done, I (like many others) have a much stronger attachment to my own species than to others. I am no friend of cruelty to animals, but all species are not created equal and I cannot be faulted for valuing my own species over another. Odds are that any other species in our place would act the same way.
Well, the way I see it pigs think it’s okay to eat pigs, so that is a pretty clear indication of consent.
But for real, our place in the ecological system can’t be hand waved by theory. It’s a material reality that our place in the ecological needs to be fulfilled, and as stewards we need to do so intelligently to ensure ecological sustainability.
Like, for instance, grey wolves regulate deer populations, but we killed off Grey wolves, so we need to rehabilitate the area. In the meantime we are ethically bound to cull the deer population to ensure the survival of the entire ecosystem. Whether the culled deer are eaten is entirely moot. Same with feral pigs.
My point being, we cannot enforce anarchism onto a system which doesn’t have sapient actors.
I think it’s more platforms trying to cover their own asses. Facebook is responsible for spreading genocide in Myanmar but they can say “our terms say you can’t advocate violence” and low and behold they are off the hook. It’s not if you can advocate violence but who you can advocate violence against. If you make direct threats at an individual that is clearly a violation of the tos but if someone says “kill all pedos” that’s fine because pedos are universally hated. But if you expand who falls under that definition you can advocate violence against anyone which is what the right wing is doing with trans people and drag shows. Also I would be cautious about anyone advocating direct acts of violence in any leftist space. The right would want nothing more than to point to anarchists and say “look how violent they are” meanwhile they are actively killing our comrades. At this stage optics matter, and we should focus on what we can build rather than what we can destroy. If all the left has to offer is Violence then our cause is doomed to fail. We have to offer safety, community, shelter, friendship and other resources or we will lose. not saying violence isn’t necessary in some cases but we need to offer more than that.
lol you are so full of shit. The hypocrisy and the irony in your responses is overwhelming.
Do the animals you consume get a choice to remain alive, as you get to support killing them? Or do your choices take hierarchical priority over their life since you benefit from a human supremacist society to begin with? Your "simple" stance is evidence of your privilege in being a human in an anthropocentric society.
"don't try and impose it on *me*"
Ha! Your choices are the very definition of *imposing*. You have a choice to financially support their death, or not. You make it clear that you financially (and socially) support their death just so you can satisfy your taste buds. Individual consumers like yourself impose your desire over their freedom and life every time you go out and buy their neatly-packaged mutilated body parts. Every time you comment on this forum supporting these consumer choices, you contribute to an anthropocentric worldview that imposes itself upon them.
Anthropocentrism is a moralistic mindset that allows humans to feel comfortable imposing their oppression upon non-human animals. Humans feel "right" in their authoritarian relationship to animals because it is normalized by group-think and hyper-glorified by capitalist, industrial society.
What I like to see amongst anarchists is logical consistency between their anti-authoritarian views and the relationships they have with other beings. Whenever veganism comes up, some anarchists turn cowardly and instead of admitting their own hypocrisy try to hide behind excuses that only expose their inconsistency more with every response.
There is no inherent "right" or "wrong" but at least have the guts to admit that either you are an anarcho-contradiction or you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to anarchy in practice.
In case that didn't make any sense, I made this for a fundraiser I'm doing to organize mutual aid efforts in Ukraine via a charity called Razom for Ukraine: Here's the IGG pre-follow link if you're interested https://igg.me/at/Durruti
Hey comrades! I'm the guy behind those Durruti comics and I made this for a fundraiser I'm doing to organize mutual aid efforts in Ukraine via a charity called "Razom for Ukraine": Here's the IGG pre-follow link if you're interested [https://igg.me/at/Durruti](https://igg.me/at/Durruti)
Solidarity!
I didn't say this though. There are definitely ways of killing/eating animals without exploitation, and there are also mutually beneficial relationships of humans with other animals.
>and it's entirely possible to raise animals for food without exploiting them
How? I find it very hard to believe. Maybe if you strictly raise them for you and your family? But even then, it is inevitable that you will start sharing animal products with your neighbours and soon enough, people from your entire community will begin demanding these products from you and you will start selling them. If killing a defenseless creature very early in its potential lifespan and then selling their body doesn't count as exploitation, I don't know what does.
>I don't see violence itself as "bad", but rather as a part of life (and nature, which we are also a part of)
Violence is part of death. We do not need to consume animal products to be healthy anymore. Just because we used to do it to survive doesn't mean we have a valid justification to keep doing it today. People had to do horrible things in the past in order to survive, but now we can easily avoid them. Buy some vitamin B12, some vitamin D, maybe some zinc and Omega 3 supplements and you're set.
>in the same way that it's possible to have non-human companions without exploiting them
We don't breed in big numbers, fatten up and slaughter young our companion animals to sell their cut up body parts.
>ie they don't live as long, and honestly often suffer less for it
Excuse me?
This is true - there is not any such thing as food production with truly zero animal killing. The most logical question, then, is whether *any* plant based food production method has a *lower* animal kill level than *every* meat based (perhaps excluding lab meats?) production method. For example, if (hypothetically) the meat based method kills 1 meat animal and 100 "incidental" animals, for a total of 101 killed, but the plant method kills 0 meat animals and 1000 "incidental" animals for a total of 1000 killed, the meat method actually is better; however, if both the meat method and plant method kill 1000 "incidental" animals the plant method is better and of course if the meat method kills more "incidental" animals (as they're with almost exactly 100% probability not exactly equal numbers) then also the plant method is better.
Here’s my list of the most underground anarchist bands:
Shit, Piss, Cum, Shoes on First, Grutt, Cheddler Groove LLC, Soulk, Chizzit, Guff Mango, Porndler, Çold Çut, Jizzy Eat Pearl, Glue Huffer, Strangle Teen, Recumbent Bike, Letter Holder, Gulf Coast Ghost, Liam Don’t Look, Jets over my Goodness, Lost Boys and their suspiciously older counterparts, Power is my Strength, Strength is my Power, Hover God, Long Time No She(no girls allowed core) Hefty Thin’s Toweltime Band, Forest Forest, Shorty Got Them Good Grades, Lindt, Ear Lover, Fips, Glign’t, Yosemite Slam, Chess Lord, Siberian Trans Orchestra, Jindler, George HUSSAIN Bush and Weak Sense of Self.
People who claim to have abandoned morality are lying to themselves.
Exploiting others isn't a personal choice, and if you valued free association you wouldn't advocate for imprisoning and killing animals when we could simply not.
*Folk Devils and Moral Panics* by Stanley Cohen.
I'm reading it for a zine I'm working on that interrogates how valid the "moral panic" idea is: whether it condescendingly casts the public as stupid and panicking, and whether there are better ideas to use for similar social episodes. I have my leanings but still need to do more research!
It's definitely had visible impacts upon anarchist cultural norms and knowledge bases as so many new anarchists get radicalized through online spaces. If twitter is your only window to anarchist discourse you're gonna get slanted in a liberal direction by default and miss a variety of aspects and corners that are strictly prohibited. See for example "anarchists" falling into fainting chairs upon discovering longstanding anarchist zines with burning schools on the cover.
This also impacts *how* violence is conceptualized by those that support it, so like where discussions about violence might be more productive, strategic, opsec-informed, or ethically nuanced in a more conventional infoshop IRL space, the folks who want to lean into being edgelords in a discord have less of that grounding and are more set in pure *reaction* to the default social media rules and the soft liberalism encouraged by them.
So like eg when I was coming up we shared "dead cop" jokes constantly, but there would have been no question that "killing the families of ISIS members" was a horrific breach of anarchist values.
lol you are so full of shit. The hypocrisy and the irony in your responses is overwhelming.
Do the animals you consume get a choice to remain alive, as you get to support killing them? Or do your choices take hierarchical priority over their life since you benefit from a human supremacist society to begin with? Your "simple" stance is evidence of your privilege in being a human in an anthropocentric society.
"don't try and impose it on *me*"
Ha! Your choices are the very definition of *imposing*. You have a choice to financially support their death, or not. You make it clear that you financially (and socially) support their death just so you can satisfy your taste buds. Individual consumers like yourself impose your desire over their freedom and life every time you go out and buy their neatly-packaged mutilated body parts. Every time you comment on this forum supporting these consumer choices, you contribute to an anthropocentric worldview that imposes itself upon them.
Anthropocentrism is a moralistic mindset that allows humans to feel comfortable imposing their oppression upon non-human animals. Humans feel "right" in their authoritarian relationship to animals because it is normalized by group-think and hyper-glorified by capitalist, industrial society.
What I like to see amongst anarchists is logical consistency between their anti-authoritarian views and the relationships they have with other beings. Whenever veganism comes up, some anarchists turn cowardly and instead of admitting their own hypocrisy try to hide behind excuses that only expose their inconsistency more with every response.
There is no inherent "right" or "wrong" but at least have the guts to admit that either you are an anarcho-contradiction or you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to anarchy in practice.
It is a police/fire training center, near Atlanta, that is in the beginning stages of being built.
Proponents argue that it's purpose is to provide better training for law enforcement.
Critics argue that it is a subterfuge for furthering the militarization of law enforcement.
Both have not understood much in my opinion
I think it would force more camera/laser speed traps and less squad cars to be out and about which is a W to me.
You're correct, I did not mention those two items. Why? Because all I know about that is what is on the news. So, my commentary on the ecological damage and how the activists were killed may or may not be accurate. I'd rather let someone who really knows that particular information to post.
You also asked why I posted it in the first place. I meant to post a reply to the person who said they had no idea what cop city was.
Okay edgelord. Idk how using Proudhon's definition of hierarchy is supposed to kill people. Either actually have an argument worth engaging with or stop it with this weird analogy stuff.
> I think you are getting close to understanding veganism.
I think you might find out that there are a lot of different things that people claim to be the meaning veganism. A lot of vegans would disagree with you. So I prefer not to use the term in discussions (as different people understand different things) and talk directly about murder, speciesism and morality.
I think the "dodge the spear" argument slightly misses the mark. he method of killing doesn't matter. But the imprisonment, the "you were born thanks to us to get killed by us" etc. are more problematic.
Theoretically. Not necessarily in usable preparations, diverse offerings, or all geographical locations. Sure, I have no trouble obtaining that stuff at my grocery store or even in bulk. Still, to make it actually cheaper and usable I have to buy bulk dried or massive cases of cans. The cans aren’t accessible to a lot of disabled and elderly people in the right amounts; my mother-in-law needs surgery and can’t lift/carry enough for that to work. Also not accessible to people with sodium restrictions. Bags of dried stuff are great-if you have time to prep it. Not nearly as accessible to single parents or those both working full time jobs, especially here in the US where many of us have kids and work multiple full-time jobs to try to make ends meet.
When I was strictly vegan I had plenty of variety but also spent a lot more.
You can argue beans and rice forever but it’s a crappy thing to consign people to a bland diet because everything else is broken and they don’t have the disposable income to get other stuff. Just one type of food may work for you, but it still isn’t terribly healthy and with constant, cheap temptations around you really aren’t likely to stick to a healthy diet.
Most of the vegan stuff we have consistent access to here is bleached white flour coating 2-3 times what it does in the most affordable places, canned meat, canned veggies, etc. And if I went with the readily available cans of beans, which near where I work are only small cans of baked beans, I’d need 4 cans per person to be the protein equivalent of a single serving of chicken. Plus, the added sugar balance totally ruins the macro balance.
Let’s not even get into peanut and tree nut allergies. A serious allergy means suddenly everyone processed in a facility that processes those is off limits. Take a look at your bags, as well as a large number of vegan proteins and snacks, and you’ll see the variety shrink. Especially a lot of the cheaper dried goods. Because you might dismiss it as not so big a deal, but it can kill those people.
Possible? Technically. Doable for the average person without major sacrifice when they’re already teetering on the edge here? Be realistic. There are bigger problems to tackle first.
Obsessing over -this- as opposed to the many other problems people face communicates to most people that you care more about this more abstract idea than them, and they’ll tune out even more practical ideas. The challenges aren’t insurmountable, together, in the long run. Even being experienced with and enjoying eating vegan, I’d not push it onto my family today or strictly adhere myself, because it is a much lower priority and basically openly accepting a lot of unnecessary difficulties in an already overwhelmed life.
The no-violence thing is a tool used by the elites to keep the status quo. This is why liberal capitalists always advocate for it. If we wait for anarchism/socialism to happen via democracy we will always live in a capitalist society. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. To suggest otherwise ignores what happens when your society is majority reactionary, like mine.
​
Capitalists are willing, even eager, to literally kill us to maintain their economy and power. They know that social media arguments and protesting do literally nothing, so they let it slide.
​
The best non-violent solution I can think of is for leftists to start businesses as worker co-ops and attract workers who are shackled to capitalists. In other words, essentially building a foundation for market socialist businesses to compete against capitalist business. Want to work at Starbucks for $15 an hour or for Bakunin's Cafe where you are paid $20 an hour? Then take it to the next level, co-op businesses can stand together to consolidate power. Start local. Anyway, this has been theoretically possible for a long time and does not seem to be a priority for leftists, so until then we vote democrat and keep living in a capitalist system
>I also believe that violence is not what is necessarily wrong with our relationship with other animals, but rather exploitation.
I think you are getting close to understanding veganism. We vegans don't have a problem with the killing of animals alone. In certain situations, it might be justifiable to kill an animal. For example, an indigenous person has to choose between hunting that gazelle or starving. We can't really judge them morally for hunting. However, the gazelle has a chance of dodging the spear and escaping if they are fast enough, unlike farmed animals, who have their autonomy completely stripped away from them when we tie them to a pole or lock them in a cage.
...plus we can just walk in a market and buy a bunch of inexpensive plant food.
>I don’t acknowledge „an“caps as anarchists, because they aren’t. If anarchists started accepting „an“caps, they would get a certain level of legitimacy, which they don’t deserve
Lmaooooooo my friend, this is literally what I've been saying the whole time. They 100% are not anarchists. The reason I can tell that is because they aren't called anarchists, they're called ancaps and I can distinguish the difference because of the words. I feel surprised so many leftists get visibly annoyed by it, but it is the way it is. The right has a long history of commandeering the meaning of leftist words.
>Nazis too have an entire belief system to back up nazism. Doesn’t make it valid.
It's still a political theory being spread by neonazis though. We know nazis aren't socialists, we know ancaps are not anarchists. Again, they both still exist and both still have followings around the world with distinctly different belief systems than actual socialists or actual anarchists.
But please tell me again for the hundredth how capitalists aren't "real" anarchists and nazis aren't real socialists as if I weren't intelligent enough to fucking realize that
I've offered my couch to people in that position, and had to use some in my turn. No one is safe while any of us are left unsheltered.
Those of us who know how bad this is, and can imagine better, need to survive. We can't afford to lose each other and the system is trying to kill us for a reason.
>so many animals get killed in the production of plant foods
Wouldn't you know it, over 70% of all crops grown in the world go to animal agriculture. So this is a much better argument in favor of veganism.
Well... If you insist...
Stirner married a wealthy heiress and then, when he wasted all *her* money failing to start a capitalist business for his own personal profit, he 'ended his voluntary association with her'.
By kicking her out of the house she owned and lived in before they married.
Because under Prussian law at the time everything she had owned was his property now and her house was a lot nicer than his apartment (which is where she came to live).
But despite 'ending his voluntary association' with her, he didn't allow *her* to end her now-involuntary association with him by divorcing her (women couldn't compel a divorce against the wishes of their husband at this time), because his wife was wealthy and he was poorer than her and lobbyists from the Prussian bourgeoisie had made sure there was a law that if a man married a woman of great means and then divorced her, all her pre-marriage assets (such as were left) would revert back to her, to discourage the poor from trying to better their lot by marrying above their station.
So yeah, he kept a woman whose money he used the law to appropriate in legal bondage so he could keep living in a fancy house
And then lost that house anyway eventually when his book didn't sell.
Because the original German version of Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum was never popular because it is much more obvious that it's just the rants of a selfish edgelord trting to justify his selfishness than the agenda-driven Byington translation that Tucker commissioned and then used to portray Stirner as the ultimate anarchist because he wanted to boost the credibility of his pro-private property deviation from proper anarchism as based in the works of a real European 'anarchist'.
And Tucker only got away with this because Stirner was so ***incredibly irrelevant to anarchism up until Tucker tried to popularise him*** that European Anarchists forgot he'd even existed.
Edit: Also the business he tried to start involved selling milk, so ya boi Stirner was into animal exploitation.Second edit: corrected some points of 19th century Prussian law (which was pointed out to me was partially incorrect).
Justicia, Tierra, y Libertad by Maná
People are starving in the streets. I'd kill a hundred cows if it means feeding one of them.
I mean by that logic you wouldnt fund their murder and eat them tho?
You thinking you are more important doesnt directly mean "kill and eat all else"
Also the fact that „You can only do it because of supplements“ is such a bad argument.
„We are advanced enough not to kill and have developed this technology to avoid it, therefore we must kill to survive efficiently“ ?????
I'm sorry you were forced to go through that due to societal structures. I was talking with a friend about a zombie meme less than an hour ago. He said, "Sometimes I wish the zombie apocalypse would happen," "Why?" "Partly because I want to shoot zombies, partly because it'll bring back survival of the fittest." Yikes that is a huge red flag, what's wrong with you, all life is precious no matter what. All things I wanted to say but I had to bite my tongue. I'm one step away from homelessness and I live in TN which says homelessness is a felony. I don't want to contribute to the American system, and more and more I see that this country propels death both foreign and domestic while being just a few steps away from outright slavery... I'm sorry, I don't even know if this rant was on topic. Again I'm sorry you were forced to go through that, and hope you can find peace
But it does enforce that they're of lesser value, and that status is what's used to justify the harm done to them.
"As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love." - attributed by Ovid (Pythagoras)
Well this kinda discussion on the language use is a really good opportunity to open up the discourse about how pigs are sentient creatures with the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, and also the injustice they go through as they're commodified, tortured and killed. Do you not see these issues as important? Let me leave you with one of my favourite quotes: \[idk how to phrase the gendered language btw\]
"As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love." - attributed by Ovid
You could see how someone might think the opposite? That the argument is simply a rationalization for hurting nonhuman animals, and that it isn't really motivated by a concern for plants? I only seem to hear concern for the question of plant sentience when it's raised in the context of dismissing responsibility toward the suffering of animals. Outside of this usage as a rhetorical deflection, most people seem to accept modern science's model of consciousness as a product of brain activity (other than religious folks or other supporters of cartesian dualism). Because, as others have pointed out, if the idea were genuinely to consider these hypothetical plant-minds, it would only be further reason not to raise and slaughter animals---more plants are killed in the process of feeding livestock than would be by simply eating plants directly.
\>Ethical consumption of anything does not exist under capitalism.
Is all consumption under capitalism equally unethical though?
Is rigging an election through billions in PAC money for a candidate that removes worker rights equally as unethical as a vegan buying an avocado?
\>Unless you exclusively grow your own food and/or forage out of dumpsters, you're exploiting workers just as much as anyone else.
This is not true because of the massive amounts of crops animals are fed to produce edible flesh. In addition to "raising" the animals, other farmers have to grow crops to feed those animals because most people don't eat only crops directly like vegans do.
This process compounds the amount of work necessary to feed people and worker exploitation grows with that.
Worker exploitation does not only exist in the production of plant based foods.
The grow your own food and forage out of dumpsters part is called an appeal to perfection fallacy.
\>Has it not occurred to you that I might oppose one but not the other and see no conflict between them beyond that which is self-imposed?
How does one oppose capitalism by funding a 1.5 trillion dollar industry that reinforces capitalist governments in order to survive?
The whole model of animal exploitation is based on the profit motive.
How does not being vegan oppose capitalism?
\>Why do humans have to receive special condemnation when they eat meat, when every other carnivore and omnivore on the planet gets a free pass?
Animals don't have moral agency. Lions also dispose of other lion cubs and and sniff eachother's rear ends, but not many humans defend these behaviors by saying lions do it. The natural world isn't a good arbiter of moral values.
If a person doesn't want to cause unnecessary suffering to animals, it is their duty to be vegan.
If that's not a part a persons moral framework, then being vegan doesn't matter, and that person does not care about animals.
\>And why don't you oppose animals eating other animals?
They do it for survival, humans have no need to eat animals in order to survive as evidenced by the millions of vegans with better health outcomes than people who eat animals.
\>Why do you think they'd care about human scruples when it all ends up the same way from their perspective?
You're right, to the insects and small animals killed in crop production, it doesn't matter. But those deaths are compounded by animal ag.
By choosing to live vegan, it does not end the same for chickens, pigs, cows, fish, and other animals that are spared and never have to suffer in fear.
My goal is to prevent their suffering through educating people. Not beat other people in internet debates.
\>Again, self-deception. The animals don't care if you harm them "less", because you're still harming them anyway. It's not for them, but for your own guilty conscience.
Guilt is a valuable emotion if it causes a person to do less harm and reflect on their lives. I did experience a significant amount of guilt once I found out how animals were being treated.
Going vegan was not a pleasant process for me in the beginning, I felt terrible I had been contributing to gestation crates and chick maceration.
Having guilt doesn't make a person weak, it makes a person human in the positive sense of the word.
A lot of men conflate psychopathy and consuming animal flesh as a part of a concept of toxic masculinity, it's reinforced through advertising.
[This is a good resource that shows what life is like for animals on farms and why becoming vegan is worthwhile.](https://dontwatch.org/)
I'm a human and get pissed off too.
Apologies if some of my responses were a bit gruff.
I hope you decide to lead an ethical life by being vegan and don't get deceived by animal agriculture industry propaganda and astroturfing campaigns.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you planning to Ted Kaczynski someone?
Don't start altercations with law enforcement. Befriend your neighbours, join some social groups, learn useful skills like gardening, crafts, job skills.
Things that would be useful during periods of political unrest, and require "touching grass"
Not consuming animal products probably kills less ants
Comments where people are explaining why they aren't pacifists may be getting auto-flagged, including one I posted earlier. So, in case it doesn't display, I was a pacifist until I saw what happened to the wh\*\*e nation**ist movement after Rich\*\*d Spen\*\*r got deck'd in front of the whole world, after which everyone wanted to be the next person to publicly deliver him a high-velocity smooch.
I don't like v\*\*lence, I believe that if you're capable of suffering, then you deserve to be free of suffering. But I prefer it happen to one hateful dink rather than thousands or millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives. It's that very same belief that informs my veganism.
Am vegan. Used to be pacifist, until I saw how much damage one sucker punch did to the burgeoning white nationalist movement.
I think this was in Zürich, based off of that RJZ (Revolutionäre Jugendbewegung Zürich) flag
Ignoring whatever John Wick / John Rambo fantasy you're currently living in, no, as the numerically inferior force your best options are to avoid conflict if at all possible in order to conserve your personnel and resources. Running early and running often will give you the greatest likelihood of success.
If you are forced into a defensive position, splitting your manpower as the numerically inferior side is a recipe for disaster. You'll already be at a disadvantage, and whichever group is attacked first will be destroyed while the other group is contained, or as is more likely, destroyed at the same time.
You're not going to win in a stand-up fight with agents of the state because they have the means and ability to just keep throwing increasing numbers of men and ordnance at you. They won't get bored and they won't run out of either. All your i;;-conceived thoughts are going to do is get a lot of people killed, whatever you stand for demonized in the court of public opinion, lead to violent state reprisals against the rest of us, and completely fail to achieve any of your strategic objectives.
It’s not cognitive dissonance it’s science. Human beings are omnivorous, meaning in order to efficiently obtain the nutrients we need to survive, we evolved to consume both plant and animal products. Eating meat is not the issue, it’s the factory farming that’s causing the problem, and yet it remains the most efficient way to produce the quantity demanded. Maybe use your head to come up with a better solution rather than complaining. You clearly know what cognitive dissonance means and can use it in the proper context, so you’re clearly intelligent enough to know that whining about something will never actually solve the issue. And it would take at least a couple million years for humans to evolve to where we can survive solely of of plants.
Cops are cops and pigs are pigs sure, but Veganism is a death cult and I’m sick of pretending it’s not and people bringing up veganism like it’s the answer. Utilitarian ideology is all about doing the most good, but there’s a limit to how much good a person can do without destroying themselves or nature. Veganism is fascist and natives ate wild boar before capitalism colonized them anyways.
Colonizers and Peter Singer fans can fuck right off. Veganism is just another form of liberalism from a post-civ perspective.
I don't trust non-vegans on the same level I do vegans.
I will say that deer want to live and have families. Intentionally taking the life of a complex sentient being for reasons outside of survival is never respectful.
If a militant vegan ever sabotages your hunting efforts, it's because they want to protect an animal, not because they want to attack your culture or take your land.
Speciesism is bigotry but veganism isn't the solution. Veganism puts the responsibility on individuals to change their lifestyle instead of focus on organizing and building power against human supremacy.
They seem to be more focused on suffering of animals rather than the killing of animals, which isn't particularly where my disagreement lies. I think causing pain and causing death are separate moral considerations. I might check out "Eating Animals" in the future, though, it seems a bit broader in scope and argument (although I recognize that means it might not be as focused).
Lines drawn which separate "Human" from "Animal" are tools which are used to dehumanize people and, therefore, justify their oppression. We've seen it in the past with slavery, and in most genocides. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc all have roots in dehumanization processes grounded in some notion of a human/animal distinction. Heck, it also ties to how we view nature as a whole - non-human and, therefore, ripe for human domination - which highlights the problem with the anthropocene not just being carbon emissions but the fact that it is grounded in anthropocentrism.
[A worthwhile essay on the ideological inseperability between ableism and speciesism.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RokWAuCkVw)
EDIT: Also, to clarify, I am not saying that everyone has to be vegan. Most indigenous people are not vegan but are people who need to be co-conspirators in our de-colonization process. What I am saying is to deconstruct these boundaries so that the question of killing and inflicting pain on animals is not one so easily dismissed through a disconnection with humans, and to construct a reciprocal relationship with humans, nature, and animals. In *Braiding Sweetgrass*, Robin Wall Kimmerer discusses how different indigenous people have a relationship with animal and plant life grounded in reciprocity and viewing each other as equal beings, despite practices of fishing, hunting, trapping, and forestry. Militant vegans miss this point as well, and reproduce colonialism through this. By breaking down barriers we construct community with the natural world, but building barriers and a human/animal distinction necessarily disrupts communities through hierarchy.
>All life survives only at the cost of other life, and all attempts at harm reduction only pass it off to the forms of life that are less able to communicate that they can suffer.
This is a common assumption that is incorrect for most people living in the developed world.
Animals eat crops and only convert a tiny amount of those crops into protein and calories. By eating animals, it amplifies crop deaths and then kills a complex organism like a cow, chicken, pig, or fish on top of the crop deaths.
There us a utilitarian argument for hunting on the basis of that statement, but in practice, how many people only consume flesh that they hunt or fish?
Any other consumption amplifies harm.
And if a moral framework discerns between intentional and non-intentional killing, then not hunting or fishing is a superior choice.
Many people will look at neatly severed body parts in a grocery store and assume they got there by the same processes as if they were to kill the animal themselves using primitive and ecologically safe methods.
When fishing accounts for 40% of plastic waste in the ocean according to the sources for Seaspiracy.
And cruelty to chickens, cows, and pigs being responsible for the thousands of square miles of dead zones in the gulf as well as the smothering eutriphocation of its tributaries.
>And viewing humans as having a special capacity for cruelty to other animals is its own form of speciesism
I'll have to think about this one, you might be right.
I will say this, animal agriculture is bizarre and grotesque compared to what other species do to one another.
I don't know of any other species that will steal the sperm of a member of another species, forcefully impregnate thousands of others of their kind, then kill thousands of their offspring to eat their dead bodies when their own are maladapted to that consumption (see heart disease and cancer risks of humans that eat flesh and ones that don't or eat less).
Intelligence is what grants us as a species that capacity for depravity that is ignored and scoffed at.
Given the amount of pain forms of human intelligence causes and the self-eradication that is not addressed by those same forms of human intelligences, I find it ironic when a member of our species uses those same traits as a reason why we are superior to our non-human counterparts that lack them.
>How many? Because last time I checked 80% of all crop land is for animal fodder.
Can you check that place again and see what it says the percentage of crop land used for human consumption is? If it did (which I guarantee you it didn't) you'd find it's more than 20%.
Because, you know, when you harvest cereals for humans to eat, you end up with a lot of straw and chaff that's not fit for human consumption. That gets fed to animals.
So if someone were, hypothetically, dedicated enough to animal liberation that they felt it was worth massaging the statistics a little to help the animals, they might list any crops that have byproducts that get fed to animals as 'crop lands for animal fodder'.
​
>weird because as I am typing this i realize i still haven't died from malnutration
And that would be a fair point if you could guarantee that all of the food you've eaten in the last week was produced without *any* animal harm or deaths.
Which you can't, because it absolutely wasn't.
Animals were killed to clear the land on which the plant-based food you eat is grown. Animals were poisoned with pesticides to keep them from reducing the crop yields of the farmers who grew it.
Animals were killed by traps set in the storehouses where that food was stored between harvesting and processing to prevent them from eating it and leaving droppings in it.
Animals were killed by the vehicles that transported your food to that storehouse and from there onwards on every step between harvesting and ending up on your plate.
And I guarantee you that the company that sold you that food is ultimately owned by the same giant agricultural concern that also owns the companies that operate factory farms.
So you're still giving those people money and they're still mass killing animals, even for the products that involve no animal farming at all, and all you've achieved is to put up a lovely little smokescreen between yourself and that fact. One that allows you to believe you're doing the right thing while still benefitting from the mass killing of animals in the end.
You’re just a cuck for cops. You ever stop to think maybe the exit wounds in the palms indicated he was shot from behind with his hands up, consistent with other exit wounds showing he was shot from behind… or do you just shit post on Reddit about how much boot you like to choke on?
Ever met a farmer who doesn't eat meat? Do you know how much animals are hurt while producing vegan food? Do you know that to grow food you sometimes have to kill some animals (ex. moles)? Are you aware that we can't survive in this world without hurting animals?
“Noooo you can’t want to be kind to extremely intelligent and emotional animals!!!! Don’t you understand that would require you to never kill bugs, which show no emotion or feelings besides their pre-programmed code to survive and reproduce!!?? They’re exactly the same thing!!”
Stfu dude. I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian, but if you’re going to argue against it at least use reasonable arguments. There’s a reason we divide life beyond simply “animals” and “plants”. The intelligence of a insect is comparable to a plant, they are hardcoded. They haven’t been shown to experience love, or sadness.
Obviously, vegans are not arguing that you can’t kill pubic lice. What a bizarre strawman.
Pubic lice are animals.
The main health conditions pigs, cows, chickens, and fish will cause a human come from consuming their bodies, conditions like heart disease and cancer.
The cows, chickens, pigs, and fish people pay to be killed are not actively harming them like public lice would be.
A person can still be considered vegan if they remove pubic lice or take a medication that has no viable alternative that contains animal products.
Being vegan isn't about being perfect, it's about causing the least amount of harm to animals that's practicable and rejecting their status as commodities.
I think animals are worth moral consideration because they want to live just like us.
The systems of hierarchy that support animal oppression also support human oppression like environmental racism and general corporate ecocide.
I believe human rights activism is equally as valid as animal rights activism. I protest with leftist groups in addition to doing vegan outreach like this.
It's possible to do human and animal rights activism. Both forms of activism support one another.
However, I won't fault a human rights activist for focusing exclusively on human rights issues, especially on issues like police violence against marginalized communities.
To fault an animal rights activist for focusing exclusively on animal rights activism fails to give consideration to the fact that 80 billion plus land animals are killed unnecessarily each year and virtually every one of them was an individual who wanted to live.
[dontwatch.org](https://dontwatch.org)
Also, isn't believing that human beings are above animals and they have the ethical responsibility to protect animal rights at any cost means belief in a hierarchy in on itself?
Like if someone believes that human beings should not even hunt animals for food and protect their rights, doesn't that imply that they believe human beings are masters of the earth and all other creatures derive these rights from us?
Don't get me wrong, I am against the evils of the industrial farming and animal husbandry and what not, and we should take responsibility for their actions in environmental degradation, but going as far as saying human beings shouldn't kill any animal at any circumstance unlike other species carries implication that we are some kind of special species who are above other creatures, atleast to me.
> Could any pattern of behavior be considered a hierarchy?
You might still need to rephrase your question.
Put very concisely - I would define hierarchies as stratified layers of authority. And authority as power over/to control others. I don't think that just any old "pattern of behaviour" fits. And before you draw a parallel between human hierarchies and the food chain, I'd say that's a false equivilance because humans have a choice.
States maintain power by holding monopoly on violence (via military and police organisations), and by defining (and enforcing) through legislature what *counts* as violence, what counts as *legitimate* violence (usually the kind the state allows itself to use), and what counts as *illegitimate* violence.
Here's a relevant quote from [this vid by Andrewism](https://youtu.be/YnYdMijXc_E), around 2mins in:
> Violence is a pretty ambiguous concept, and very easy to manipulate, especially in the hands of the media and the State. It's vague to the point of uselessness, because people are just gonna keep bending and twisting it however they want to morally justify or condemn the actions they have already decided are acceptable or unacceptable.
> Violence is a category that we choose to place or not place on a variety of actions and situations. We don't count driving a car as violence, even though it kills nearly 1.5 million people every year. Structural harm, the one condoned and upheld by the State, goes unnoticed every day. Blood oils this machine, yet violence is a euphemism for things that threaten the ruling class and their illusion of peace, a peace that obscures class struggle, patriarchy, colonialism, evictions, hunger, and police brutality. Striking workers and tenants are violent, cops and landlords aren't. And so it goes.
Idk how convincing you find that. But if it makes sense to you, now consider - what even *is* 'justice' within this system?
You certainly don’t need to host pubic lice to stop exploiting animals. Defending yourself is not the same thing as killing a pig because you like the taste of their flesh or imprisoning a elephant in a zoo because you want to look at them.
Thanks for such a detailed, respectful, and informative response! I appreciate the compliments.
I'm curious to learn more about anarchism. I do think there's a lot of overlap between animal rights/veganism and anarchism.
I agree gatekeeping is not good for any movement. That's why I think it's good to do outreach with people of any culture, including indigenous ones.
I do know indigenous people who are vegan like Soytheist on YouTube.
Animal rights activism does offend people. I'm sure there are people that have been offended by anarchist direct action as well.
In both scenarios, I think the person most likely to be offended is the one in the position of power.
I can't fault an indigenous or religious person who hunts for survival and has no other options.
I don't think culture is an excuse for harming animals unnecessarily.
Not many apply the logic that cultural or indigenous status automatically exempts a practice from being considered abusive, like with female genital mutilation, child marriage, or human sacrifice, which are all cultural and religious practices that have been practiced by indigenous peoples at some point or even today.
Most of us recognize those as wrong because they cause unnecessary pain an suffering to human beings. We realize those practices can't be defended merely on the basis of them being cultural or religious since those practices create victims.
Yet not many will apply that logic to animals who are caused unnecessary pain and suffering because of speciesism.
Some will claim they are speaking out against colonization when a vegan says culture is no excuse for abuse in regards to killing animals for
They misperceive the labeling of a cultural or religious practice as unnecessarily harmful as racism or an attempt at colonization.
Even an oppressed indigenous or religious person has greater power over an animal than the person criticizing the unnecessary harm they are about to cause.
I've seen a protest of a Jewish ceremony where they cut the throats of chickens.
I think protests like that are good because they are attemptimg to protect someone who has less power (the chicken) than the religious people oppressing them.
I have a vegan friend who is Jewish. I'm 99% sure she would actively protest the same religious ceremony if given a chance.
It's only when a vegan selectively protests certain cultures or religions where I think there's any merit to the claim they might be racist and or attempting colonization.
I will target multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporation with *direct action before a reservation because corporations cause more harm than indigenous people do and the places where corporations abuse animals are everywhere.
I agree patience and politeness are generally good, especially considering most people don't know how badly animals are treated.
[dontwatch.org](https://dontwatch.org) has a 7 minute video that exposes routine practices the corporations that abuse animals don't want anyone to see and a resource page for assistance on becoming vegan.
>While purchasing their vegan options might encourage them to expand that selection, my feeling is that any money spent there, regardless of the purchase, simply helps support their apparatus.
I agree buying food from TB expands an animal cruelty apparatus since that is most of their products. I think buying vegan food there is better than not because the non-vegan foods will have to be resupplied which causes animals to be harmed in slaughterhouses and on farms.
I've started eating at TB less. Fast food is also expensive and less nutritious.
If someone so pressed for time they can't prepare a meal that's cheaper and healthier at home, like a tofu scramble or tvp, rice, and bean burrito, Taco Bell is a good alternative to McDonald's if the opportunity exists.
The bean burrito with no cheese, add potatoes is under 3 dollars, a black bean crunchwrap, no cheese, no sour cream, add potatoes is around 5.
Where I'm at, those have more protein and calories than vegan options at McDonalds which are the apple pies, plain salad, and drinks.
Buying the vegan option supports animal cruelty less than the non-vegan option, and I think they are cheaper, so there's less money going in.
Once again, thanks for the compliments and watching the video!
Could've been shot from multiple directions. Ultimately we'll see the details Monday.
I think that’s what I’m trying to say, we should extend our circle of concern to the elephants imprisoned in zoos, the chimpanzee being experimented on, the pigs that are killed for their flesh, etc. these animals deserve consideration because and it’s wrong for us to exploit them for our gain.
Then we should stop feeding 50% of the worlds grain to the 80 billion land animals we kill every year. If we’re going to assign moral significance to plants we should do our best to minimize their suffering. A plant based diet dramatically reduces the amount of plants needed to feed us.
[Here](https://imgur.com/GWIXXB2) is the NYC flier. You can access the information for other cities [here.](https://tinyurl.com/transgendermarch)
Capitalism Always want you to think you have to change, not thé système (and male buying his product doing so).I only eat méat when someone give me a sandwich (people rarely think to Ask you if you eat everything, not even if you have an allergy)I dont want to throw food away. But i dont but it. People dont Always have choices. Are we gonna Say to thé last tribe who are being part of thé nature to stop hunting? They are not the problem, capitalisme IS. I love cheese (I m french After all)but i m buying only from small producer and not from Factory, more expensive but i m buying less. Perhaps i m too old but anarchists cant tell people what to do, help them to male an educated choices, in all part of theyr life. Thats how a thrue anarchist révolution can Come.
Homeless produce something for capitalism, fear. Enough fear for the worker, more poor they are more it s working, to accept whatever conditions to keep theyr job. Homeless need to resist, by squat, by solidarité, to find an other way of life. And perhaps other people Can sée an other life is possible.It s not Always easy, life is not, especialy if you want to thrive out of capitalist systèm. Cops and anti-homeless militia are for that. Stay strong comrad Homeless anarchist all iver thé World are at your side
Easy, plants and fungi don’t appear to experience sentience the same way animals like us do. If we are being forced to skin a living dog or carrot the choice is easy, a carrot doesn’t feel pain whereas a dog does.
Also, if we chose to assign plants moral value and want to minimize their suffering not exploiting animals is basically required since the animals we exploit also consume plants. Like it takes 50% of the worlds grain to feed the 80billion land animals we kill every year. If we stop exploiting animals we could also stop exploiting all those plants
Not being a politician? Seriously I think it s dépend of your goal. Just by personal interest or to educated others to ideas of anarchism. I m not familiar with you educational systèm, all given advice seems good but in thé end you have to chose who is thé more appealing to you for it keep you interested for what i Hope will bé a long life.
Ex cops have stated they are taught to assume everyone wants to kill them. They are programed to kill for their own safety, even if no threat was present.
That and it could've been a political assassination
Like op said. Plus they was likely seated, cross legged. The theory that they fired on police first is being questioned as friendly fire could be the culprit.
This has happened before with the MOVE-9. Police were given the all clear to shoot on MOVE after a police office was shot by them. It was later found impossible for MOVE to have hit them given the fact they were in the basement and the exit wound was from a downward angle. From the back. Police denied it was friendly fire.
Because the cops are killing the “right” people in their minds.
It's absolutely wild to conflate my participation in this system (which i don't have a choice in) with the active perpetuation of abuse that the system itself enacts.
I literally said in my first comment that I would happily eat vegan if I had the opportunity to do so in a way that wouldn't cause me to lose an unhealthy amount of weight. I'd love to do food prep to make rice, beans, and veggies into healthy, palatable meals, but hey,, guess what,, that takes a lot of extra effort. Effort that's currently going toward looking for a job, dealing with hygiene, and attempting to have some semblance of a social life so that I don't fucking kill myself.
But you clearly have no concept of how much effort that takes for a neurodivergent person experiencing depression. Or maybe you do, and you just don't care.
Look. We're on the same side here. I also want the liberation of all human and non human animals. I never even said that "veganism is wrong." I'd just like to be treated like a person, with some level of empathy for, and understanding of, my situation. The revolution hasn't happened yet, and until it does, people's situations will be less than ideal.
That's the material reality of this world.
Because the truth can be the hardest for us to understand
It's the hardest for a single person to comprehend
When it's things that happen to the people and we don't know why
When it's bad things that happen to the people who we're calling the good guys
Then the truth can be the scariest of truths out there by far
And that is the cops could kill YOU no matter who you are
And that is a truth that just does not seem right
We'd rather tell ourselves a lie so we can sleep at night
And that is the lie we'd say to get us through the day
Because the truth is that we are all nothing more than prey
Learn a trade or a skill that is cheap enough to study and useful for society now and after the revolution. For example TIG welder, carpenter, electrician, sheepshearer, landscaper, treesurgeon, dogtrainer, musician, animator etc. In many cases you can be self employed. Live in a van or a boat or a commune to avoid debt-traps. Make enough money in 6 months to sustain you through the year. Live close to nature and to the working class. Organize, agitate, educate wherever you are. Plan your activism as long vacations. Enjoy your life.
I think it‘s a much more unconscious change. If you repeat something often enough it does affect your beliefs, and constantly devalueing pigs with your language will eventually change your thoughts about them (which is not even that necessary because even as children, we learn that pigs are unclean, disgusting, dumb etc - thats why theres sayings such as „eat like a pig“ or „sweat like a pig“), which also affects how worthy we see them of life and of including in our struggle etc etc
Stfu.
Pigs, the animal, eat their own children alive.
Even in open space, they don't care if they squash them.
These animals might be intelligent, but they're still animals. Mean, and disgusting.
Just like I can’t take you seriously with the words Christian and Anarchist so close to each other. Ironically just like the facts don’t support your book written by superstitious primitives living in the desert, the facts also don’t support your argument that eating a plant based diet is as efficient as an omnivorous one. I’m done trying to explain basic chemistry to you people, so here’s a link so that you can educate yourself if you feel so inclined
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926405/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926405/)
Bottom line is that humans have evolved to be omnivores, and while modern conveniences allow you to live a plant based diet, you are not getting the same benefits as people who don’t. There’s definitely an argument to be made that we eat too much meat, but removing it from our diet entirely is not feasible.
TLDR: I don't think there is a "lazy way." It takes observation time and effort to change minds
Oh man there is no catch all for everyone thankfully. I say thankfully because if there was a way to fully psychologically hypnotize the masses then we wouldn't be having this conversation. My life has basically been dedicated to pulling people toward empathy and I've had many different responses from people that claim to be on the American political right and left. It wasn't until recently that I learned the extent of the psychological effects and explained some of the responses.
First is the familiarity principle. The longer a person is exposed to a stimulant, despite the initial aversion to it, the more comfortable they can become with it and may even accept it.
Then there is psychological priming, which is similar to Pavlov's dog. The longer someone exposes themselves to certain stimuli, like when newscasters say "left" or "right" with disdain expressed through body language and tone, it can instill a similar knee jerk real emotional reaction. There are some words that I've had to learn the hard way to avoid altogether.
These two when heavily applied can lead to the backfire effect. Once someone accepts something they can start to associate it with who they are as a person. So if I started to critique aspects of the right or left they would start getting defensive to the point that no matter what I said it wouldn't get through to them. Sometimes they would just shut me down aggressively.
Luckily all this psychological stuff doesn't work 100% of the time, because if it did anyone would be able to manipulate the masses to their whim to the detriment of the world. Every person is unique with different perspectives and responds to stimulation differently. Unfortunately this also means that in order to change minds it takes time to observe the person and approach with different tactics. For example, recently I had a conversation with someone that thinks the world is going through a cycle, rejecting global warming. She's a smoker and developed COPD years ago and knew that showing studies about global warming wouldn't convince her, in fact this would cause her to become defensive. So I had to think on my feet. We live near a TVA plant that's constantly pumping out smoke and compared those smoke stacks to smoking cigarettes. It seemed to get through to her.
All of these psychological strategies are applied and utilized daily by people in positions of power. It takes time, effort, planning and resources on their part and so it will take a similar amount to counteract, I think. Maybe just by explaining these psychological effects to a person they can unravel?
To answer your question about getting people to reject the right wing is the same one that pulls them in. The hook that's used to pull people into these traps is empathy, I think. I've talked with a lot of people and I haven't met someone that's outright malicious. People care about other people. The hard part is to tread around the psychological traps and pitfalls while pointing out the apathy the system has for them, their loved ones, their friends and neighbors, and people outside of the us. Each person is unique and requires a unique approach
But the social attitude towards pigs still goes against their interests as they're abused, tortured and killed on the regular.
Perhaps the lives of others are more important than your sensory issues?
No, I'm not being ableist. Don't get it twisted, your sensory issues are real and important, but they are not more important than the lives of others.
[Speciesism is a bigotry like any other. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/comment/j94ivug/?context=3)
To put your dietary needs over the life of an animal is to assert that your difficulties are more important than their lives, this is speciest supremacism in action.
>It’s not cognitive dissonance it’s science.
No, it isn't, your comment is full of misinformation.
>Human beings are omnivorous, meaning in order to efficiently obtain the nutrients we need to survive, we evolved to consume both plant and animal products.
That is not what omnivorous means. Omnivores are **capable** of digesting plants and meats, it is not a guideline regarding what is healthy. Speaking of which, meat is a carcinogen.
>Eating meat is not the issue, it’s the factory farming that’s causing the problem, and yet it remains the most efficient way to produce the quantity demanded.
It is the issue. Yes, capitalism has accelerated the amount of meat we make and yes capitalism is **a part ** of the problem, but the real core of the problem is speciecism. When did you become convinced that other sentient beings were your property? Why do you get a right to your body but you don't afford such liberties to non humans? Speciecism is supremacist and hierarchical, it goes against everything that anarchism stands for.
>You clearly know what cognitive dissonance means and can use it in the proper context
Being non hierarchical right up until you get hungrier and then justifying your oppressive actions with "they're just animals" is cognitive dissonance. You cannot be both anti hierarchy and non vegan.
>And it would take at least a couple million years for humans to evolve to where we can survive solely of of plants.
Obviously just wrong by every available metric, the science is in on veganism, every study shows its healthier than eating animal products.
Oh and by the way, carnism is killing the planet and is entirely unsustainable. Crop failures due to climate change will make animal agriculture completely infeasible except for the richest people.
Grow up man, both the science and ethics are on the side of veganism. Your own comrades are telling you that subjugating animals is hierarchical and unethical, take a hint eh?
If the condition of your life continuing is that others will suffer and you don't care, you're an unfeeling supremacist and you ain't getting my sympathy.
I mean, you’re much more likely to be insultingly told to ‘die like a dog’ than to ‘die like a cow’. ‘Bitch’ is a much more common sexist slur than ‘cow’ (at least in my locality). I think the problem is that most people’s attitudes towards animals in general is that they don’t warrant moral consideration. If you eat meat, you should be concerned with whether the animal was raised and slaughtered humanely and be aware of the ecological and social ramifications of its production and sale. But most people aren’t.
Couldn’t tell ya. They definitely could, but I don’t know many animals that problem solve as much as humans have. As far as “very low intelligence” (which like I don’t give a cuck but watch out for stpd and dmb, the mods will take out any comment with those words) we know they obviously ponder. Cause they’re fellow human. Can’t tell you what it’s like to be a pig. But pigs, who are very compassionate creatures, will eat anyone and anything. That includes their own AND the farmers that keep them. MOST humans have at least surpassed cannibalism. Not saying their life has no value or even less. But we obviously know more.
A general boycott of animal products isn't going to end animal oppression anyway. So many animals get killed in production of plant foods and basically all other consumer goods and infrastructure. We don't need more vegans but we need an organized resistance against these systems.
I do mean dehumanization, which could be better called *animalisation* instead. When dehumanization is employed as a strategy by fascists the purpose of it is to make any group seem subhuman, which then justifies discrimination against them. The fascists goal is to have you view a human as you already view an animal(as a lesser thing which is fine to exploit, kill, abuse, etc).
Pigs aren't having their feelings hurt by you calling cops pigs, but you calling cops pigs is reinforcing speciecist biases within language. You're using the term 'pig' as a demeaning term only because we do not recognize pigs as equals.
Yeah ... it's like, why is killing a huge number of people OK as long as they're not all the same ethnicity?
Alright I'll respond to this real quick.
Being the wife of a president inherently means you're married to someone who risks becoming a villain. That's just the nature of being married to a world leader. Global geopolitics are anarchic. You can't be a good guy and be a global leader, not today anyway.
Use the broken system to fix the broken system? System's not broken it's working as expected, we just don't like how it's expected to work. However it can be changed to at least work better. Look at the civil rights act, women's suffrage, etc. It can suck less.
When did I say accept the status quo? I said support people who try to change the status quo via reformism. I say nothing about supporting or not supporting other forms of social change.
Voting does work, kinda. If you believe in dual power structures, vote AND build a dual power structure. Not an either/or thing.
Riots usually don't do shit. I lived through one, it accomplished nothing. It was actually a net negative fr. It practically killed the BLM movement in my city. Although that was just that riot, idk about all riots being net negatives.
_hahahaahahahaahahahaha_ **WHEEEZE**
AAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAA
I think that's a good argument to correct someone who says "kill it with fire" when they see a spider; I doubt calling cops 'pigs' makes us less empathetic to pigs. It's easy enough to separate the two in this case.
For anyone still holding issue over this argument. I get it. I’ll say this for clarity. Human /= good. Human = aware. To call them pig is to imply they are as aloof to the situation as animals. They’re not. They are aware human being killing their fellow human. We all agree human murder is much more awful than an animal killing for dominance.
Edit: I stg if some mod bot messages me one more time…
I used to be very obedient and rule following, I am autistic so this can seem logical to me. Then as time went on I saw how inconsistent, hypocritical and useless many rules were.
However, in part due to my autism, how it manifests for me personally, I was unable to form an alternative view point with any real structure. So I had a total meltdown and loss of sense of self. I was not diagnosed until very recently but always knew there was something different or 'off' about me. I just couldn't follow rules or do things the 'right' way no matter how much I even tried. If I didn't totally and completely agree with them and want to do them as well, I can't follow rules. It makes life quite rough - from not being able to complete assignments because the question is stupid (and I mean being unable to make myself write even a bit of crap to please the teacher) through to being totally mystified at police and judicial systems...rules suck. However...rules like, traffic laws, or respect for others, I for the most part follow and agree with. They are mutually beneficial, they make sense.
I thought for a long time I was a failure. that I was the only one seeing 'this'. At first I thought ok communism has to be better, then it must be socialism...then I became nihilistic and sort of collapsed under the weight of ....all of this situation we're all in.
Over the pandemic I began to learn what Anarchism actually means and it was the one approach've found that made sense and is logically consistent, so far. It respects people's dignity, right to be themselves and reflects the mutually dependent reality of all of us together. It was like finding, finally, a philosophy and practise that reflected all of the shit I've been ranting about since I was 11.
Hierarchy totally fell over for me when trying to understand my oldest child's refusal to cooperate even on a basic thing, I got really angry and upset and said 'IF YOU JUST OBEYED THIS WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST OBEY FOR ONCE?" This was an awful, ridiculous and absurd thing to say as up to that point obedience had not been a framework of our relationship, it was for me with my zealot christian parents however. She laughed in my face, quite rightly. I recognised the fierce spirit of freedom in her, and ... freed myself of a lot of shit in the coming weeks.
[Content Warning]
>dairy
https://youtu.be/Z8TONpvepzg
>eggs
https://youtu.be/t_u0jxi_v-w
All animal products are taken from animals without their permission.
Are you a liberal or something? OP’s point was that cops deserve worse than pigs for being willing defenders of capitalism. These bastards kill, rape, and beat my people day in and day out. To call them “not our friends” is a massive understatement and softens how we should feel about them. They are more than “not our friends”. They’re fascists. A direct threat. The enemy. Not that we should hunt them for sport or anything but if a cop dies in the line of duty, I won’t hesitate to cheer. These humans sure snuffed the life out of a lot of humans because they thought it was fun and they won’t hesitate to make you their next victim if they see enough joy into turning your insides to applesauce.
>There are people who refuse to eat onions because they believe it causes lust. That is an ethical choice
Superstitions are not a framework for ethics, especially not superstitions about sexuality.
Ethics/morality isn't "what people do".
There seems to be a common misconception that a culture determines their framework of ethics and that makes that framework of ethics valid, but that's not the case. A culture choosing to kill and eat animals does not validate the ethics of eating animals for members of that culture.
Late to the thread, but this is true. If you're serious about it, you're serious about it. It has been three years since I first went vegan, with a short period where I ate animal products because I had a psychotic episode (Schizophrenia), but after I came back to reality I stopped eating animal products again.
It's just something that clicks in your brain, and after it clicks it's really hard to deny it.
Owners do.
They didn't create a single sándwich on the left-hand side.
They fund it perhaps (sometimes not at all) but they expect a return on profit.
They are, from what I can see, parasites in a semi-literal sense.
Yup. Formerly houseless myself. I would say capitalism is trying to kill you tho. Just threatening you with the ultimatum: produce or die.
I actually have an exact moment.
When I was in tenth grade, I got jumped by four other guys. I used my backpack as a shield , crouched down behind it, and curled into a ball to avoid getting my teeth kicked in.
Later, we all get dragged to the dean of boys office, and I took three swats for "fighting" right next to the guys who attacked me.
All of them were significantly larger than me on top of outnumbering and ambushing me.
The entire time, the Dean took special time to explain to me that I shouldn't have defended myself, that was still "fighting". Even though I was cornered between a set of lockers and couldn't get out.
I'd seen cops come out and laugh at my mom who'd just been beat up by her boyfriend, I'd even had a few run-ins with local cops flexing their muscles over kids being too loud or rowdy in our apartment complex, but that day was the exact moment I knew that people in charge didn't give a shit about anything but The Rules.
My mom claims that I punched my principal in the face when I was 9 years old. I don't personally remember it, but I think that was around the age that it started. I developed a strong sense of independence and self-actualization, I didn't like the idea of being told I couldn't do something if it didn't make sense, and I also hated being told what to do.
It didn't help that I lived in a region that was largely abusive and controlling to children.
I think I got it from being around so many people that were power tripping and treating people unfairly. I recognized it even at a fairly young age. At some point I just didn't accept anyone's "authority".
Where's Transito Amaguaña?
I would class traditional Democratic Party voters as liberals in the USA sense. The policies that the Democratic Party supports in the USA would be fiscally conservative or socially centrist in Canada, and I expect that they would be categorized similarly in Europe.
A big part of the difficulty with this whole analysis is that the word liberal has so many uses. It could refer to:
- Someone who supports centralized parliamentary democracy & capitalism as opposed to monarchy or anything leftist, which is the original use of the term, or
- Someone who is a Democrat in the USA (in the context of a right-wing person using it as a slur, ie “Those damn liberals want to let anybody into the ladies washroom now!”), or
- A member of a party called the Liberal party
Personally, I just lump them all into the same category as a bunch of people who are in favour of exploitation and genocide. The finer distinctions don’t matter to me, as those distinctions are just them arguing amongst themselves about how hard they can stomp on the people below them and still feel morally OK about it.
All of you pretending an anarchist presence shouldn’t exist within the vicinity of socialists is fucking wild. Lol. You have nothing, and you’re going to look at that nothing and offer yourself less. That’s so wild. Sosososososo wild. Are you afraid they’ll take your mind? Lol, how weak is this “anarchist” identity so prevalent here? Do you want isolationism and alienation? Keep it the fuck up.
If you live in the Boston area and you're an anarchist, you should be at this fucking thing, cutting a fucking rug and having a good time, making friends and connections because you’re an excellent damned human. You cannot continue on this way; you can fucking NOT hide your bullshitting ass light under a bushel if you have any hope of creating something that isn’t the soviets times two but gayer.
Explain to me how avoiding society will do anything for fucking anyone? That said, FnB the streets and talk to your neighbors. If you aren’t feeding someone and also telling people to run/hide from the scary socialists you're saying a lot about your place in any movement.
And they betray you at what point in the jog? Lol get a grip.
Damn man. Chaplin really used his platform to go off, huh? This little chap killed it.
I wish someone could make David Graeber’s “Are You An Anarchist?” Quiz into a fun infographic to play on social media. Would be a great stinger to add after a clip like this one.
> The population of wild, free-roaming bison in Yellowstone National Park, for example, is the last in the country. But the park service manages them to minimize the impact on neighboring landowners and the cattle industry in Montana and Wyoming by restricting or prohibiting the bison’s migration, and killing some of the animals to keep their numbers down.
>
> “Just the starting point—that the park service is in the business of preventing wild animals from doing what they do—suggests there might be some different approaches that are actually more closely connected to the ways in which these ecosystems work,” Mills says.
Since you've brought this up elsewhere, I'm not convinced the indigenous people of the area would actually cease this program if they took over management from YNP. Firstly, because some Native American tribes are already involved in the cullings, and secondly, because this isn't something the NPS decided to do for the heck of it, it's something that it's did [to try and comply with Montanan law](https://greateryellowstone.org/blog/2022/bison-yellowstone) and not antagonize ranchers, and those concerns don't just go away because you change who manages it. I don't know whether or not the current leadership of Yellowstone National Park approves of the program or not, but ultimately it doesn't matter what they think.
This is a common thread in a lot of these discussions. There's much to be said for the varied indigenous conservation techniques and worldviews, and plenty to be criticized about how conservation agencies have treated indigenous people. But indigenous people are not isolated from the capitalist statist system in which they exist, and so simply switching administrative control won't necessarily improve things. These think-pieces tend to be very surface-level and just focus on switching administrative control, though, and then imply that all the positive changes will simply follow if we change who administers it.
That´s what Gene Sharp says in the movie, guerilla counter attacks will not help, because in this case the dictator is striking back super hard.
From the 70 s until the 90 s there was a leftist group called RAF ( Red Army Fraction) in Germany, in the beginning they were liked and had a lot of supporters but than they started bombing, killing and kidnapping and they lost sympathizer.
So why haven't you gotten out there and started killing the establishment and its enforcers? That is what revolution will be, so what's holding you back?
Or are you trying to garner support in social media platforms? Because the government totally wont notice that and arrest you for terrorism.
Edit: the above was sarcasm because I think revolution will put the exact same powers in charge and will result in nothing but death and waste. But also, because you are calling for revolution on social media, i point out that reddit flagged this comment as calling for terrorism. So even the algorithm will notice and fight any real life action you will try to organize before the gov kicks your door in for terroristic plots.
Was Róża Luksemburg anarchist at all? More like "democratic communist"
The Fight for Turtle Island by Aragorn!
Black Seed: Not on Any Map
Also, Rashōmon and Seventeen Other Stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa
Honestly I think history, sociology, or anthropology would be better fits.
I don't think economics would be good at all unless it's a department that's specifically really heterodox-heavy so you don't get the 101 indoctrination bullshit of waving away any political or social issues with a supply-demand graph and a simplistic model designed to kill the social imagination of students. E.g. 101 textbooks teaching that minimum wage increases cause employment because of supply and demand instead of looking at the actual empirical investigations that have been done that largely find no effect or reductions in unemployment. Or teaching the myth of barter instead of actual history/archaeology/anthropology about the origins of money and exchange.
Philosophy tends to be either analytic or continental, both of which have their problems politically.
Analytic is good for teaching methods for clear and precise argumentation and thinking, which is generally useful, but analytic philosophers honestly just rarely have anything interesting to say about politics because the interesting issues are resolved merely by revising a few definitions and concepts. The result ends up being endless litigation over, like, the concept expressed by the word "justice" that inevitably ends up as a post-hoc justification for liberal-progressive consensus of upper-middle class university professors. (Grad students and adjuncts are more open to radicalism, but that works ends up being marginalized or focused on other areas of philosophy.)
Continental tends to be nominally radical, but in a way that encourages obscurantist posturing, and grandiose calls for like, "a radical reformulation of the very epistemic frameworks structuring the ontology of coloniality" or something, but then it turns out that this doesn't mean anything other than a slight difference in the methodology of comparative literary criticism in papers published in academic journals. The students are often active in radical politics, but it's not always clear to to what extent content of their studies is concretely useful for that.
Totally! You’re not being an ass at all. It’s a very legit question.
Basically, you’re right—the therapist CAN break the law (just like anarchists can lol). The therapist’s risk is losing their license and/or some sort of legal punishment like a fine. So yeah, a really shitty therapist could still report you and they could even lie and say that you threatened to kill someone or something like that. Same goes for any profession with confidentiality protections. They’re only as good as the person you’re trusting.
Ultimately it would play out in court and it would depend on how good your lawyer is and what the local laws are. But yes, your lawyer would have a legal argument to make that confidentiality applied and thus whatever you may have said to your therapist should be inadmissible in court. If argued properly and deemed correct, the law would protect you.
I think it is the language barrier?
maybe lesser evil would translate as moindre mal?
Excusez mon français.
Everyone is evil, but some people say "at least vote for the one that is a little bit less evil".
Sorry if I overstepped.
Kill your idols
“this nonviolent stuff’ll get you killed”
Yes but that is why organizations like the SRA are so helpful. They will teach people to shoot. They also provide a structure that can be utilized in the event that mass action is necessary
Maria Curie Skłodowska is missing, who first became the first professor of the Sorbonne, then helped rebuild Polish science after being destroyed by the Russians
> In 1967, Steinem revealed in an interview with The New York Times that she worked full time from 1958 until 1962 at the Independent Research Service, which was largely financed by the CIA. In May 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist group, published a report that Steinem and others put together on the Vienna Youth Festival and its attendees for the Independent Research Service. Redstockings raised the question of whether Steinem had continuing ties with the CIA, which Steinem denied. Steinem defended her relationship to the CIA, saying: "In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable."
> Nevertheless, Steinem endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, citing her broader experience, and saying that the nation was in such bad shape it might require two terms of Clinton and two of Obama to fix it.
> In 1977, Steinem expressed disapproval that the heavily publicized sex reassignment surgery of tennis player Renée Richards had been in her opinion characterized as either a frightening look at what feminism could cause or as proof that feminism was no longer necessary. Steinem wrote that the issue was at minimum "a diversion from the widespread problems of sexual inequality." She also wrote that, while she supported the right of individuals to identify as they choose, she believed some transsexuals "surgically mutilate their own bodies" in order to conform to a gender role that is inexorably tied to physical body parts. She claimed that "feminists are right to feel uncomfortable about the need for and uses of transsexualism."
Not saying she never did good work but uhhhhh
Friend, I appreciate what you’re interpreting, but I am literally studying for my CA MFT law and ethics exam right now and I am 100% positive you’re wrong on this. You just used the same link I put above in my comment.
If my client tells me they’re going to punch their boss tomorrow, I can’t break confidentiality.
If my client tells me they’re going to kill their boss tomorrow, I must break confidentiality.
This distinction may not be true in other states—I’m not familiar with other state rules. But based on the MD law I just linked, it’s similar but not exactly the same. It appears that in MD both situations would be reportable but again, I would not presume to be the expert there. It clearly references harm to people, so if I have a client in MD tell me they’re going to steal their neighbor’s car tomorrow, I presumably can’t break confidentiality.
Regarding your point about assuming bad faith, I agree—just because your therapist CAN’T break confidentiality doesn’t mean they WON’T.
Hope is a discipline. Shooting guns cheers me up and it seems like someone in your social position might consider getting strapped.
It's no wonder you feel that way. before it was released to avoid being attacked by the Rightists. The documentary team [therefore named](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ゆきゆきて、神軍#配給) the film the same as the movie of the right wing. And parts of the original film were confiscated by the police.
The anarchist Okuzaki is the protagonist. (At that time being imprisoned again due to his direct actions) said the movie was very boring.
This video looks like some outside agitator bs to me which is why I brought it up.
I don’t need every event to be peaceful- I am 100% here for fucking up cops shit, but not if it’s white people burning down shit with impunity leaving POC holding the bag without consent.
If using POC like we are disposable is an acceptable MO to you, that is deeply problematic and incredibly counterinsurgent.
White boys burning down shit under the cover of POC revolution is exactly some proud boys cop shit.
Proud boys caping as black bloc and escalating to violence is a problem.
Black bloc coming thru and escalating to violence without strategic consent from organizers is a problem.
The violence isn’t the problem. Using marginalized communities as cover *without consent* is.
Regular mass sabotage like this is exactly what's needed. Sitting around waiting to get kicked by the pigs will not do anything.
Or if you've got a plan to kill/hurt yourself (or someone else) that you intend on acting upon.
They have something for political orientation and actually don't have leftist as an option? That seems like a major fucking oversight. What options do they have then?
"People used to like to use this term: diversity of tactics, and we’ve gone a step further, we’ve created something that actually mimics the forest itself, this is an ecosystem of tactics. So it’s not a bunch of things working against or in-spite of each other, its several tactics working in conjunction and in relation to each other. Everything from the Muskogee stomp dance to marches of preschoolers to leafleting the community old-school style, to windows being smashed, to people building tree-houses in the forest and refusing to move. [It’s] punk shows and dance parties and religious services and garden planting…and a lot of these things are difficult for some people to understand why they matter; why they’re connected to each other, but its important to understand that we have to reach every aspect of human society."
Amazing
Honestly it’s not a bad offer- but with that ammt of a stipend you would need another form of income due to the HCOL in Irvine and surrounding area.
Average rental in the area is about 2500+ for a 1 bedroom appt, plus utilities etc.
Could probably find slightly cheaper in Santa Ana (about 15 min drive in light traffic) but might not be in the best part of town.
I went to UCI myself, back in 2009, and it wasn’t cheap then. I can only imagine what everything is nowadays
Oh. Anarchists absolutely do. I think when people mean local, they mean things that they can affect. Of course, I don't want my government killing people, whether those people live here or abroad :p But, I can take action against my government (both against their global and domestic policies) but I can't sabotage railroads in Russia, I don't live there.
There are countless examples of anarchists protesting or sabotaging international policies of their countries.
To be fair, Stalin is probably right wing, I mean, he called himself and his party communist but fits the fascist dictator category pretty well, and ordered all the other people who opposed him to be killed
man you just need to meet liberals from the country. we want human rights BUT also fuck banning all guns.
Really? Because I'm working with people who have developmental disabilities. I'm trying to make life better for them while not contributing to the profits of a greedy corporation.
My anarchist buddy does the same thing while also acting as a volunteer firefighter, and going out in public with his anarchist band to send a message.
Activism doesnt have to be protest, it can simply be us doing as much as we can in our own lives to help others while spreading the measage.
Just because you're terminally online doesn't mean everyone else is. Stop projecting and start working on yourself if you want to see some change in this world.
Edit: I wish automoderation bots could understand context...
We need to keep it.up. never let these guys get away with bulldozing a forest for a cop training center
yeah, reddit only displays a certain amount of subbed subreddits and if you browse the subreddit, it kicks it up in the algorithm so you see it more.
edit: fix your automod filters, seriously.
I moved a number of years ago to a new apartment and got to know about half of the building intimately. We share food, hang out, listen to each others music and shows. We talk about our fears, dreams, disabilities, addictions, abuse, theory and praxis, we organized mutual aid for our street, got to know most of the neighbors living outside the complex, formed strong bonds and now I'm upset because I've been a nomad much of my life but I love these people like family and they love it here even though the heat domes and smoke are getting worse, lol. Staying put for a bit, at least keeping the apartment for a bit.
This is most easily accomplished with smoking circles because nicotine is addictive as hell and people will be showing up regularly. Even the nonsmokers come hang out now, it's beautiful too, we're also respectful with wind direction when the asthmatics are around. The fires kick ass too. We also play games and tell stories.
My cope is mostly this but also getting out into green spaces or the wilderness, preferably on highly trafficked trails so it's social. Also reddit helps too for the days when I need to hear opinions outside my bubble because that's where I've gotten some great ideas to help others and myself, raddle too. Also it helps me to see actions of others from wherever, seeing people helping each other gives me great joy.
In german the anarcho-syndicalists are called 'libertär .
The american 'libertarians' would be called 'sozialdarwinistische Turbokapitalisten'.
Not *all* leftists....
--
> Consequently privilege cannot be abolished and freedom and equality established firmly and definitely without abolishing government—not this or that government but the very institution of government.
- [An Anarchist Programme](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-an-anarchist-programme), Errico Malatesta
--
> We anarchists want a world without nations, governments, capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia… without any of the numerous, intersecting systems of domination the world bears the weight of today.
- [Life Without Law](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-life-without-law)
--
> It follows that when government is abolished, wage slavery and capitalism must also go with it, because they cannot exist without the support and protection of government. Just as the man who would claim a monopoly of the island, of which I spoke before, could not put through his crazy claim without the help of government.
>
> Such a condition of things where there would be liberty instead of government would be Anarchy. And where equality of use would take the place of private ownership, would be Communism.
>
> It would be Communist Anarchism.
- [What is Communist Anarchism?](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism#toc22), Alexander Berkman
--
> Only the social Revolution is capable of destroying private property and its mainstay, the State; of establishing public ownership and a stateless, federalistic organization of society on the basis of the free association of productive units in factories and villages.
- [Programme of Anarcho-Syndicalism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/grigori-petrovitch-maximov-programme-of-anarcho-syndicalism), Gregory Maximoff
--
> “Anarchy” is a social situation free of government and coercive hierarchies held together by self-organized horizontal relationships
- [Anarchy Works](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works), Peter Gelderloos
--
> ANARCHISM: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.
- [Anarchism and Other Essays](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays), Emma Goldman
--
> ...studying the progress made in this direction, we are led to conclude that the tendency of the human race is to reduce Government interference to zero; in fact, to abolish the State, the personification of injustice, oppression, and monopoly.
- [The Conquest of Bread](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread), Pëtr Kropotkin
--
> Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, which fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class.
- [II. THE PRINCIPLES OF REVOLUTIONARY UNIONISM](https://iwa-ait.org/content/statutes), statues of the International Workers Association (IWA-AIT)
Leftists want worker control of the means of production, and autonomy and liberty for communities.
Vanguardist parties such as those under Lenin and Mao are opportunistic cynics who suck balls and inevitably degenerate into a new capitalist ruling class when they seize state power "on behalf" of The People.
"Socialism is when gubmint does stuff" is Fox News tier political illiteracy. Anarchists oppose private property relations and the state because both are self-perpetuating unjust hierarchies.
[Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and [...] Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality](https://libcom.org/article/stateless-socialism-anarchism)
I'm talking about my experience on this sub, not with you and your "homies."
There it is. Just another troll. Most of the anarchists I know are BIPOC or lgbt and they are more active locally than most other leftist stripes in my personal experience. Most of their action is organized locally as well and not on platforms like reddit. Anarchists tend to focus their energy locally because that's where that energy can have the most impact. What can I do about the problem of migrant vessels sinking off Italy and Greece? Fuck all is what. Appealing to the neoliberal state to give any sort of fuck about the marginalized is a fool's errand. A waste of energy. Energy and time that can be spent supporting people and movements locally.
We need to keep it.up. never let these guys get away with bulldozing a forest for a cop training center
Maybe they want a turn on Piñata Mussolini
I'll say it explicitly then, one likely explanation is that this sub values white lives over others.
>AI has arguably become sentient
It has not lol.
>certain ai's exhibit a will
They do not. It's a trick. These kinds of AIs have been around for a while. What's really scary is seeing how seriously everyone's taking what is ultimately a very equivocal text machine. Maybe it's a linguistic bias? Imagine thinking Nvidia's 4090 is sentient because its AI can do graphical upscaling and interlacing. People see in chatbot words whatever their pareidolia wants.
It's been awhile since I've said this, but Noam Chomsky is right. ChatGPT and others like it are hi-tech plagiarism, not intelligence.
>AI has arguably become sentient
It has not lol.
>certain ai's exhibit a will
They do not. It's a trick. These kinds of AIs have been around for a while. What's really scary is seeing how seriously everyone's taking what is ultimately a very equivocal text machine. Maybe it's a linguistic bias? Imagine thinking Nvidia's 4090 is sentient because its AI can do graphical upscaling and interlacing. People see in chatbot words whatever their pareidolia wants.
It's been awhile since I've said this, but Noam Chomsky is right. ChatGPT and others like it are hi-tech plagiarism, not intelligence.
>AI has arguably become sentient
It has not lol.
>certain ai's exhibit a will
They do not. It's a trick. These kinds of AIs have been around for a while. What's really scary is seeing how seriously everyone's taking what is ultimately a very equivocal text machine. Maybe it's a linguistic bias? Imagine thinking Nvidia's 4090 is sentient because its AI can do graphical upscaling and interlacing. People see in chatbot words whatever their pareidolia wants.
It's been awhile since I've said this, but Noam Chomsky is right. ChatGPT and others like it are hi-tech plagiarism, not intelligence.
And the police killed one of the protesters a few weeks ago. Claim is the protester shot first, of course, and all the police wearing bodycams were conveniently elsewhere at the time.
Counter-insurgency is a hell of a thing. Usually the State perfects it, and kills movements. But this movement in Atlanta seems to be withstanding it.
We need to keep it.up. never let these guys get away with bulldozing a forest for a cop training center
The concern in Utah that a lot of costal leftists don’t consider is the Mormon church. We’re collectively coming up against the wall of climate crisis and capitalist collapse. This means the revolution or civil conflict will likely spark in the US within our lives. I’d say 20 years tops but that’s generous. This means a number of things, for leftist organizations it means giving up our sectarianism and working together. I know people here don’t like Marxist-Leninists but your all gonna have to get over that.(same goes for MLs of course) but when this all comes to a head, whenever it is and wherever it happens the Mormon church has a literal private army and Utah would immediately fall under their jurisdiction. Now for the comrade I’m replying the fact of the matters that you’ll probably be ok (or at least alive) until that time. However Utah will become very bad very quickly. Because of this fact I would advise getting out of the state within the decade however for right now don’t let yourself spiral. Panic will only make things worse, if inactivity makes you uncomfortable learn first aid, work out, and if you can learn how to shoot. If you can’t do that don’t despair because there are many comrades in Colorado right next door and odds are you’ll have their support. Otherwise remember that you are loved by many people who you have never even met or spoken to. Where ever you are there is a comrade near by be they anarchists, socialists, or Marxist Leninists.
Oh and what would you suggest be done with the tons of byproduct that humans cannot digest?
I think you missed the part of my statement that says "I dont think vegans realize that everyone going vegan doesn't mean the animals are saved." You went on a whole contrived diatribe about what I was saying could possibly mean and making all sorts of wild claims about what my line of reasoning is. Also you seem to put on me that I think that factory farming animals is okay. I'm nowhere saying that factory farming is good. Nor am I saying nor implying that every sperm is sacred. Part of my point is they dont care about animal welfare because if they did they'd care more about abolishing factory farming animals than killing hundreds of thousands of animals by trying to back capitalists into a corner by liberal boycotts. They dont want to save the animals. They want to feel good about themselves. Their motto certainly isn't "save the animals" but it could be "extinction of species is the only ethical consumption under capitalism." And it'll never be "organize the meat workers to take control of production so we can save the animals."
And yes part of my point is that we are responsible for these species. I dont think throwing all of them away because they are no longer eaten would be a good thing. It, as you said, makes us seem irresponsible and incapable. You cannot fix dead nor extinct. I'd much rather we craft ecosystems for these animals than send them all to oblivion or to be abandoned like the pigeon. Pigeons are domesticated animals. We turned them into rats with wings because no one eats them they've all been released and gone feral and eat trash that is bad for them. These are not healthy birds.
Also I think people forget that we are part of our biosphere. Things are still evolving. We are part of the cycle of life and death. Which can be more brutal than us. Being eaten alive is an awful way to go and it happens.
Also how in the fuck did you find this one comment out of the literal thousands here? And after how long? Why?
Or murdering an anarchist
It’s so infuriating to read Liberal coverage of this. Pigs keep getting quoted as saying shit like “we support peaceful protest but violence is bad,” and liberals eat it up. They don’t see that what the cops are saying is “we can beat you, arrest you, shoot you, and steal your land, and if you don’t like that you can peacefully “protest” but any action that would actually get between us and our fascist goals is not allowed.”
It’s so infuriating to read Liberal coverage of this. Pigs keep getting quoted as saying shit like “we support peaceful protest but violence is bad,” and liberals eat it up. They don’t see that what the cops are saying is “we can beat you, arrest you, shoot you, and steal your land, and if you don’t like that you can peacefully “protest” but any action that would actually get between us and our fascist goals is not allowed.”
I was a humanities student as well (in 11th and 12th, went on to study History in the US), and man I remember our history and political science (NCERT) books--there was so much nationalism seeped into it. K-10 was even worse. And as I grew up, I realized how little I *truly* know about India's history and where it lies at present--we were taught we're the largest democracy and all, but to what extent is that really true? We have so little money invested in humanities research at undergrad/graduate level, so little data collection, and all of our news media is heavily censored and Modi-biased, that Indian people are left completely ignorant about the state of the country. We're a class-based, hierarchical society anyway, and there's just no cultural dialogue about changing *any* of that. I'm super interested in participating in politics, and weirdly enough I've found it *much* easier to do that in the U.S. Revolutionaries in India get killed. I just don't even know where we can even begin to find the first glimpse of a social revolution in India.
Yeah can you find a single story where the people involved weren't coincidentally pro-Russia since that is the common theme in all of them? Also, all the sources (apart from The Guardian) seem to believe conspiracy theories about Maidan Revolution being a NATO orchestrated coup. And the MEP who wrote about the killing of an "anti-fascist" fighter is a full on putinist, take a quick look at his twitter profile.
1. You would be dead if you were living in a "nazi" regime for typing this.
2. There is nothing wrong with shitting on our country's oppressors. Mughals killed, raped many people and destroyed most of the temples. If there were erasure of history, you wouldnt be reading about mughals + how they bought biryani to india and were peace loving🤡
3.Agree.
4.We can't side with US obviously for ideological and historical reasons. The closest is Russia. It is about survival, not world peace n shit.
I don’t argue with everything you say. But It seems a bit unimaginative to say that there is no possible way to use parts of plant crops that people don’t eat if they aren’t fed to livestock.
Also:
“If we no longer eat the animals we domesticated it means the capitalists would just let them all die”
I don’t see how this is any worse than breeding the animals before killing them. The statement assumes that death is bad. It would be bad for these animals to die. They already will die, well before their natural lifespan, so death is bad, but only if the animal has not reproduced. Why does reproducing make death less bad? The not yet conceived livestock don’t feel any kind of pain from not being born, as far as I or anyone can know. The domestic animals often do not live or reproduce in a way dictated by their own behavior. Even if we assume that the animals get pleasure from reproducing, it’s not clear that the way humans restrict the reproductive process of livestock preserves any of the fulfillment the animal would get out of it.
This sense of “harm”, (that animals created to be killed in their prime of life face that fate without being used to breed a new generation, which will also be killed in the same way) proposes, when I try to understand it, a morality far more costly and exhausting than veganism.
This would mean ensuring that a living being MUST be proactively bred and all offspring allowed to develop and breed themselves, to prevent suffering.
Where does this sense of morality lead? Already many livestock are not bred before slaughter because they are deemed to have undesirable traits. Maybe they don’t grow as large as others, or lay as well, or have bad knees, or are prone to disease. Does not breeding these individuals constitute harm? How far can we even go to ensure that every sperm, egg, or even spore, seed, bacteria, etc, gets to mature and reproduce before it dies? Wouldn’t pursuing this goal cause harm to currently living beings?
From a vegan perspective, killing livestock is bad, but preventing future generations from existing stops the cycle of harm done to subsequent generations. Even in a very purist extreme vegan stance, killing every livestock animal today is not ideal, but it is WAY better than breeding, killing, breeding, killing, etc. From a more nuanced perspective, that cycle of suffering of generation after generation of livestock might be weighed against the suffering to human beings that a total eradication of livestock could cause.
The most I can reason it out is that the quoted stance is an appeal to status quo: since we currently breed these types of domestic animals, it would be bad if we stopped and we need to keep doing it forever. But that kind of reason could be applied to any kind of horrific behavior.
The extinction of a domestic species isn’t comparable to the extinction of a wild animal. Humans created these beings and therefore humans are entirely responsible for their lives. whereas wild animals we only have a responsibility to coexist with. Not breeding french bulldogs, leading to the extinction of french bulldogs, does not represent a threat to our species. It might even be a net positive. The extinction of wild animals because of human activity represents a threat to our own lives as the ecosystem becomes less stable, and also makes humanity in general seem somewhat irresponsible and incapable.
>You say that humans shouldn't hold ourselves to a higher moral standard
than non-human animals, and therefore killing and eating animals (like
other animals do) is morally justifiable.
Yes, I do not think that humans should; I feel it is very pretentious to do so, and to do so is a form of anthropocentrism that should be questioned.
>But if you believe this, then surely raping each other and playing with/mutilating each other is morally justifiable?
No, because I do not advocate for that to happen in species. Many animals do not do this, and I find that to be a moral structure that I happen to agree with.
>Or if you think these things are only morally justifiable when they're
done to members of other species, then it's morally justifiable for
humans to rape and mutilate other species?
Also no, since aggravate sexual assault (the r word you keep using) and mutilation isn't something all species engage in; I can hold it morally bad.
I think you placing humans in a higher regard is what should be questioned.
Speaking from the limitations of my own beliefs and context, I think you're on the right track.
I don't see anarchism as advocating for chaos - I see it as advocating for a more interconnected web of information and resource sharing; with democratic decision making being an integrated component of that network.
Local decisions would be made by local residents.
Global decisions would be made using some sort of iterative process that distributes relevant information out and then gathers relevant opinions back in until it converges on some sort of consensus.
At least that's what I'm hoping for. :)
[there are studies to suggest that trigger warnings don't help.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201904/do-trigger-warnings-actually-work)
I know it seems counter intuitive but It seems like all they do is cause additional anxiety.
Jeah, „jokes“ like these are not my jam and imo kinda cross the line. The 40% thing should not be communicated in jokes. The „40% of cops cant spend Christmas with their family, google „40% of cops“ to find out more“ line of argument al lot more productive. I do not condone these jokes, i just wanted to explain where they are coming from. I guess its framed as a joke so the gut punch instead of the punchline people are expecting hits harder.
Jesus Christ your sick, as some one from Europe i honestly hope you get banned from here for supporting mass murder of cossacks and claim its fake! Fuck you!
Yeah I was going to say just look up Nestor Makhno.
Communists and fascists agree on 1 thing. Kill the anarchists first.
Your a nasty genocide apologist, Fuck off! You are reported!
So tell me, what are they gonna do AFTER they created the dictatorship over the proletariat!
(btw have you even googled what proletär means?)
It means a person who dont own anything! Now tell me why the Marxist wanted to make a dictatorship over those that DIDNT own anything!
The proletärs wasnt the capitalists!
Back to the one liner feed to you by marxist!
"It’s the process of getting the Soviet Union stateless classless and moneyless"
Nice one liner that means NOTHING!
Show me where in your source it says its stateless!
LOL the kid blocked me after saying the last shit!
I think it's relative. If I'm going to post something in a public space, it's not gonna be extremely graphic, even if it alludes to something graphic. Symbolism, ya know.
That being said, the internet is not the same as real life and needs different but similar rules.
I don't want to see snuff videos so I appreciate warnings so I can avoid it. If it's something I need to know about it, like a police shooting for instance, I'd rather read about it than watch it and honestly I'd rather not see all the dirty details s unnecessary either.
One step at a time will suffice.
Do people imagine factory farming as bad?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
​
And no, you were making them equivalent from your argument.
>They are sentient, because they have the capacity to feel pleasure and pain.
and
>Do you consider human adults to be morally superior to human babies by the same logic?
are really, in my mind, reflections of how you are saying that I should regard babies as moral agents because they are sentient.
I believe you rectify this further:
>A moral agent is a being who is morally rational, like (most) adult
humans; a moral patient is a being who is sentient - specifically a
being with the capacity to suffer - and who is therefore worthy of our
moral consideration, like human babies and non-human animals. Animal
agriculture is morally wrong on my view because it inflicts suffering
and exploitation on non-human animals, i.e. sentient beings / moral
patients.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. There doesn't seem to be much a dichotomy between moral agent vs moral patient/sentient being since moral agents can be the former in many cases.
Also, it seems that moral agent are supposed to be some kind of steward of moral patients/sentient beings; this falls, again, into the trap of "we are morally superior" and it is to be done away with, especially in anarchist circles like this one.
>your view is absolutely consistent and implies that humans are also morally superior to non-human animals
Where?
u/AnarchaMorrigan in the context of your judgement that my saying that severely intellectually disabled humans are not morally rational is against the AOP, this comment is definitely against the AOP
Subtle way of spreading dissent, without marginalizing yourself as a "peacebreaker radical" and killing the idea validity. Big change goes in barely perceptible, but planned and well directed steps.
Its something that the hot headed anarchists that crave for violence never understood.
I understand why you think that way, but you're wrong.
Ukrainian here. We do not want to talk. We do not want de-escalation. We do not want to surrender.
We will hate Zelenakyi forever after some peace treaty that justifies occupation of Donets and Lugansk regions and Crimea.
We want our land back and moskovits to fuck off.
They are bothering us for centuries and opressing and killing us after Pereyaslav Treaty with hetman Bogdan Hmelnytskyi.
Isn't the point of anarchy let the people decide?
We decided
No everyone against the revolution any way sent to gulags or shot. I recommend reading the gulag archipelago it details who got screwed over by them.
I think you can accomplish this exclusively with jokes that punch up rather than down: jokes which make the abuser the butt of the joke, not the victim.
As far as i also know, those that was most active back then and not just following suit was those that later became besætter. (dunno the english word sorry)
Which is for sure also a anarchist movement :) Its where i got introduced to anarchism in the 80s-90s
I think you are using 'triggering' in a way I am not.
In your first sentence, you seem to be using triggering to mean "strongly highlighting the darker side of something."
What I mean when I say 'triggering' is something that triggers a PTSD response. While strongly highlighting the darker side of something _can_ be triggering it is not always.
One time, a veteran in the same computer lab as me got triggered by me typing too loud; he had flashbacks to a firefight, I think.
So, because people who are having a PTSD episode are not in the best place to appreciate satire, and most people who appreciate satire don't have PTSD, I think that (under the definition I was using) satire is not most effective when triggering.
Of course in hindsight "they resisted our centralization of power so we killed them all" is a bad look so they've gotta come up with some alternate explanation but i see no reason to believe that was the motivating factor at the time.
Okay first off when someone gets triggered it's not like they are just simply upset. We are talking about people who go into full blown panic attacks, disassociate, and things like that and they shouldn't have to randomly come across that stuff without bracing themselves.
Not only that but a trigger warnings have been around since forever. We called him ratings. Those are the ratings on the movie like the R rating for example which tells people that there's going to be a lot of swearing, sex, and excessive violence.
That R waiting for restricted is an indication of the contents inside the movie. It's a content warning.
Also you can't just claim something is satire or a joke just because it's offensive or whatever. You don't get to hide behind the idea that something is just a joke.
You have to do it correctly because jokes are a skill like anything else. Comedy is a skill.
Also that's not what satire means. Satire is a form of parody and there is no parody in basically having an image implying that there's going to be domestic violence.
Satire is when you parody or satirize or make fun of something.
Usually it requires things to be exaggerated for a fact.
For example the anime show hetalia is basically satire but they don't go into the realm of making fun of Holocaust victims. Instead they keep the focus where it should be which is on the countries themselves and light-hearted antics. Not on heavy stuff or making fun of Holocaust victims.
> Hello everyone, I'm just regular old police officer being a police officer. I got to say, I just love the communities I serve. Oh sure maybe I shoot a few of those people but like they totally deserve it anyway. Like isn't that right? Well okay maybe that one guy didn't deserve it but like he was coming at me and I was afraid he had a gun. Oh sure it turned out to be a will remote But like I was justified. Oh sure and when I say coming at me I guess it was more like walking but I thought it was much faster because I was in a panic. Oh and like sure sometimes I shoot kids because I think they have guns too. I'm actually quite afraid of guns for some reason but you know I'm a police officer so it's okay if I have the gun but if they have the gun then I'm totally terrified. Oh and you should see how I handle school shootings. Like if you see the speed at which I run I run really fast. I mean, oh sure, I may be running in the opposite direction but I'm so running. I am very brave.
There, that is satire.
In the early 20th century it very much does.
Anarchists at this time were undeniably some of the most radical leftists as well as being numerous enough to worry the authorities in many European countries. We're talking about people who threw a bomb in the French national assembly, others who walked up to Scotland Yard and shot them in the face before holding out against police assaults until Churchill ordered the whole building be set on fire.
It might be hard to imagine anarchists being a heavyweight in politics, and being part of the conversation. Communism was a novelty and got especially more following with the Russian revolution. But before that the anarchists and communists had been on almost equal footings. It shouldn't be surprising that people who stormed the stock exchange might have been at least inspired by anarchists telling them to do so, and participating themselves
This trans woman will break each and every one of these fascists that dare! I will live out of spite for these cowards alone!
The Navy couldn't kill me, and neither will this wannabe military cult!
We've protected Drag shows, we can protect the community as a whole. I'm already registered with the SRA and an unspecified chapter of Redneck Revolt. Start getting your licenses, start going to saftey seminars, and start going to the range.
Another thing to keep in mind is to join your nearest gym. Physical strength, speed, and muscle stamina are crucial to countering brollic meatheads like the Proudboys and Patriot Front. Learn to fight hand-to-hand, simple boxing is a good place to start, but see if you can boost it up from there.
Where we have confrontation, we'll also have injury. Many of us can push back, but we'll need someone to tend to the wounded. If you're able to, I'd suggest looking for a Medical aid course. These are vital skills we can't do without in a heated street conflict. Cops and Right-Wingers won't hesitate to injure, or even kill.
Bare in mind not all wars are fought with a sword and shield. If physical fitness isn't your thing, become a tech whizz. Our "footsoldiers" need an eye in the sky. Start learning ethical hacking, learn to fly a drone, monitor online chatter. Every piece of information helps.
Woah this is a cool idea, I am comfortable with firearms in general and have shot plenty, but not in my possession for the reasons you have given. Any resources youd recommend on community defense drone use/tactics/safety/opsec?
Of course we should fight against police and military animals. But we must not forget that billions of pigs, cows and chickens are killed every day in horrible conditions, we must fight against this as well. A pig dying is just as bad as a dog dying
Ah yes, if we just roll over and let them kill us that's so much better, because at least then nobody is fighting.
Sometimes fighting is worth it.
You're so focused on what's flashy and radical-sounding that you totally ignored *care* and *knowledge* to focus on weapons. You can't blow up a social relationship. And as usual, the manarchists leave care work to others who are then painted as less heroic and as not "acting". Here are more important points to consider:
- how do you medically help people who have been victims of physical violence?
- how do you emotionally support trans people?
- how do you avoid [self harm](https://www.selfinjury.bctr.cornell.edu/resources.html) and [suicide](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00033/full)?
- how can one understand the dynamic of violent groups? look into social psychology and history (maybe racial lynchings?)
- how does invisible, everyday violence work and how can it be detected?
- who is the most likely to be oppressed and not have access to your super cool organizations? think intersectionaly: race, disability, neurodivergence, minority… Are you able to give aid to someone who's neurodivergent and doesn't know the shibboleths of your group, and is at risk of passing for a fascist or a spy? Do you understand that disability can be invisible? Do you know that mixed people are at risk of being rejected or scape-goated by everyone at the same time? Can you talk to children and young teens in a way that's not demeaning?
Besætter would be a squatter in this context I believe?
> “Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.” Mohandas Gandhi, 1946
Fuck that! You want to be a martyr, go ahead, but I and many others plan on living, and if that means preparing for a fight then so be it.
The conservatives have gone fully fascist, the liberals have failed at keeping us safe (if they were even trying), and the centrists and moderates are selling us out to the fascists. Which are you?
> Trigger warnings increased immediate anxiety reactions
This has been explained multiple times in a dozen or so comments already, but yeah, of course.
If I do a study where I punch on group in the face without any warning, and I give another group a one minute warning they're about to get punched in the face, then the I would expect the group who got warned to show some level of anxiety about it.
From this experiment, I could say that those who got warned experienced more anxiety over all.
What ISN'T being recorded is what happens if someone who was anxious about getting punched chose to step out of arms length and avoid the punch altogether. I imagine if you tracked their overall anxiety, it would be lower than both the 'punched without warning' and 'warned and then punched' group.
They DID record people who opted out of the study altogether because it was too stressful after getting the warning, but the problem is that this isn't a designed choice in the experiment and therefore it's secondary data at best - Something the study admits in it's scope.
I'm sorry, but I don't think these studies are good enough to start talking over people who are affected and asking for these things.
Isn't it:
'Sī vīs pācem, parā bellum'?
They killed a lot of Nazis
Feminist notions were implemented much earlier in the east than in the west, mostly due to the Soviet philosophy. It's not saying much, but they were ahead of the curve, at least up until the 80s or so.
I would say it's more than a slightly anarchist inspired squatters movement; there are a bunch of squats and they are often explicitly anarchist or include anarchists. I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if the movement was bigger in the past like it was in lots of places when there wasn't so much pressure everywhere on the urban real estate market. And there are squats that have since been "legalized" by the municipal government like the big industrial space at [Can Batlló](https://goo.gl/maps/KDUweDruPZe1Xmyc7).
I'm curious what your opinion is if a large portion of people in Ukraine didn't want to be in NATO? I'm also curious if anyone has asked what the people in Ukraine want since this gallop pole was taken?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/?sh=cb2527e510db
I know Zelenskyy said the whole of Ukraine will remain intact but has anyone asked the people? Most of what I've seen has been people outside of Ukraine telling them what's best for them, or their leaders deciding for them. Hypothetically would splitting Ukraine be acceptable to the people of Ukraine? Considering that half of the people in Ukraine want to be on the side of Russia I don't see why this couldn't be accepted.
Sidenote and my opinion: This whole thing is another example of how boarders cause war and death. Then people that don't want to get involved, and just want to live in peace, get wrapped up in a blanket for the game of thrones that only benefit the rulers, not the people. A blanket forcefully given to them the moment they are born and never asked if they want it, told they are a part of it regardless if they want it or not
Edit spelling
*Image Transcription: Text*
---
a screenshot of a block quote attributed to the article “[Shmita Means Total Destroy](https://jewishcurrents.org/shmita-means-total-destroy)”. it reads:
>We fled to the Atlanta forest to breathe fresh air and forage for food; but there were the police, poised to level hundreds of acres of trees to build the largest police training center in the United States. The institutional left tried every respectable means of action—which is to say, appealing to elected officials—but to no avail. So we built houses in the trees and camped out on the land, both to defend it from destruction and to avoid wasting more of our lives making rent. But the cops repeatedly raided our camps, slashing tents, puncturing water jugs, stomping on groceries, and arresting whoever they could get their hands on. Meanwhile, we worked our hated jobs to buy what we couldn't yet make or steal. We are fighting, but work is winning.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
>Blame the system not the people
¿por que no los dos?
The means of production weren't collectively or democratically managed though. If the state is your employer, owns the means of production, and manages you and your workplace, then they have simply become the bourgeoisie. Hence what I mean about the essential relationship of capitalism being unchanged in the USSR. Even Lenin described the USSR as state capitalist saying
>The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class.
[Source](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm)
Now, tbf, Lenin does go on to say that
>Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
However, this is utopian nonsense and especially hypocritical after killing and locking up so many peasants who disagreed with you. The fact of the matter is that states are necessarily centralized and hierarchical institutions and so can only be wielded by a minority of individuals at the top who do the actual daily work of exercising power. As Bakunin says
>It is bound to be impossible for a few thousand, let alone tens or hundreds of thousands of men to wield that \[state\] power effectively. It will have to be exercised by proxy, which means entrusting it to a group of men elected to represent and govern them, which will unfailingly return to all the deceit and subservience of representative or bourgeois rule. After a brief flash of liberty or orgiastic revolution, the citizens of the new State will wake up slaves, puppets and victims of a new group of ambitious men.
There is also the issue that the state *cannot* fully represent the proletariat as, once people become politicians, they are no longer workers or peasants and so have different aims from them. Bakunin says that these politicians are
>former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers’ world from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people
[Source](https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/anarchopac-means-and-ends). I would consider giving this a read, it seems to be a fundamental piece that you are missing in your analysis.
So, if the USSR was still capitalist and still had a state, how did it get any closer to achieving communism (a classless, stateless society) in its nearly 70 years of existence? Hint, it didn't. This is why [some](https://youtu.be/3RYqKQQvI8I) anarchists have claimed that horizontalism is the only way to truly achieve socialism.
I can even pinpoint the reason to you. My father was an important man in police. He beat me and my mother a lot. Couldn't do shit because he was so high, he even tried to kill us multiple times. Mother had her own share of problems, but she told me that he wasn't always like that, that he changed after officer's school, asked a few kids of dad"s friends around, most of them had a similar experience. Blame the system not the people, policemen are made not born
Oh no no no no, anarchists were killed under Soviet rule.
The USSR crushed the Kronstadt rebellion early on, which had support from anarchists and was a move that was criticized by Emma Goldman in her book "My Disillusionment in Russia". The Red Army also invaded Makhnovshchina in Ukraine, which was attempting to implement an anarchist society, despite having a peace treaty with them at the time, and killed many prominent anarchists.
Many anarchists fled the USSR after the failure of the Kronstadt rebellion and those who remained were often arrested and put in concentration camps. Some anarchist activity was permitted in the 1920s but the 1930s saw a crackdown on anarchist activity with Alexander Atabekian, German Askarov and Alexei Borovoi having died during the Great Purge and others such as Aron Baron disappearing upon their release from prison. Many other anarchists were arrested during this time. Even anarchists like Efim Iarchuk and Peter Arshinov, who had both experienced a rapprochement with the Bolsheviks and returned to the Soviet Union, also disappeared during the Purge.
In "Homage to Catalonia", George Orwell outlines how the Cataln government, with the support of the USSR, outlawed and attacked POUM, a libertarian socialist group, and attacked anarchists with the CNT-FAI during the May Events. The NKVD also organized operations in Spain that disrupted anti-Stalinist Republicans, these included the murders of Catalan anti-Stalinist Communist politician Andrés Nin, the socialist journalist Mark Rein, and the independent left-wing activist José Robles. So in general I would say that no the USSR didn't give power to anarchists. If anything, they actively worked to undermine anarchist goals.
No they repressed them heavily. Makhno and the Kronstadt uprising are the two most known examples of the red army crushing anarchists. Also countless anarchists where killed in the gulag system or by sowjet secret police.
Anarchists didn't seek political power in the first place, and no, anarchists were shot and imprisoned.
>That "most (adult) humans are morally rational when non-human animals (probably) aren't" is what I criticize; your claim that it isn't controversial is not true, so much so that people employ bad-practices like factory farming because they see it as tantamount to ending meat consumption.
I have no idea what you mean here sorry
>It is extremely controversial, else many people are sociopaths from how I see it.
Interesting anti-vegan argument that you don't come across too often! "Animal ag can't be that bad because then loads of people would be sociopaths." I don't think that most farmers are sociopaths at all - you don't have to be a sociopath to be conditioned to normalise the unnecessary infliction of violence. (Think of any large-scale moral atrocity that humans have committed - was everyone involved a sociopath?)
>No, I do not hold that human babies are morally rational; I go as far as to say they are not sentient.
They are sentient, because they have the capacity to feel pleasure and pain.
You accused me of holding humans superior to animals, I think on the grounds that I consider humans to be moral agents. Do you consider human adults to be morally superior to human babies by the same logic?
Maybe. Why don't you ask them? Shoot them an email.
>Did not say this. Fallacious to suggest I did.
No you didn't say this, but I think your logic implies it. Here's why:
You say that humans shouldn't hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than non-human animals, and therefore killing and eating animals (like other animals do) is morally justifiable.
But if you believe this, then surely raping each other and playing with/mutilating each other is morally justifiable? Or if you think these things are only morally justifiable when they're done to members of other species, then it's morally justifiable for humans to rape and mutilate other species?
>Recent studies show plants feel pain
Evidence?
And if it's the case, you kill far fewer plants through eating a fully plant-based diet than you do by consuming animal products (as so many plants are used for livestock feed). I would argue that that moral harm is probably morally justifiable if the alternative is starvation.
If you want to reduce the number of crop deaths you cause, go vegan
https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/debunked-do-vegans-kill-more-animals-through-crop-deaths
>Who's doing this?
Anyone who makes an argument saying why anyone shouldn't eat meat on ethical grounds.
>So it's morally justifiable for humans to rape each other (like dolphins do), kill and eat human babies (like lions do) and play with/mutilate animals before killing them (like cats do)?
Did not say this. Fallacious to suggest I did.
If you're worried about the harming of animals, then suggestions of lab grown meat is what people are working towards.
>What makes meat fine and factory farms not fine?
Everything I just said.
The less Christianity there is in the world the safer it is. The more inclusive it is. I only hope for better days.
If it is the case that we can flourish on a fully plant-based diet (which it is), why is it morally relevant that in the past humans with access to meat were healthier? Slaveowners were probably healthier than their slaves - does that mean that slavery is morally justifiable?
>The torture happens because meat (like nearly everything else in the capitalist system) is massively overproduced and that requires raising and killing far more animals than is necessary
Could you explain this a bit more please? How is whether or not a practice is considered 'torture' relevant to scale/necessity/wastage?
>If you want to get upset about animals
Do you think OP is motivated by a desire to get upset? Is that really a good-faith thing to say?
I know it's tempting to call him full-on fascist but he's really just like a rodeo clown & I mean that in the most literal sense of the word—like all these people who go around seeking out this kind of controversy & making a big spectacle of it, his real job is to distract you by saying ridiculous garbage while the real fascists are in D.C. quietly stripping away your rights & normalizing all the horrific shit that perpetuates this dystopian capitalist nightmare & keeps the billionaire ruling class at the top of the socioeconomic food chain
That's not to say that these kinds of stunts he pulls aren't also meant to embolden assholes who want to beat the shit out of marginalized groups & communities of color, but I think it's always important to remember that the people guys like Charlie Kirk inspire to action are really only the "muscle" of fascism—our elected officials who actually hold power are just as fascist & exponentially more dangerous, because they will always make sure that the system is designed in such a way that the skinheads & brownshirt types have enough freedom to strike at people like us as often as necessary to keep us from ever really threatening power in any meaningful way
I didn't mean to get so off topic, I just think it's important for us not to fall into the trap of believing that if only we could drive people like Charlie out of our community things would be alright—even if we could, the duopoly would just find some other attack dog to poke with a stick & then turn them loose on us, you know what I mean
Atlanta will flood during the rainy season. Cops from all over the United States and the world will go practice kicking down doors and shooting protesters, and then bring those skills home. Municipalities all over the United States will see and decide that they don't have to listen to their people, and wonder how much money they could make off of police training while looking at their delicate wilderness locales.
Will the world end? No will things be worse? Yes. Markedly
>We pay for animals to be brutally tortured and killed because we like the taste of their tortured corpse.
No...
We pay for meat because it's an easy to digest source of a lot of the nutritional elements we need in order to survive. We can also get those same nutritional elements from other sources, but meat has, historically, been the easiest to acquire when needed, the easiest to preserve and the easiest to digest.
The parts of plants that we can eat to get the same nutrients we get from meat grow in a seasonal cycle and they have to be preserved in ways that reduces their nutritional value to make them last the rest of the year beyond that.
The animals we farm can, at least theoretically, survive on the parts of plants that we produce, but can't digest ourselves, pretty much the year round. Which means they essentially 'preserve' themselves and can provide food (in the form of milk, eggs and eventually meat) for that entire period.
This is why, historically, periods where the life expectancy and general health of the population was low (outside of pandemics) are almost always concurrent with periods where the majority of the population were unable, either because of some form of sumptuary law or simply the expense, to include regular meat in their diet.
The torture happens because meat (like nearly everything else in the capitalist system) is massively overproduced and that requires raising and killing far more animals than is necessary (or even sustainable) on far less land than is required for the animals to have a reasonably comfortable life.
​
>Surely there’s no morally relevant difference between a pleasant smell and a pleasant taste.
True, but *taste* is not the point. If you want to get upset about animals harmed by food overproduced purely for the sake of a pleasant *taste*, you should focus on the monoculture of (100% plant-based) spices, sugar cane and sugar beets that are damaging the local biosphere where they are grown, including leading to habitat destruction.
>it is irresponsible that people are placing human morals on animals
Who's doing this?
>We're animals like any other and we should not be held to a moral standard that is greater than any other animal.
So it's morally justifiable for humans to rape each other (like dolphins do), kill and eat human babies (like lions do) and play with/mutilate animals before killing them (like cats do)?
>Meat is fine, however, factory farms are not
What makes meat fine and factory farms not fine?
I'm not talking about a biologist view. I'm talking about an "energy" view. Everything is full of energy or "life". Everything is conscious. It is a thing shown by studies. Now, is it better to cut the throat of an animal or collect a carrot ? I think you already know my answer. Veganism is way better than eating any kind of animals. But it doesn't change the energy thing I believe.
And if people really want to consume meat, they will. But now there is an overwhelming amount of animals killed for feeding people that eats meat or even tons of meat. Factory farms even burn feathers so it's toxic for environment not only because of water but also because of wastes.
This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed by Charles E. Cobb Jr., great book on how, even in nonviolent movements, self defense is important.
Only if they do it alone. If they can get enough people to join them to attend among the crowd, they can just yell, sing, play loud music, whatever seems disruptive and also fun. It's not great 'anti-sjw' propaganda if they don't sound desperate but seem like they're enjoying themselves while shutting him up.
They cry about but "snowflake fee fees".
But the poor wittle wittle authoritarian fundamentalist fee fees get hurtie hurtie and they cry to pig daddy.
Damn I'm poor as fuck earn less than 12k a year keep getting kicked off public assistance for making 20 dollars to much one month then have to re apply. I will say every poor person and working class person I know is an anarchist, socialist, communist. But I guess I tend to seek those people out and don't associate much with people who are statists.
That’s gonna get OP posted on some SJW destroyed compilation 😭
there is something at this address Calata Trinità Maggiore, 15, 80134 Napoli
i think its a squat but i didnt have a chance to visit
Kill the Cop in Your Head
https://archive.iww.org/history/library/Jackson/copinyourhead/
>Yet, the self-titled "anti-racists" of the left continue on with their infantile fixation on the Klan, Nazis, and right-wing militias. Groups that they say they are against, but in fact demonstrate a tolerance for in practice. Standing around chanting empty slogans in front of a line of police seperating demonstrators from the nazis in a "peaceful demonstration" is contradiction in its purest form; both the police and the fascists must be mercilessly destroyed! As the Spanish anarchist Buenventura Durruti proclaimed back in 1936 "Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be smashed!"
I'm gonna not post the rest of the paragraph due to TOS.
I don't know what "soy faced" means, nor do I have any idea why you'd want to hear him.
Organize a disruption. Get 20-30 people willing to go to the event, but then stand up one at a time and start screaming hysterically until security removes them. Then, as soon as Kirk starts talking again, next person goes off. Repeat until he runs out of time.
Strongly disagree. What is happening absolutely does fit the criteria of genocide which is:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Youve got states actively proposing and passing laws taking away gender affirming healthcare for both minors and adults up until age 26. We already have evidence showing that this sharply increases suicide rates and obviously causes mental harm...hence the reason transitioning is the medically recommended course of action for people experiencing gender dysphoria. That covers the first three criteria. Not to mention, there are multiple candidates gearing up to run for president that have actively said they intend to repeal gender affirming care for ALL transgender people regardless of age.
There are state laws being proposed and passed that now classify taking your child to a doctor for gender affirming care as child abuse. On top of this, we're seeing increased rhetoric from the right calling transgender people and anyone who participates in "drag", (which is often defined loosely in these bills as anyone wearing clothes that do not match their sex assigned at birth), pedophiles. This sets the stage for children to be taken from their parents for either the child themselves being trans, or the parents being trans. That covers the last two criteria.
Violence against the community as a whole has dramatically increased. Children are being forced to detranstion per state law. At what point do we call it genocide? Do you think Nazi Germany just woke up one day and started throwing people into train cars? Its a gradual shift. We're in the middle of one. At one point would YOU call it genocide?
Furthermore, your points center around "what about-ism". What about all these other groups that are facing genocide? What about them? Is there a quota that the entire world has agreed upon outlining the exact number of genocides that can happen at one time? Calling this what it is, a genocide, in no way takes away from the fact that other communities are also facing genocide. If anything, NOT recognizing this as genocide is whats truly dangerous. If we don't call it what it is, we're powerless to stop it.
Have you looked into
https://telegra.ph/
It is by Telegram and ties to the app nice enough. It is very baisc though.
Ah my bad I got the timing of the events mixed up, it's been a while since I read up on the Spanish civil war. In any case the point remains that Marxists have been victims of so-called 'Marxist' repression as well and in fact some members of the Spanish anarchist movement were complicit in that repression.
So OP's picture of Marxist 'authoritarians' always repressing anarchists is not accurate.
Even the Cheka had anarchist members, the Red Terror had enthusiastic support from many Russian anarchists too, as did the October Revolution. Anarchists also use repressive measures shooting looters early on in the revolution and the anarchist Victor Serge reluctantly supported the attack on the Kronstadt uprising.
Well, let me know if you ever decide to contribute something meaningful to the discussion.
The problem is that many young progressives devolve into institutionalists. It's a lower energy footprint to occupy than leftism.
Committed anarchists don't fall into that trap as readily as because our understanding of bottom up approaches and the sustainability of community insulate us. But I don't actually know if there's a way to really stop that cycle on a grander scale.
When I mentioned Obama's war crimes to a Hillary delegate at the 2016 DNC, the dude full on lost his shit. Screamed "shame on you" at me over and over till veins were bulging in his face.
His triumphant parting shot as I walked away was: "And that's coming from a *MAN IN A TIE!"*
Jezik je ko i život, raznolik.
The one in Germany is false. Communists and Anarchists were put down by social democrats. They killed Rosa Luxemburg.
And you would not be wrong feeling that way. Religion is irrational and for many, it's difficult to let go, simply because you can't reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into. Historically, anarchists have been strongly opposed to all manifestations of religion precisely because of this irrationality and the horrible effects this may have on our ability to think independently and live freely.
However, as pointed out above, the more rational Christian anarchists totally reject the supernaturalism of traditional Christianity. For them, Christianity is just a system of ethical commands and Jesus is just a great moral teacher, like Socrates or the Buddha. Do Christian anarchists ignore almost the entire New Testament and Christian tradition in reconciling Christianity with anarchism? Yes, yes they do, but that's the significant epistemological price they're willing to pay to have a logically consistent Christian anarchism.
Another source you might want to examine, if you haven't already, is \[An Anarchist FAQ's discussion of religious anarchism\]([https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seca37](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seca37)), which is a restatement of the modern anarchist viewpoint on religion, which is actually not wholly for or against.
Ah I understand where you are coming from, because I once also had your view. Different conflict, but same view. As NATO keeps more weapons flowing in, the war will carry on longer, and therefore prolong suffering of innocent Ukranians, and well let's face it innocent Russians that couldn't escape being drafted for the meat grinder despite wanting nothing to do with war. Ok.
To me, now, I see that as saying "dead people don't suffer." No NATO weapons, no more suffering once Russia finishes sweeping Ukraine, as many people who would suffer in a prolonged war would be dead.
A) it's inhumane to look at it that way, and B) it would ignore all those who would suffer torture, rape, displacement, separation from their children, destruction of their culture, etc under their Russian oppressors.
War is suffering, you are right, but life under Russia would be greater suffering if you weren't lucky enough to be killed
I don't disagree with you on all points, and you're not a tankie for your stance, but I think many people with that point of view would change it if they were the target of an invader
I hope this came across as an argument in good faith, you never know on reddit. Anyway have a gooder
Depends on your perspective I guess.
The Finns appreciated it. The Germans wanted to weaken their future opponent. Stalin wanted to rebuild the Russian Empire.
In the Realpolitik sense... its a shit show, but in retrospect despite the motives of the actors, it was good for Finland. They held their sovereignty, were terrified during the cold war. Post Cold-War, everyone dives headfirst into wishful thinking and hope. The US experienced the repercussions of imperial blow-back and responded by making it worse.
The current global situation is extremely bizarre, but I know that a Russian Defeat means their expansionist ambitions are at minimum put on hold a few decades.
That is a good thing.
Edit: I'm LGBTQ, and their policy alone against us is enough. Sarah Cirillo would be killed by the Russians for simply existing, She fights with Ukraine, and I don't see it as tokenism at all.
Sounds interesting. I'll give it a shot
Edit: just a heads up, 'transgender' isn't a gender. Trans people who are binary would just fall into male or female labels, and then you added a non binary label. 'Transgender' doesn't need to be there. That's a flaw in your demographic methodology.
Yes! They are an iconic series of Yugoslav residential skyscrapers in the mountains, Rastočine. They look a bit like weird sleeves to some but locals will instantly recognize them.
The cranes are also local iconic landmarks from the Rijeka industrial harbor.
Okay so when i see a state where one guy makes all the decisions, undesirables are killed off by the hundreds of thousands, "lesser nations" are subjugated by armed force, the economy is entirely controlled by a privileged management class, and anyone who has a problem with it is shot in a basement, I think that is fascism in every meaningful way.
In Marxist leninist economies, the state is the corporation. It doesn't get any more fascist than that.
I'm not sure getting so bogged down in semantics is productive.
This is good content, OP. I would add Cambodia - most people tortured and killed at S21 were the less authoritarian factions of the revolutionary movement whom Pol Pot promptly arrested after the revolution.
While that would be ideal, it turns out that people in a impoverished country going through times of crisis don’t have time to learn how no government is totally a good idea (this is an alien idea to most).
My impression: religion is the old version of politics (an ideology according to which you live life with others). So it has many currents, as everyone from the old ruler who wanted to keep their power, the new emerging ruler, to the social movement for freedom and equality, would promote their own version of religion. What's sad is that these struggles ended in the killing of the revolutionaries (as heretics, witches,
because human beings are being killed, raped, displaced, and abused by a power- and land-hungry regime. That should frighten any anarchist (any person, actually).
Also, there are anarchists and other members of "the left" in every country. These are not just American or western political groups. Please spend some time outside of your cultural bubble.
A source too, in case someone doesn't believe it's factual.
Long story short: someone did a terror attack, two Israelis died. A local politician went full nazi and called for a Palestinian village to be burnt to ground. Apparently his followers were willing. One Palestinian died and many were wounded.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/settlers-said-to-rampage-in-huwara-after-deadly-attack-set-fire-to-cars-and-homes/
> The Palestinian Health Ministry said one man was shot dead by Israeli fire during the riots in the town of Za’tara, south of Huwara and close to the settlement of Kfar Tapuah. The Palestinian Red Crescent medical service said two other people were shot and wounded, a third person was stabbed and a fourth was beaten with an iron bar. Some 95 others were being treated for tear gas inhalation.
> /.../
> Palestinian media reports published footage of burning homes and cars that had been set on fire by the settlers in violent riots after the killing of Hallel and Yagel Yaniv in what the Israeli army said was a Palestinian terror attack in the town earlier in the day. The gunman in that attack was still being hunted.
> Palestinian media said some 30 homes and cars were torched. Photos and video on social media showed large fires burning throughout the town of Huwara — a town just south of Nablus — and lighting up the sky.
> The Palestinian Red Crescent said its medics treated 390 people wounded in the clashes with settlers, and three ambulances were attacked.
> /.../
> The rampage drew angry denunciations from the PA, the European Union, the United States and among many Israelis.
> Earlier Sunday, shortly after the deadly shooting attack, at least three homes in the town were set on fire by settlers, and one Palestinian man was stabbed, according to the Yesh Din rights group.
The instigator of the pogrom is known. This will be a good test for Israel - will they charge the guy?
> The deputy head of the Samaria Regional Council, Davidi Ben Zion, called for Huwara, a town of some 7,000 in the northern West Bank, to be “wiped out” in response to the attack.
No support to the red nazis.
I dont support the war. But there is no way to end the war in a way things will be okay for the ukrainian nation. I want peace, not occupation.
Yes, but we shouldnt think it's good for them to kill so many. I dont like the US too, but I support the defend Ukraine part.
(reducted) (reducted) , I dont care, I will stand in defence of my neighbours. And how is that nationalism? Im not Ukrainian, I'm Polish, it's more like internationalism (reducted).
(automod kept having problems with me, reducted "bad" things, not the r-word or anything serious, cant even say shit)
I dont support the war. But there is no way to end the war in a way things will be okay for the ukrainian nation. I want peace, not occupation.
Yes, but we shouldnt think it's good for them to kill so many. I dont like the US too, but I support the defend Ukraine part.
Cope westeroid, I dont care, I will stand in defence of my neighbours. And how is that nationalism? Im not Ukrainian, I'm Polish, it's more like internationalism.
> have been ethically eating meat
How do you ethically kill something that doesn't want to die, that you don't have to kill?
Edit: He responded and then blocked me immediately. I think whatever thing he's on has more to do with him than me.
This is good.
IIRC Turkey can’t be kicked out because there is no mechanism to kick out members from NATO?
While I get what you are saying and agree, reducing everything down to just "two warring fascist ones" in that tone and context makes it sound as if both states are as powerful as each other and war was decided by both, and it kinda blurs the reality quite a lot, making it seem like both Ukrainian and Russian armies are made of equally horrible people who are having a duel to decide who is stronger and killing people left and right just for the sake of it. I get that we need to look on the situation in a less black and white way: Azov Batallion is a perfect example of the ugly on the Ukrainian side. However, the situation isn't all that grey to literally equate both sides.
I am an anarchist as well and since we reject states here, why don't we look at it from just a regular human's point of view and forget about politicians? Literally millions of regular, worker people in Ukraine woke up one day and their homes, dreams, lives were being bombed to the ground. Men conscripted usually against their will, women and children forced to leave the country and move somewhere they don't even know. All the families, friend groups ripped apart. Regular Russians didn't have to go through all that, they more or less continue the same lifestyle they had before the war.
Now you may say isn't "conscripted against their own will" a crime on Ukraine's side. Yes, it is! However, what really is the alternative here? Russian officials have made the statements that suggest that they literally do not recognize Ukrainians as a legitimate ethnic group and want to remove all the "Ukrainness" from them and basically turn them into Russians. While it may not be a big deal for people who support "there are no ethnicities or countries, we should all just be one people" and some may even cheer for it as if Russia is a bastion of moving past medieval ethnic based thinking, it actually hides a very sinister future for all the Ukrainian people who would have to live under Russia, which essentially wants to exterminate their identity and turn them into another Russian oblast, and we all know how ruthless Russia has been in the past with stuff like that. Ukraine, even as a state, wouldn't unironically claim that Russians do not exist and force the people to become Ukrainian.
Have you listened to Chomsky outline his opinion? He flat out condemns Putin's aggression, but sees it in the wider context of being the inevitable result of a 2014 coup in Ukraine that was sponsored by the US and launched repression and a civil war in the Donbas where 14,000 ethnic russians were killed by their own government, as well as the spectre of Ukraine joining nato and parking missiles on the russian border.
Animals, including humans, shouldn't need to "perform a function". But pets provide companionship, comfort, etc. They're imprisoned in a house and on chains. They're separated from their families and other animals. They often have their reproductive organs removed. If they go outside without a human, they could be captured and killed.
I wouldn't consider this a "better life".
Ok so I should risk it and try Workaway? I'll try it, having to pay scared me off.WOOF is a great call too, I'll def save that one.
\>I would suggest spending the spring in southern Europe then in the summer run away from the heat and go north maybe consider hitchhiking ( hitchwiki.org for info) .
Good advice thank u
\>If you want a proper job you can look up on the internet tourism or customer service jobs ( here's a link u can use [https://www.europelanguagejobs.com](https://www.europelanguagejobs.com) ).
Good info to have thank uuuu
\>Also don't forget to take camping gear with ya ( hammock or tent and a sleeping bag ) it will surely come in handy.
Ive got everything prepped. I have a post up on /r/vagabond i'll link you to that
https://www.reddit.com/r/vagabond/comments/11ck4ff/soontobe\_vagabond\_looking\_for\_advice\_and/
The Russians aren’t going to leave if you ask nicely. They are violently killing thousands of Ukrainians right now as we speak. Ukrainians killing Russians is the only thing that is going to keep Ukrainians free of Russian oppression.
If a right wing radical attacked my home I’d respond with violence. It is no different for Ukrainians.
LoL is your argument a link that basically says one year after Russia kills dissenters (Ukraine supporters) and installs its police state in Crimea the locals "prefer russia to Ukraine?"
Sound argument. Gonna go on a limb and guess if your hands were hooked up to a generator you would probably agree with whatever bullshit opinion the guy cranking the gen would want you to have. Because what would your alternative be, exactly?
We could dissolve NATO once we have eliminated the main reason for its formation. In my opinion, a rising and expanding empire that has been thriving on the sale of natural resources for decades and seeks to shift borders to fulfill its revisionist great power ambitions justifies the existence of a defense alliance. In the 2000s and 2010s, we thought that NATO had lost its raison d'être and was no longer necessary.
Unfortunately, as we have seen over the past year, the next major player tries to fill the power vacuum. It seems to me that the authoritarian world's master plan was for Trump to win a second term, the US to leave or deactivate NATO, and for Putin to expand over Europe and Asia under the double-headed eagle.
This development would likely mean the end of "Gayropa" and impose even more authority on its people than they already endure. I don't believe that the path to worldwide anarchy, the path to less authoritarian structures can be achieved through increasing authority.
Fucking RICO charges for protestors/activists. They’re trying to make an example out of these folk to discourage further dissent. Scum, the lot of them. Fucking scum.
I hope they can get out of that or something with positive outcome for themselves. I also hope this only strengthens the movement. I am so vehemently against Cop City I can’t put it into words and *truly* capture the sentiment.
And the way they murdered Tortugita. So bold. Fucking fascists. I’ve thought about them (Tortugita) a lot because they remind me of myself in appearance and clothing choices so it kind of got stuck in my thoughts. The cops shot their own man. Let’s say they were surrounding the tent like in a circle. The one who was shot and also everyone else (idk how many there were tbh) would see that the muzzle flash was coming from their own guy. No way they didn’t know if that’s the case. Now let’s say they are *not* surrounding the tent but rather standing in front of the entrance to it. Then the one who was shot would know the bullet came from behind them or from to the side of them. I can’t think of a situation like that in which it’s sensible to start shooting at the tent and ultimately killing Tortugita. There’s no fucking way to spin it that makes any proper sense other than that the cops there were not only so fucking brainless they accidentally shot their own guy (how???), but they also either did one of two things: realize what just happened and used it as an excuse to murder someone or they were again totally brainless and had no clue where the bullet that hit the cop came from.
Either way, murderers. And they lied about it at first too, like usual. Disgusting and deplorable. Cops need to go they need to get out of our lives and our society we should exile every cop to an island like the French did to Napoleon. Fuck sorry I’m just so upset about all of it.
Someone breaks into your home at gunpoint. They shoot your partner, kidnap one of your children, beat you and the other children into a bloody pulp, then demand that your home is now theirs.
How many rooms do you give them in the name of peace with them?
A
Criminalizing queerness, centralizing power to an oligarchy, killing influential people who express dissent, heavy spending in militarism, using a mythological past to justify the war in Ukraine, quietly, eliminating and displacing ethnic minorities. Checks a lot of boxes for fascism. I guess you could also say the same thing about the United States.
I have no clue why this was downvoted. Thank you for being bold enough to post this. Male socialization doesn't go away just bc one declares oneself anti-oppression, it comes from social activity that benefits the women in one's life.
Edit: the more you anarcho-patriarchy types keep downvoting without offering a reason why anything she's said is even remotely problematic, the more you drive women away from anarchist spaces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ido#:~:text=Ido%20(%2F%CB%88i%CB%90do%CA%8A,for%20people%20of%20diverse%20backgrounds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%C3%BCk#:~:text=Volap%C3%BCk%20(English%3A%20%2F%CB%88v,to%20create%20an%20international%20language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosa#:~:text=Glosa%20is%20a%20constructed%20international,glossa%20meaning%20tongue%20or%20language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blissymbols#:~:text=Blissymbols%20or%20Blissymbolics%20is%20a,symbols%20that%20represent%20new%20concepts.
https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Interlingua#:~:text=Interlingua%20is%20an%20international%20auxiliary,among%20Romance%20and%20Germanic%20languages.
those people are great at pretending to listen and doing nothing. the fact that they're the ceo and you're a worker is all they need to prove that each of their initial conceptions is right and anything you say that goes against them is automatically wrong. maybe maybe if you could have the tact to come off as a wiser person who is not judging them but calling them out with care and concern, you might get them to think for another few paragraphs before bed, but that's such a long shot and it's almost certainly not gonna translate to any actions that go against tha money
Having been a self-conscious and continually educated (and learning) anarchist for over 40 years, I found Scott's understanding of anarchist theory and history to be rudimentary and condescending. In that way he's a typical academic, separated from the actual developments in the discourse as well as various projects.
He is honest enough not to call himself an anarchist (unlike that charlatan Graeber). I cannot recommend his book.
Vive la Rèvolution
You want to talk about trauma? Ok, let's talk about trauma.
- The training and expansion of repressive capabilities essentially means the total dismantling of public protest and organizing. Wanna talk about mace, tear-gas and police brutality? As someone who experiences that kinda shit *without* going to a protest, I got news for you: this training facility is going to make all that worse. The only reason my PTSDed ass is going is *because* I know that if I don't at least try, and they win, we have collectively allowed the State a victory in one state, which will inspire others to accomplish the same.
Now with that said, of course this is not to say people are obligated to do *anything*. Especially just cus my black ass on here sayin' to. This *is* to say that for *some* of us, mental conditions and trauma ain't a fuckin' excuse to allow the State further power to do *more* of the shit that fucked us up in the first place. But you know what they say, "to each, their own".
And no, this is not "a whim". Folks in ATL including myself have been promoting and posting call-outs for help for months - *before* Tort was killed.
And if "shithole jobs" are what's preventin anti-capitalists from defending ATL from more police militarization, then there is a more immediate conversation to be had about why capitalism is pacifying the only movement known for historically opposing it the hardest.
Essentially what you are telling me is that too many anarchists are tangled up in the web of capitalism as a means of survival, and that everything we have learned about *fighting* capitalism and the State, forging networks of mutual aid that assist with transportation and fund raising to events like this, is nothing more than theory - words written by antiquated, dead white men.
And people are *downvoting* this post because I speak with a sense of urgency to this struggle? I ask you all this: when APD succeeds - which by the look of things so far they will - will this concept *not* spread across the states? The police have already killed a forest defender and gotten away with it. No riots, and barely any demonstrations. Does our failure to respond not set a new precedent that enables them? Emboldens them? In Greece the police killed an anarchist and there was a firestorm of riots for days...
Talk and theory are cheap. Nothing more than dust on the books they came from.
EDIT: Don't try to derail shit or trivialize my experience by bringing up my race. That is not relevant. I swear-to-gawd this subreddit is *still* full of some racist ass mfs.
At the request of the moderators who continue to remove my posts, I will comment what was originally intended to be a post on its own, here, and see who all sees and responds to it.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why Aren't MORE Anarchists in Atlanta Defending the Forest Against A Police Training Facility?
Once upon a time, anarchists across the states - and even some from other countries! - would gather for large-scale demonstrations against the WTO, NATO etc. And sometimes we even did this just to take over blocks at a time and throw illegal block parties! Crimethinc (in it's glory days) would invite hundreds to gather in park or building of some sort just to discuss current events.
But when the Atlanta Police decide to cut down a forest in order to build a training facility whose sole intention is to better equip law enforcement to suppress these same large-scale demonstrations - the anarchist underground is silent.
Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. March 4-11 is still to come. But the last time I was out there, there were maybe 60 of us at most?
What the hell happened? Did the American rebels grow up and lose interest?
A cop kills a forest defender in America and business continues as usual without incident...
EDIT: Also curious to know why some of y'all downvoting this. Don't take my word for it - ask anyone on the ground in ATL. There's been virtually no ground support aside from the people who live there, with a few travellers here and there. I'm just curious to hear ideas on why that is.
because socialism fights for the liberation of the working class. transgender people are disproportionately working class. they are disproportionately discriminated against within the workplace. they are disproportionately killed by police, especially trans people of color. the existence of trans people of color is in direct opposition to all the oppressive aspects of capitalist society: transphobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, wage slavery etc. these people are extremely marginalized in capitalist society, and by fighting for the marginalized, we improve conditions for all workers. all of our struggles are interconnected.
I understand why you say that.
And actually I agree. I think the actual thought process would be more like:
"capitalism is useful at times, capitalism is harmful at times, revolution is bloody and dangerous, revolution might be good if it will improve my situation, but it might be bad if I will get killed. If possible I will use capitalism, revolution, or any other social constructs strictly to my advantage and not get weighed down by concepts"
This train of thought is not inherently wrong. But it's also not universal.
Yeah I misunderstand hunting and hunters since I don't understand how you can think killing animals is helping them. There's a million other ways to help animals and nature, to help wildlife and ecosystems, that don't involve killing them.
It's like bombing for peace.
Seriously? You are comparing humans, who lack any biological ability to capture and consume another animal (I mean we can't even run as fast as a deer!), to birds now? A bird can pick the flesh off road kill and consume it without cooking it. Can you? lol
And yes, "real" as in alignment with what the human body is naturally designed to do. Because fake carnivores swear up and down that humans are "mean't" to consume meat and dairy - despite all the negative health effects of such a diet. To the point where pharmaceutical companies have to prescribe drugs to counter the effects of meat and dairy consumption. It is amazing to see you perform mental gymnastics to avoid what seems painfully obvious - your inability to consume flesh, blood, tissue and guts without gagging. Humans must be the most fragile carnivores/omnivores on the planet to require cooking and seasoning in order to eat a slab of flesh!
Also, you wouldn't eat me. Stop lying to yourself. You would *only* be able to eat me or any other human if you were absolutely starving, or had some strict, dogmatic cultural tradition to coerce you.
What you keep ignoring in order to support your slippery worldview is the fact that unlike other species (who are biologically well-equipped to capture and consume other animals), eating meat is an activity based on an ideological construct that positions humans above nature. This human supremacy continues to exist and expand today. Despite what people did or didn't do years back, here you are on reddit defending eating meat and dairy, despite your knowledge of slaughterhouses and the cruelty that occurs. Has it ever occurred to you that the ideology you hold onto is manufactured and perfected year to year by the meat and dairy industry? I myself, and aware that people have eaten meat and dairy for years and years. Still vegan! Because indigenous weren't some perfect group of people. Some raped, upheld human sacrificial traditions, upheld patriarchy and so on. Here we are, today. You can either support human supremacy and the idea that non-human animals are mere commodies to be used and consumed, or you can reject it.
Your understanding of eco-system(s) is painfully limited and reflects your limited understanding of biology and anatomy.
Come on seriously? "Evolve to eat meat"? What part of our biological anatomy evolved? And I dare you to say "oUR bRAINS" so I can point out how present society contradicts it lol. No, we did not evolve to eat meat. That's an embarrassing thing to say coming from an anarchist(?). The myriad of health issues directly linked to consuming meat and dairy should be evidence enough.
Human agricultural settlements is the antithesis of "wild". Agriculture is the "ordering" of the lands, the destruction of bio-diversity and the implication of control and domination. Agriculture takes more from the land than puts back. And due to mono-cropping corn to feed cows who are then slaughtered and eaten by us, with have top-soil erosion at its historical worse.
You can't talk about "laws" of nature when contradicting yourself by saying humans are evolved to eat meat lol. By the laws of nature, humans eat meat raw like a true carnivore or omnviore, they die. By the laws of nature, humans eat meat and dairy at all, get diseases from it and die. Laws of nature, a human will never capture a bear, lion or deer using only fingernails instead of claws, blunted teeth instead of canines. Laws of nature, you will never eat raw meat without gagging lol
Are you...an anarchist? Are you aware that the majority of people don't like anarchy? Don't want it, and are activily fighting against it? Does that stop you from being an anarchist? (I assume you are an anarchist because your spending valuable time debating me in an anarchist forum). To be honest, I don't care what other people want. I want freedom. Total, wild, ungovernable freedom. And part of that freedom is the recognition that other animals want freedom too. Not in the sense of an anarchist "society". Just, wild nature. No society, or money blah blah blah. Industrial society is the antithesis of freedom. It is control on every level, utilized by ideologies of human supremacy. And yes, I am aware people will continue to eat meat. I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Only challenging the logic of control and domination inherent to human supremacy. The narrative of domination that assumes humans are mean't to eat meat and so on. The first step to anarchy is critical thinking and critically examing all the supremacist indoctrination - including specieism.
My living in American is irrelevant lol. Are there not vegan egoists where you live? This would explain your disconnection from these perspectives. Unfortunately for you, your perspective is commonly American. America believes in the S.A.D (Standard American Diet). Are you aware that there are vegan Africans? As a person of color myself, I am all too familiar with veganism as a decolonial lifestyle. I just didn't feel it relevant to mention in this conversation until you mentioned my Americanism. Did you know that there are vegan anarchists even in Mexico? This forum is not the only one. There are many others with many other anarchists.
As a "conscious egoist" I believe in deconstructing the same ideological thinking you have recycled and applied to yourself. My egoism is tied to my anti-civilization views, as well as nihilism. Human supremacy, or anthropocentrism is a human constructed morality that assumes dominance over all others. The fact is humans are not dominant. Nor are we special. Without civilization the wild would devour us. Especially now that we are so domesticated and detached from wildness. Your assumptions about humans evolving to eat meat are just psychological comfort. They help you remain complicit and conformist to normalized dietary habits. If you decided to go vegan tonight, all your friends and family would argue with you, tell you that you are crazy maybe. You wouldn't want that. It is much easier to remain the way you are, and then apply ideologies that support it. They don't even have to be true. As long as everyone else is saying it, there is comfort in collective conformity.
I have answered your questions. But your responses will probably already be pre-configured to mirror the dominant narrative - that I'm just a wacky vegan who advocates for the complete and total collapse of civilization. And you would be absolutely right! Cheers!
.
Thinking of getting a fiddle or banjo this weekend and perhaps going to the shooting range, it has been a little while
While I see that point I'd still encourage you to rethink it.
E.g. not caring about gender is a luxury a woman or trans-person cannot afford to have. Not caring about income lead us in part to other humans having to work several jobs and still barely able to afford food for them while leeches rob them of most of their money for rent and - from white, nationalist Christians to Ultra-Rightwing assholes such as Modi, Netanjahu or Erdoğan - use their "spiritual beliefs" to kill, imprison and actively harm our comrades.
See, here's the thing though. This isn't therapy, and it won't help you figure out how to deal with your mental health, just how to ignore it until you implode. What those are examples of are simply reinforcing societal expectations. Not therapy. Therapy is things like, exploring what things you have trouble with and exactly why so as to better handle them in the future. It's things like being aware of your own internal landscape. It's things like understanding when you have been triggered and are having a strong emotional reaction that is out of place in the current situation, and how to calm yourself again in order to think rationally.
All of these methods of self improvement are stigmatized by conservatives. They say they make you a snowflake, or weak, or crazy or unfit.
So yeah I'm going to stand by my statement that even for conservatives, conservative therapists give shitty treatment.
No, if you like something, you like it. You don’t need a reason to like it. The song ‘7 Rings’ by Ariana Grande is a very consumerist song but nonetheless, I love it. There are lyrics I do hate to sing but I can’t help but love the song; “Eat meat on a Friday, that’s alright” as part of Elton John’s ‘The B*tch Is Back’ isn’t fun for an ethical vegan such as myself.
I understand why you feel like it’s hypocritical but it’s not betraying your values to like music. You can’t help which music you like or not. Of course, there may be someone who is incredibly pedantic in your life who is eager to try to tease you and point out your every mistake (Lord knows I do) but you can tell them to sod off because it’s fine.
I agree. I believe leftist populism is our best shot at organizing rn. I as a Libertarian Marxist have more in common with anarchists and other Libertarian Socialists than most statist tendencies. There are some genuinely good people in socialist party orgs but unfortunately a lot of them can be really controlling and alienate the working class from socialist ideas. Leftist populism is nice because you're able to draw more individuals to very agreeable positions most people want. Like workplace democracy and unionization, healthcare, fair compensation and working hours, etc. We can get a lot of different kinds of people on board if we know how to organize correctly and broadly enough. Material conditions dictate formations of societies anyway. Capitalism is simply a road to socialism eventually. At least I believe that as a Marxist.
We're in a very volatile time rn. Many people are going to the left, but also many people are becoming fascists. We need to start organizing on the basis of leftist economic issues to get as many workers on board as possible. People are looking for explanations for the decay of capitalism in the wrong places. Many members of my own family have gone full fascist, when they were soft republicans for most of their lives. We have to catch people before they fall into the fascist trap, it's a very very important priority.
Rap is almost universally anti-fascist by nature, it often explicitly against most existing power structures. This extends even to some “flex” music, Nipsey Hussle for example had plenty of songs like this, but in his career he gave back, starting democratic business in black areas. When he became successful he didn’t leave his community, but stayed there, likely contributing to his death by shooting. Like all things, it requires more nuance and a moral position that you yourself should decide.
Also check out the album “We the People” by a tribe called quest, it’s just amazing
My therapist and I had a good little conversation about how as a society we're overworked, and that our economy's focus on accelerating growth and production is killing us and the planet, and she totally agreed with me. She's pretty socially progressive too, so that gives me hope.
>it's just extrapolating from the worst climate change data.
it's the most mainstream data, and even the notoriously conservative IPCC is telling us so. Read the SPM's for IPCC 6 (and keep in mind that the most recent data included is from 2018! lol) and IPBES 7. You can read stuff published in Nature and Science all the time. Peter Carter, one of the Expert Reviewers for IPCC 5 did a [brief lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fliCxyAwBWU) going over some key points, and he just shows you the data. and it goes far beyond just climate change: eutrophication, ocean acidification, peak oil, phosphorous, uranium, copper, so much more. Stockholm Resilience Center's Nine Boundaries are also very helpful.
"Apocalypse" is not going to occur as a discreet event within 10 years, but we are rapidly setting off feedback loops which cannot be undone. harvests will be unpredictable everywhere in the world, over a billion climate refugees will overwhelm global infrastructure in every way by 2050 as sea level continues to *exponentially* rise. renewables cannot generate the heat required to reproduce themselves at global scale. haber bosch, which the global population rests on, currently has no analogue for nitrogen fixing. desalination cannot match the rate of water usage. oof there's just so much more, just wait until the hot wars start over a glacierless arctic sea's new trade routes.
like i really can't overstate how dire shit is. the species extinction rate is 1000x higher than the background extinction rate, 135-200 species extinct daily, co2 accumulating \~14x faster than during the permian-triassic extinction event "the great dying". *humanity goes extinct at 4C*, and that's assuming none of the other aspects of the ecological collapse kill us first. *we're already at 2C* when aerosol dimming ends. there's a chance civilization will be salvageable if there's some kind of global communist revolution, but i really see no reason to believe humanity won't go extinct with capitalists at the wheel.
edit: a word
Nothing. Anarcho-syndicalism is mostly just a strategy.
Syndicalism means radical labour unionism. So anarcho-syndicalists want to build the power to abolish state, capital and other hierarchies through radical labour unions.
For more context here's some websites from anarcho-syndicalist unions:
Here's the website of the Industrial Workers of the World
https://www.iww.org/
And here's the english website of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo
https://www.cnt.es/whats-cnt/
And here's the website of the international confederation of labour
https://www.iclcit.org/
the issue I have is just that the statists' idea of "sorting out the details" invariably ends up being "imprison or kill the anarchists". I'll work with them on immediate goals but I don't trust them.
Marxism is relatively broad; personally I'd say not to trust any Marxist seeking state power because they *will* end up murdering anarchists given the chance. There has never been an exception to this rule that I'm aware of. Any Marxist movement that gains state power immediately begins imprisoning and killing anarchists, sometimes before they even finish overthrowing the government.
It is not false. You're limiting natural selection.
And like I said already, we don't need humans to have a well-regulated hunting environment. Did you forget about natural predators already?
You are ignoring starvation in your first example. Don't be disingenuous.
It's very much oppressive and unethical to kill unnecessarily. Even a 5 year old understands this. If I seriously have to explain this to you this is hopeless. "Benefits no one"? Are you deluded? So all the other animals in the area that benefit greatly just don't matter? Did you forget about scavengers? The worms and maggots are not important for the ecosystem?
What's it called?
No one denies that we have to kill to live. You're kinda deluded if you think vegans do that, and you don't understand the point. The point is to kill as little as possible.
I mean yea fuck tourists. This doesn’t seem to be the case here, they’re visiting with family and looking for specific anarchisty spaces they will be welcomed at. Better to support actual autonomous spaces than not know and just go to tourist traps.
marxists have [betrayed](https://reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/ziml54/comment/izso7fm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) anarchists *every* time they've had a chance to. pluralistic movements like zapatismo and democratic confederalism, which are neither marxist nor anarchist but have participants from each and draw from each tradition, have so far avoided this. however you can find all sorts of marxists cheering on anarchist killing dictators *right now*.
maybe marxists individually are ok, but together, they have a fantastically bloody record. i dont need theoretical elaborations on why mass murdering other socialists is ok, and i'm not interested in being in a vulnerable position with people who do.
And you're a self-righteous prick who thinks they can declare people oppressors just because they won't be in their club.
Even your fellow green anarchists think your kind is full of shit.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-beyond-veganism
>Veganism is a dogmatic and ignorant ideology that keeps us from communing with all life by creating a false dichotomy between the mutilation of plants, insects, and wild areas and the similar mutilation of our animal brothers and sisters. Noble it is to not consume the flesh of beings who have been raised as slaves, but how noble to leave plants out of our conception of living beings? How noble is it to consume “organic” crops, still planted in linear rows, fertilized and nourished by the shit of enslaved creatures? This shit contains antibiotics, and any other poisons injected into the shit’s producer by its proclaimed owner. Nourishment by these means still contains linear conditioning, from the ground up. Healthy diets may or may not contain meat; this is not the question being posed. What to include in one’s diet is a personal, bioregional decision which must always be respectful toward all life and mineral that is to be consumed.
And you're a self-righteous prick who thinks they can declare people oppressors just because they won't be in their club.
Even your fellow green anarchists think your kind is full of shit.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-beyond-veganism
>Veganism is a dogmatic and ignorant ideology that keeps us from communing with all life by creating a false dichotomy between the mutilation of plants, insects, and wild areas and the similar mutilation of our animal brothers and sisters. Noble it is to not consume the flesh of beings who have been raised as slaves, but how noble to leave plants out of our conception of living beings? How noble is it to consume “organic” crops, still planted in linear rows, fertilized and nourished by the shit of enslaved creatures? This shit contains antibiotics, and any other poisons injected into the shit’s producer by its proclaimed owner. Nourishment by these means still contains linear conditioning, from the ground up. Healthy diets may or may not contain meat; this is not the question being posed. What to include in one’s diet is a personal, bioregional decision which must always be respectful toward all life and mineral that is to be consumed.
~~Communism identifies the need for a transitional form of government where power is redistributed back to workers. Anarchists when they see the word state flip out, but who owns the state is what matters here.~~
~~I'm a ML but I lurk here because I believe in mutual aid, but this is where anarchists and ML disagree.~~
~~State capitalism is what we have now, capitalists are in league with the state who work at the behest of capital.~~
~~Marx talked about the gradual dissolve of the state, but there is a state for much of the formation period to achieve communism.~~
~~The power balance however is more favorable to workers and rids exploitation and reduces inequality.~~
~~I understand this is an unpopular opinion here but much of the literature about communism shares the belief in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship as in who dictates what is done. Not fear mongering evil DPRK dictator, just the literal definition of what it means to dictate and what that person or group of people would be. Dictatorship. Commonly misunderstood term just like liberals think Anarchy means killing everyone and lawlessness and crime.~~
It is simply enough to recognize that animal consumption is just force and that humans, like other animals, aren't in a hierarchical relationship just because they kill other animals. Even industrial agriculture, at least if we focus on the relations between humans and animals, isn't hierarchical (but the way industrial agriculture is structured is).
While all of those things are feasible for someone with capital (one money) people who are impoverished cannot 1) buy land 2) buy materials needed to farm 3) have the labor power to farm or even the education to do so
At some point 3500 BC or so you could just wander into the forest and a nice spot and just be like “yup I’m gonna build a village here” these days, the capitalist & collaborators have divided up & lay claimed to every last bit of *anything* which is valuable to the ecology of the planet; including and but limited to humans of all varieties.
Those days expropriatin’ be easy, maybe a lion or bear you would have to battle against for territory, or a another small band of people who you could not come to an agreement with.
These days a whole ass swat team will sh**t anyone down if you occupy space owned by some large grossing GDP Company
I don’t understand how you could see this as something anarchists could have a problem with. In lack of a commune you can rely the state to cover some needs just like how even if you don’t believe in money you can still use it in lieu of a better relationship with labor and property than money. Lol. Please don’t feel guilty about this.
Also if for whatever reason you are concerned for the state, you spending money assists growth of the market to drive production upward for your consumption which pays workers and fuels growth which expands business and you’ll eventually join the forces of the wage laborers in producing/service providing too. And then you’ll be paying taxes later on when you make enough that doesn’t stunt your consumption/demand for products and services. So it’s positively cyclical. Like, it’s a really really good thing for the market. Young people in debt or not consuming when they’d like to drastically puts age caps demand, and thus production and growth. Like we easily can produce/service more than we need but without demand/consumption the market can’t justify its own growth because capitalism is poorly thought out.
Also the government funding probably isn’t proportional to funding use, like they probably don’t refund the tax payers for unspent funds. So please spend or maybe it will be embezzled or thrown away so that their funding isn’t reduced next year. Governments agencies are often motivated to exceed their budget to justify themselves. This is a good agency, please spend.
I like the fact the congestion zone, ULEZ and LTNs are good for the environment.
You'd have to destroy every single camera to avoid the penalty and I doubt you'd manage that. Even if you did somehow find them all you'd have no way of knowing which had been fixed, and when, so would probably still end up getting fined at some point. Some LTN areas made 2 million in fines in 3 months, so they're going to have someone on those repairs straight away.
>I’m not the type of person for mindless destruction but I can’t see any negatives (apart from me being caught obviously) so can anyone give me some tips like climbing poles, cutting wires etc something with maximum destruction general middle finger to big brother
You *are* the type for mindless destruction under the right circumstances. Which are when you feel it's justified. People can excuse all kinds of reckless shit this way.
I got aware of this condition 5 years after trying veganism. It's not a mysterious condition either, I don't produce enough of certain enzymes that deal with breaking down a number of types of sugars, like fructose, lactose! and fructate but also those found in legumes. My father died young of kidney cancer and my grandfather was wheelchair bound for most of his life, both most likely due the same genetic defect. But it's not about me all of a sudden because that would make you an obvious ableist doesn't it? The fact that you concentrate on the supposed "mysterious medical excuse" is because the underlying notion of many vegans is that all reasons not to be vegan stem from egocentric attachment to eating animal products and cannot be the result of an moral or philosophical standpoint because in their mind their is none. But I was raised vegetarian and I don't even like meat, and plantbased cheeses and such are pretty good these days tastewise although seriously lacking in proteins or made with additives like sugar I have to avoid. I do however hate being policed by people on arbitrary set lines between animals and ecosystems, even subconsciously buy the notion that "the left doesn't have ethical omnivores, only temporarily embarrassed vegans".
I have known vegans, lived with vegans, cooked for vegans for a long long time by now. The fact that I have known many who have damaged their health or where quite insufferable is indeed anecdotal. That's because I'm stating my personal reasons not to go vegan. If this is a scientific debate, fine, I'll take couple of days of and go through all of the sources and see what comes up. But at this moment I see no reason for that. I already strive to be as much as what you call vegan, but I'll never call myself "a vegan". Because I'll make assessments on individual cases. If there's a overabundance of wool in my area I choose wool over plastic fleece. If getting plant based milk means driving 30 miles to town I'd rather have a goat, unless my neighbour is driving anyway than I rather have the plantbased milk. Etc. etc.
The core of my argument is not that I'm a poor soul who has to eat meat. It's that veganism is putting to much focus on individual animals and direct consumption and fails to account for systemic violence and ecocide as equally or more important factors. And that rather than promoting a lifestyle that is taking in account the full scope of ways to minimize harm as all equally valid, it creates a hierarchy of activism. My theory is that this is because existence is chaotic, and clear although arbitrary rules to live by are appealing to some people. This is why I call it a bourgeois pseudo religion - an offspring of puritanical abstinence morality. It's a form of moral absolutism that rates people by how "pure" the are just like religious people all over the world try to one up each other in piousness. Leather shoes from the thriftshop? That's minus points for you! To live is to kill (and not in the fashy glorifying sense, but in a sense of dred; I take up space and resources whether I want to or not) - but we can choose to minimize our harm. But to deny that fact - that living is killing - your setting yourself up for failure and you need a powerful antidote: veganism. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
In my experience, the people who like to make edgy/nihilistic jokes about how 'leftists can't work together' are the ones who are the very *least* serious about actual revolution.
Interesting discussion on this topic here, released earlier today:
[It's Not Just In Your Head podcast #127 - The False Promise of Psychedelic Utopia (ft. Neşe Devenot & Brian Pace) ](https://anchor.fm/itsnotjustinyourhead/episodes/127-The-False-Promise-of-Psychedelic-Utopia-ft--Nee-Devenot--Brian-Pace-e1vc0e2)
>Killing the largest deer just means the weaker, smaller ones survive, thus decreasing the overall strength of the population.
This is false. The health of a deer population has more to do with genetic diversity than the size of current living specimens.
>This isn't accurate either. You can't just ignore starvation in the first case. If you kill a deer, it's not like another won't starve.
I'm not ignoring starvation. The question of how large a population can be sustained in a given area without starvation is one of the central concerns of the conservation authority when they decide how many tags to issue for a given wmu.
>Either old age, sickness, starvation and natural predators kill deer. Or all of those AND you kill deer.
Again, this would only be true if hunting were unregulated. In a well regulated system the number of tags issued is adjusted regularly to prevent exactly this.
>You and I can go to a supermarket to buy or food.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about how and where I live. believe it or not there are places in this world where supermarkets are not so easily available. Not everyone lives in or near a city.
>We kill for pleasure.
This just emphasizes to me how little you understand the hunting community. The idea that hunters are a bunch of people that just enjoy taking life is cartoonish inaccurate. If you showed me a hunter and a non-hunter I would wager every time that the hunter knew more and cared more deeply about wildlife conservation than the non-hunter.
> It's oppressive and unethical.
It is neither oppressive nor unethical for a person to choose for a deer to die painlessly in a way that their death can be appreciated and beneficial rather than to let them suffer a long and painful death in a way the benefits no-onw save the worms and maggots. That is what happens in a well regulated hunting environment.
> Was killing animals always wrong? Was it wrong when early humans did it? Yes
How can you claim with a straight face that an animal species trying to survive by eating other species of animals is "wrong"? Wrong according to whom? You wouldn't be alive if early humans did not eat meat, so it sounds like this strategy worked out pretty well for your species.
Imagine if wolves felt like they are doing something wrong. FFS morality was a mistake.
I just know too many turbo capitalists who regularly dose psychedelics to really believe that any significant movement toward revolution could be influenced by LSD or anything else.
Now I do think psychedelic enhanced therapy can go a very long way to healing trauma and overcoming a subconscious fear of death. In doing so, I think we could have more people ready to engage in mutual aid and sustainable community building. But the guides in this scenario are arguably more important than the acid. While some might be inclined to experience a trip if they are going to be helping guide others through it, it should not be necessary and wouldn't be safe for many.
I think what I'm getting at is that presenting any substance as a silver bullet is a trap.
I feel similarly about psychedelics and politics as I do with queer sexuality and politics.
There’s a respectable defiance of authority in pursuit of self-actualization and psycho-spiritual liberation that I think fits well within anarchist objectives.
That being said, much to many people’s disagreement there is nothing inherently revolutionary about it, and members of the ruling class are always more free to explore and participate in even the most extractive forms. With a social/cultural push to destigmatize, you are gonna see all types to be involved, even your political enemies.
As far as revolutionary use goes, I believe cultivating psychedelics in an anti-capitalist fashion and allying with them to help me to connect with myself and the earth, and sharing the medicine with people who also use it for their own personal growth and healing. That’s about as far as I’m willing to take it as praxis, anything further gets too close to putting psychedelics on a pedestal and neglecting other, very important aspects of building anarchy.
In the 60's there was kind of a cultural divide between west and east coast acid users. You were much more likely to get dosed without consent in California. Considering what the west coast hippies morphed into (silicon valley C-suite) I think the contrasting philosophies are worth examination.
The East Coast trippers would punch you if you called them a hippie but they would never dose someone without consent. They practiced grimey mutual aid and cut the fences at Wood Stock, making it free to all. I'm unsure what role acid really played in their movement, tbh. I think it was more of something that was a really good time more than a means of changing the world.
Recommended search term, The Up Against the Wall Mother Fuckers.
I learned about them from a podcast called Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff.
Communism that forces people share private property (as we saw in russia) is authoritarian so it’s not anarchist. Its the state (supposedly representing the people) seizing the means of production. Marxists leninist believe that the true way to à moneyless and classless society is trough the dictatorship of the proletariat…trough a political party and a transition state. This is flawed, as Bakunin stated before the russian revolution even happened. The political party that has power will do everything to keep it eventually. So the people remain dispossessed, same as in a capitalist society.
Anarco-communism is when the people own the means of production. Not the party or the state.
Also it’s good to make a difference between personal property. (Your house, your tools, your toothbrush …)
And private property (an electric company, a supermarket, a bike repair shop…) . Personal property doesn’t need to ba shared but private property should.
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief. “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.” “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?” “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.” The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?” “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.” “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.” I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside. “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t. “Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up. “Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?” It didn’t seem like they did. “Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.” Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing. I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it. “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled. Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him. “Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen. I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!” He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose. “All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.” “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy. “Because I was afraid.” “Afraid?” “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.” I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head. “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.” He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.
>Hunters are biased in favour of killing the largest deer and oldest. Starvation, disease, and predators are biased in favour of the smallest and youngest.
Not really accurate, predators choose the easiest targets. These are both the eldest and youngest ones, as well as sick or injured ones.
Killing the largest deer just means the weaker, smaller ones survive, thus decreasing the overall strength of the population.
\>If a predator kills a deer and I kill a deer two deer die, one to thepredator one to myself. If I am unable to kill a deer (which i often am)two deer die, one to the predator and one to starvation during thewinter.
This isn't accurate either. You can't just ignore starvation in the first case. If you kill a deer, it's not like another won't starve.
Either old age, sickness, starvation and natural predators kill deer. Or all of those AND you kill deer.
You and I can go to a supermarket to buy or food. Wolves and coyotes cannot. We don't need to hunt to survive. They do. We kill for pleasure. It's oppressive and unethical.
Lucía Sánchez Saornil, or even the entire organization "Mujeres Libres" (Free women) that she founded together with Mercedes Comaposada and Amparo Poch.
> ***is by definition not anarchist.***
lol @ just a couple days ago you were whining and stomping your feet about me saying that things that were definitively non-anarchist weren't anarchist, but when someone wants to unplug from society, you're suddenly The Great Arbitor of what is and is not anarchism....
I don't know the games at all, but in the context of the show (which is clearly different in core philosophy from what I've heard, so the context of the games is not that helpful here), I did not get that vibe. We just left a commune that is clearly functioning, and inarguably the best place they've been to by far. If it has any criticism, it's that people from the outside would want it shut down so they have to kill to protect it, which is true of every other place they've been. Joel saying that in that context sounds more like he's uncomfortable with what he just saw, and he's doing his best to explain to Ellie what things used to be like. The clear conclusion is that now, neither of those ideas are useful, and communism is working.
I don't expect Joel to grow out of this attitude, >!especially after the way this episode ended -- which, damn, I know Joel dies but that was so out of left field!!<, but I think it's a mistake to take this as the writers speaking through him, as that would've been signposted a lot more, and would've probably cohered better with what we were seeing.
I do agree that the show is more interested in interpersonal relationships than deep exploration of ideology, and I also agree that not all media should be deep exploration of ideology. This is a great show.
Itō Noe
Are you Vietnamese?
Also, (as I'm sure you know) there is an anarchist organization called Mèo Mun in Vietnam.
Yeah ofc it is paramount to reduce the viability of killing animals purely for money, which is why I only steal meat i don’t buy it , is this not a reasonable compromise ?
Latinos Definitely welcome.
Ohhh no, they’re the furthest thing from statist! My understanding is they’re mostly communalists as they are always talking about Bookchin and Öcalan.
Highly recommend watching the latest full episode of the Jaded Forum podcast on YouTube as they have a great critiques of statism. (BSA are also the ones producing that podcast.)
The state sets up a great number of barriers to such a task, but you could probably still get it done depending on what you're after. To get the many of the supplies you mentioned (gas, anything auto-related, ammunition) you would be to establish a market-pirate society, or have a group so learned and high-value that you can trade your skills for resources. Others mentioned these for a reason.
Water is the easiest of the bunch. If you don't know how to purify water, in amounts large or small, you shouldn't be out there, and if you need to worry about droughts, you picked the wrong place to set up camp. River or lake. I'd be more worried about mineral or chemical contamination: you need to be quite far away from civilization.
Guns and ammo? Not sure why you need them. For self defence and hunting, you need much less of both than you might think. You don't need a gun for every person, and ammunition expenditure is nil. I've hunted the only meat I've eaten for the last few years, and I did so with bows and arrows I made myself. I'm still on the same batch of 12 arrows-- whether using a bow or a gun, you only get one shot, and that's all you should need. Even if you needed to kill 50 deer a year, you only need 50 bullets to do so. You'll want more than that, of course, but point is that you could stock up a thousand rounds and not need to worry about it for a loooooong time if you're smart about it. Besides, most of your calories ought to come from farming, foraging, and trapping.
Side note: former machinist here. You don't need cnc to make your own guns, you can do so as a competent manual machinist on a Bridgeport from the 50s. But still, not sure why you'd want to. Don't try to dodge a few thousand dollars of investment by accepting much more in material and machine cost. Second hand hunting rifles are pretty cheap.
I’m not completely vegan. Meat is not a regular part of my diet, but I will steal meat in grocery stores occasionally and once a year some friend give me hunted meat. I think that’s good enough for me.
I don’t see the act of killing an animal as inherently exploitative or speciesism. I even think that acting like we have a moral duty to not kill them because we have a conscience is speciesism. Most animal have morals and a conscience just like us.
I see animal liberation as an ideology and path to revolution and veganism as a respectable and healthy lifestyle.
I can muster up the willpower, but the ducks I raise and the eggs I eat from them and chickens I keep are delicious, live good lives, and critically, would cease to exist without human intervention. What do you propose I do to them if I go vegan? Let them be free, to be mauled by foxes and hawks?
It's not a large society, but there is the section in Kansas City. The show is not *unapologetically* revolutionary, as it extensively details how messy, and chaotic, and violent revolutions necessarily are. That being said, the show also extensively details *why* revolutions happen and does portray the revolutionaries in a sympathetic light.
There's even a throwaway line from one of them to the effect of: "our old leader was kind, and caring, and peaceful; we loved him, *but they killed him he didn't get us anywhere*".
Watch https://dominionmovement.com/ it shows many of the legal standard industry practices.
Would you think it were okay to experience other cultures' heirarchies and oppressions? Does watching a performance done by slaves become justified because it was culturally significant? Is soxism allowed if it's a part of someone's culture? Tradition is a pathetic excuse for oppression, torture and killing.
Eggs can't be produced ethically. Even in the best farm for the hens, the male chicks are killed at a day old because they're useless. Also hens are supposed e produce 10 eggs a year, not 300. This gives the osteoporosis/arthritis due to all the calcium going into hardening their shells.
Appreciate that you agree with that. It kinda sucks to argue that slaughterhouses should be considered too, and not just factory farms (which comes up often).
I wouldn’t want to pry with regards to allergies/health situation, since I know that can be a bit sensitive for many people. Do you think you could take some steps in a more plant based direction from where you are now, without compromising your health? Some allergies make it more inconvenient for sure, like a soy allergy, but it should always be possible to move in a more plant based direction (something like replacing consumption of chickens with consumption of eggs, or consumption of cows with consumption of dairy, even though it still involves animal abuse to chickens and cows, reduces the quantity of animals killed by a decent amount. A half or quarter step today is better than no step at all, because of viewing it as all or nothing.
Youre getting more wrong, dogs are companions and we love dogs, same as cats and other household pets that cant survive without us. But wild animals like coyotes, deer, and boars dont need us to survive and even attack us. We kill those ones and eat them, theres such a thing as humane killing and it is one of those things that you cant change about nature. Would you rather these species overpopulate and starve out from lack of resources? Become invasive and attack us where we live?
This is dogmatic thinking. “You have to believe what I tell you because the ideology says so, and the ideology can never change.” Believe it or not, I don’t care what “most of us” believe because I can think for myself, and I know that killing animals is wrong.
I pity you, honestly. You seem like a very angry and small-minded person.
While her murder is tragic, Restorative Justice is still a bad idea.
>“Restorative Justice” (RJ) is the latest in informal justice. (Actually, it was invented before NJCs, but it hasn’t faded.) Once again, the leftist longing for peace, harmony and reconciliation has been turned against the left. Once again, the left – the academic left: nobody else has even heard of restorative justice – has been compromised, co-opted, and duped.[188] Think of the criminal justice system as Lucy, the credulous academics as Charlie Brown, and the football as, successively, the juvenile court, small claims court, pretrial diversion, neighborhood justice centers, and now restorative justice. Every time Charlie Brown runs up to kick the football, Lucy pulls it away at the last moment, and Charlie Brown ends up on his ass. And every time, he thinks that next time will be different. It’s like voting.
>
> ...
>
>RJ was invented by pacifists who were inspired by an ideology of harmony. They were, and are, religious zealots who abhor conflict: “for the Christian Mennonite movement it is the typically adversarial nature of criminal justice which has aroused critique.”[202] RJ “practices contain or sanitize conflict in the reconciliation discourse, regarding it as an altogether destructive and unhealthy feature of human conduct.”[203] But social conflict is inevitable, and not always harmful, and it has some useful social functions. We don’t have enough social conflict.[204] Conflict has always occurred in (and between) anarchist societies. I’ve contended that probably it always will. Nonetheless, as we will see, contemporary anarchist academics are prominent exponents of RJ. They always get off at the wrong stop.
>
>...
>
>To the limited extent that RJ may be popular, that reception owes a lot to the conservative political climate: “The search for community and for definitive moral responses to crime can be seen in the context of neo-liberal demands for greater individual responsibility and accountability.”[227] The most ambitious attempt to apply the criminal law in a therapeutic way was the juvenile court. It was a failure. In the 1960s, anti-institutional challenges shook the helping bureaucracies: the social workers, psychiatrists and psychotherapists. But they recovered their hegemony.[228] Restorative Justice is part of that counter-revolution.[229]
>
>...
>
>By definition, because this is RJ – there has to be a harm -- the victim has been harmed, physically, psychologically or financially. Restitution is often ordered in case of property crimes, but, it would be perverse to speak of “healing” the victim’s finances. Besides, most offenders are unable to repair financial loss.[254] And there is nothing distinctively RJ about restitution. It’s become a standard element in sentencing for property crimes. Physical harm is redressed by medical care, not in an encounter group. So RJ’s healing claims really boil down to the provision of psychotherapy. However, “there are more effective means of assisting the process of emotional catharsis and addressing mental health issues than reliance on the criminal justice system.”[255] And I have suggested: “For the justice system, doing justice is more important than administering therapy.”[256]
>
>The meaning of “harm” to a victim beyond violence to the person and trespass to property, is highly problematic.
>
>Psychiatric, psychological and social services are available to victims, independently of RJ. Since the 1970s, there have been significant support services available to the victims of crime. It’s always possible to find that such programs are inadequate. Has there ever been a social services program which didn’t want more money? RJ wants more money too: “A common theme in the restorative justice community throughout the world is the lack of resources for programs at all levels.”[257] Unlike RJ, which is a one-shot fix, these programs at least offer services over a long-term basis. There’s a “natural disconnect” between RJ and victim services.[258]
>
>The typical RJ process, such as victim-offender reconciliation programs (VORP), after some behind-the-scenes manipulation of the parties by the “facilitator” or “convenor,” culminates in a single meeting of stakeholders.[259] This fact alone renders the strident claims for success and satisfaction dubious. NJC mediation was a more protracted process, but as we have seen, its claims for success were also dubious. Successful mediation follows “essentially a model of overlapping phases in which each phase opens the way to a succeeding one in a progression toward settlement. The phases are distinguished by the nature and content of the information exchanged and the concomitant learning and by the degree of coordination involved.”[260] That was how mediation was conducted in unhurried societies such as the Plateau Tonga and the Infugao. But that’s not modern RJ. Modern societies are not unhurried.
>
>RJ literature is loaded with moving anecdotes of “closure” for victims, and of criminals seeing the light[261] -- the blinding light, such as St. Paul saw on the Damascus road. In one infamous, oft-quoted anecdote, it was the victim, who really was blinded, while in custody, by a South African police officer, whose sight was (metaphorically) restored by the opportunity to tell his story to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[262] Jesus would have delivered more than closure. On at least one occasion, he reportedly kicked ass.
>
>I am so hard-hearted as to shed no tears of joy over these miracles, possibly because I don’t believe in miracles. I am sure the Arjays shed tears as sincerely as did the Walrus and the Carpenter.[263] But I have not found a single case, documented by psychologists or psychiatrists or psychiatric social workers, of RJ effecting personality changes in anybody. RJ is much less like therapy than theatre – the theatre of the absurd, or melodrama.
>
>If victim healing is dubious, offender healing is scandalous. As we have seen, the real focus of most RJ programs is on rehabilitating the criminal, not the victim. The only certain “harm” to a convicted criminal is criminal punishment. Naturally he would like to avoid that. The lion would rather eat the lamb than lie down with him, but, he might prefer lying down with the lamb to being caged. But why should the lamb lie down with the lion? Nonetheless, that is the idyllic illustration on the cover of Tifft and Sullivan’s Restorative Justice. A child is petting the lamb. A dove of peace observes from a tree branch. I’m not making this stuff up! [264]
>
>...
>
>Victims are not merely neglected by RJ practitioners: they are being used.
>
>It’s a good thing for RJ that victims haven’t read the RJ academic literature, where they might read that
>
victims are not necessarily the “good” in opposition to the offender’s “bad.” . . . [T]his position serves to remind us that whilst crime does impact upon [sic] people’s lives, victims of crime are people too. So by implication, in this regard, it makes little sense to talk of people as victims or offenders, or indeed victims or survivors. They are people, and people need to feel OK about themselves and sometimes need some help and support to achieve that.[268]
>
>For victims, if not for sociology professors, it makes perfect sense to talk of people as victims or offenders. Their common personhood did not prevent offenders from victimizing them. Maybe some people should not “feel OK about themselves,” because some people are not OK.
>
>Criminals don’t usually need to be healed, because criminals, like victims, aren’t usually sick. If they are, that has little to do with their criminality. Possibly juvenile delinquents, who are still growing up, should be treated therapeutically – at first, anyway. For the Arjays, a crime is an opportunity for ministration. For them, in accordance with their sickly Christian morality,[269] the criminal is a sheep gone astray. They wallow in bathos. They rejoice in it. Arjays are leper lickers.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-justice-primitive-and-modern
>I assume you're in the US since you're posting US law, but I gotta say that sounds really lonely, comrade. I would also hazard to guess that if we got to the place of mass targeting of anarchists on a purely ideological basis, that it's more dangerous to be a lone anarchist posting on the internet.
I'm NOT in the US. Not even close.
​
>It's true that you have to extend trust to others when you're part of a community, but community keeps you safe(r) from oppression.
Why walk around with 50 people when 49 are going to run?
​
>I'd encourage you to seek out somewhere safe with people you can feel safe with, IRL.
I'm in an absolute wonderful place and I travel all around year round. It's Heaven! I have NO enemies. I'm an imposing large figure that works out daily with weights and have been boxing/kickboxing since childhood, so I don't have an immediate predator. I'm NOBODY's target. I don't disrespect ANYONE on the streets and I'm nice to everyone...even gang members with badges with a monopoly on violence powered by the State, which I run into a lot at the shooting range on a weekly basis.
It's an absolute wonderful "boring", but safe life. Of course, to each their own. Some people fall in love, others fall in trouble. YMMV.
>If the same number of deer die, how is the ecosystem healthier if you hunt them? If you don't hunt them, the same number of deer die and the ecosystem ends up just as healthy, no?
Absent of human hunting the same number of deer will die but it is not the same deer. Hunters are biased in favour of killing the largest deer and oldest. Starvation, disease, and predators are biased in favour of the smallest and youngest. The largest Bucks get fist choice of mate and can mate with any Doe in their area. If tjey are left in the population most new fawns will be fathered by a small handful of the largest Buck thus reducing genetic diversity. When hunters remove the largest specimens from tje population the remaining smaller and younger buck will have much greater chance of mating this increasing genetic diversity.
>And how do you explain wild predators, don't they kill animals too? So if you and a predator both kill a deer, how is that the same number as when only the predator kills a deer?
If a predator kills a deer and I kill a deer two deer die, one to the predator one to myself. If I am unable to kill a deer (which i often am) two deer die, one to the predator and one to starvation during the winter. Remember, the total number of deer that can be hunted in any given area is tightly controlled by conservation authorities. It is not the case that a hunter can wander into the woods any shoot any deer they see. To legally hunt a deer one must have a deer tag which dictates which gender to be hunted and where. These tags are tipically awarded by lottery as more hunters want one than are available. There are very passionate and intelligent scientists whose job is to determine the optimal size of the deer population in each WMU (wildlife management unit). If those professionals determine that hunting in a particular place woul be harmful to the ecosystem there then no tags will be issued for that place. If I have successful obtained a deer tag for my location that implies that the conservation authorities have concluded the deer population in my area will be healthiest if it is reduced by at least one.
I do have to ask, is there a twist where they turn out to be killing dissents? Because I can't number the amount of times where they go "too good to be true" or "well, taking property to help people is wrong to the one deprived" with tv shows now.
It just seems like in this cynical world/American film, anything positive is just not real.
On the plus, it is nice to see people accurately write what a communist society is, and not just the auth-left strains of it.
I can only speak for myself (american):
I've been on food stamps and medicaid for about a decade? Have worked on and off, my benefits wax and wane depending on that. But I haven't applied for disability because of Personal Shame.
Also, I know we're not 'supposed' to think like this, but I know people who are more disabled than I am (I am mentally fucked, but relatively able bodied) who struggle to pay their bills on SSI. so I don't know if it's best for me to just not try because those funds are getting low in the first place, and I can at least do like, a couple grand worth of work a year.
But that is completely personal. I don't think it makes anyone less anarchist to take benefits. That's what our taxes are Supposed to be doing. It's none of our faults that they dump all the tax money into the military.
Edit- I forgot to address your point about the demonization of using benefits but I just wanted to say I think you're spot on.
But it’s clearly a functioning jail. Most countries have never used their nukes, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t coercive. Most cops haven’t killed anyone, but they still threaten people. Not needing the jail just means they haven’t had to use it yet. It’s a peaceful society, but still contains elements of coercion.
>the survivalist standing out in the open to shoot at raiders instead of taking cover
That's just media action in general. Because "glue your belly to the ground and skull crawl into the bushes to take pot shots" is less interesting narrative wise.
Besides. Every writer knows that cover is gambling anyway. 22lr can penetrate a meter of earthwork, and a 7.62 can't penetrate 3/8th plywood.
Watching TV gunfights is painful honestly.
Good on you for trying to reduce your meat intake. I suggest checking out some plant-based cheese the next time you visit the supermarkets and try reminding yourself of what the animals had to go through the next time you pass by the cheese aisle. I'm sure it'll take time, but try to eat less and less of it if you can.
Recommend watching the documentary [Dominion](https://watchdominion.com) to learn more about the animal industry.
> Indigenous peoples have practiced them for thousands of years and continue to do so
are you an indigenous person living in a forest, catching salmon and managing the same ecosystem for thousands of years? if not, idk why this is mentioned.
>Most folk out here raise for their own sake not for profit and love all their animals like their own children.
damn you slit the throats of children and eat them?
I have no intention of changing your mind just pointing out the fact that veganism likely causes just as much damage and suffering when you factor the land required to produce the specialist equipment and chemicals. The massive displacement of people and animals involved not to mention the ecological costs of run off and fuel burned to support the logistics. Not to mention those aren't the only option we have all the means, power and opportunities to end the oppressive regime we live under. Why even join an anarchy group if you have zero desire to fight the powers that be?
the key is to think about who has it harder, you or the victim on the plate
the victims of your brutal hierarchy will be dying on this hill before they end up on your plate
Continued:
The end of dehumanization is to make someone completely inhuman in the eyes of the people, and in so doing, discount them entirely from moral consideration. One doesn't need to hate animals to be a bigot to them, they need only buy into the prevailing notion that because they are not human they deserve no ethical consideration. It is the same notion upon which the slavery of blacks was built was that they were not white, and thus not deserving of the same rights and privileges.
We draw lines where we please, and they are always arbitrary, they always have been. We do it wherever it will be convenient to us, if it is inconvenient to give minorities rights then they won't get them, if it is all of a sudden convenient that they do get rights, they will. Bigotry is a weapon of the political arsenal, slavery itself predates the invention of racism, racism itself was invented as a convenient excuse for slavery, not the other way around as so many think. As Ibram X Kendi puts it so well in *How to be an Antiracist*,
>FROM 1434 TO 1447, Gomes de Zurara estimated, 927 enslaved Africans landed in Portugal, “the greater part of whom were turned into the true path of salvation.” It was, according to Zurara, Prince Henry’s paramount achievement, an achievement blessed by successive popes. No mention of Prince Henry’s royal fifth (quinto), the 185 or so of those captives he was given, a fortune in bodies.
>The obedient Gomes de Zurara created racial difference to convince the world that Prince Henry (and thus Portugal) did not slave-trade for money, only to save souls. The liberators had come to Africa. Zurara personally sent a copy of The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea to King Afonso V with an introductory letter in 1453. He hoped the book would “keep” Prince Henry’s name “before” the “eyes” of the world, “to the great praise of his memory.” Gomes de Zurara secured Prince Henry’s memory as surely as Prince Henry secured the wealth of the royal court. King Afonso was accumulating more capital from selling enslaved Africans to foreigners “than from all the taxes levied on the entire kingdom,” observed a traveler in 1466. Race had served its purpose.
>Prince Henry’s racist policy of slave trading came first—a cunning invention for the practical purpose of bypassing Muslim traders. After nearly two decades of slave trading, King Afonso asked Gomes de Zurara to defend the lucrative commerce in human lives, which he did through the construction of a Black race, an invented group upon which he hung racist ideas. This cause and effect—a racist power creates racist policies out of raw self-interest; the racist policies necessitate racist ideas to justify them—lingers over the life of racism.
Now it's important to note that this system becomes cyclical. Racist ideas create racist policies, racist policies create racist ideas, but **the important thing is that racist ideas did not come first, racist policies did.** Slavery was a purely economic decision, then, in working to legitimize it, the concept of race was invented. The first racist actions were not fueled by hate, and so it is odd to believe that hate would be necessary in the continuance of it, all bigotry can survive without hate (though hate grows it), because bigotry is a weapon with which to cause social and economic inequality, and if you want to get rich, then it's a good weapon to use.
We benefit materially from speciesism, and this ensures that speciesism will remain. The idea that we are superior to animals is a philosophy that emerged after our commitment to oppress them. It must be our responsibility, as liberationists, never to accept an idea without critical thought, and every bite into an animal product is a tacit acceptance of human supremacy. It is not just ethically abhorrent because animals die because of your actions, it is also the assumptions beneath your decisions. You would perhaps not bite into a burger made of a human, but you will bite into a burger made of a cow, yet why? Because placed within you by a bigoted society is the idea that humans are superior, that their interests are more important, that cruelty to a man and cruelty to a cow are a different thing, that killing a human is unconscionable but killing an animal is a matter of doing it "humanely" whatever that means.
> *“Around two hundred feet from the main entrance to the [Holocaust] museum is an Auschwitz for animals from which emanates a horrible odor that envelopes the museum. I mentioned it to the museum management. Their reaction was not surprising. ‘But they are only chickens.’”*
> - Albert Kaplan, a Jewish-American whose parents’ families where perished in the Holocaust
And do we, no, did I, before I was vegan, look at that cow with malice and hatred? With boiling blood? No... I thought it looked happy, but truthfully I didn't care either way. I was hungry, and I considered that feeling in my stomach before I ever considered the welfare of that other being. I wasn't hateful, I was indifferent. The discrimination I practiced was inherent to me, it was so deeply seated I could not detect it, in every bite and every purchase I asserted the idea that one group was inferior to another, I was a living breathing supremacist and I knew it but did not acknowledge it, because well... *they are only animals.*
> *“The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That’s the essence of inhumanity.”*
> - George Bernard Shaw
After watching Dominion, which is not for the faint of heart, I realized my role in this subjugation. I could no longer pretend that diet was not a concern, or that complications or difficulties ought to be a reason not to go vegan. After watching Dominion I realized that regardless of the degrees of separation, I paid to have what I saw on screen happen, and to continue happening long after I was gone. I have no illusions about my refusal to purchase animal products making a great dent in animal agriculture, but I am sure that my hands are cleaner than they were, and I shall no longer endorse the supremacist idea that someone's mother or child ought to be my food simply because of what species they are.
Did you know that in Auschwitz the amount of gassed people was so high that the ovens could not handle the load? The Nazi's had a solution in mind, they forced *Sonderkommandos* (groups of jewish prisoners) to dig enormous burn pits with built in drain pipes.
As the flesh of thousands of men and women and children burned, their fat turned into liquid and formed a river which flowed down through these pipes into buckets to be used as fuel for the next train.
I used to wonder how any individual human could be capable of such cruelty, such inhumanity. Dominion, in many ways, showed me exactly how banal such cruelty is for those that practice it.
In Dominion, There is a particularly disturbing scene where a fox is skinned alive, and you can see it there, still breathing, still conscious, with no skin. I think often of the person who skinned that fox, I think about what ideas he has about animals in his head. I know already what they are, they are ideas of supremacy, no different from any other kind of supremacy. Anytime I see clothing or shoes or fur coats, I think of that fox, every time I see the deli aisle I see a massacre, I hear the screams of pigs in gas chambers who break their teeth gnawing on the irons bars, trying to get out.
I've been asked many times "Is it difficult going vegan?" and I always think that it's a bit of a funny question, my best response is "Do you understand the implications of your actions?" Because I think if people did, they would not find veganism to be so difficult.
For my part, ethics is the most important thing in my life. Either I act rightly or I am actively harming the world. In gaining knowledge, I became culpable. I became every worker in that documentary that tases and strikes the pigs to rouse them into their pens. I became each person separating baby chicks by sex, putting the female chicks aside so that they can grow and lay eggs, and putting the male chicks on a conveyor to a grinder. I became the person holding a bolt gun to the head of a cow who has been beaten senseless it's whole miserably short life. I became the man sticking a knife into a live fox, and with my gloved hands, tearing its pelt off of it while it still breathed. I became everything I did not ever want to be, I became everything I had ever fought against, I realized I had played a part in something despicable.
In many ways, I had never chosen to eat meat, I wasn't familiar with the cost. I had grown up committing this atrocity, not even comprehending it as such. I certainly had never investigated it, I was ignorant, but once I saw it, it became the easiest choice i'd ever made. I saw my hypocrisy in loving my cat and yet eating pigs, whose intelligence matches that of a 4-year-old human child. I saw perhaps the ugliest part of myself, and I saw that those I discriminated against would never try to convince me of their plea, for they were not capable except through horrified screams that I would not hear in the supermarket.
> *“True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind’s true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.”*
>- Milan Kundera
I guess it is if you put your head in the sand and don't look at the American flag
> I can do things alone without the fear of testimony of others trying to reduce their sentence.
Imagine how much it would suck if governments realised they could get people to think like this and take away the biggest strength of anarchism, namely our willingness to work together as a community without designated leaders they can take out to cripple the movement.
Hey. Wait a minute...
If the same number of deer die, how is the ecosystem healthier if you hunt them? If you don't hunt them, the same number of deer die and the ecosystem ends up just as healthy, no?
And how do you explain wild predators, don't they kill animals too? So if you and a predator both kill a deer, how is that the same number as when only the predator kills a deer?
Yeah, so?
Just because something is indigineous tradition or culture doesn't make it okay. See child brides or female genital mutilation. Or slaughtering animals alive without sedation.
In an ideal world, we don't kill animals.
I don't think the show nor the game have an overt political messaging with regards to economic systems. There is slight exploration of revolution as there are oppressive systems and governments, and revolutionary groups but they are mostly only there to serve the characters journeys. It's definitely got an anti-authoritarian kick to it, and it does dive into the brutality of revolutionary action, but I don't think it goes deep enough, nor does the society in which the revolution's take place have a developed enough economy to say that it is anti capitalist or somehow unapologetically revolutionary.