• Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Similar vibe, but I think ‘marxism’ is not the only conclusion from realising how much megacorps control our world. I’m more of a left-anarchist myself :U

    • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a leftist/liberal who doesn’t know too much about polsci, how would anarchism function on a grand scale? Genuine curiosity.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anarchism is less a system of functions to be implemented, and more of a governing philosophy on how we build other systems. That philosophy focuses heavily on the expansion of democracy and the elimination of hierarchy wherever possible in order to create the most total freedom in the system. It is not inherently opposed to the concepts of governance or laws as many believe. It usually means focusing on smaller governing units, preferring local governance wherever possible, to give people the most direct control over their own lives. Self-sufficient communities are a major goal here.

        The meaning of freedom to an anarchist is wholistic; not just freedom to, but also freedom from. Freedom to pursue your life on your terms, freedom from any obligation or inhibition that would prevent or detract from that goal. This includes, for example, unconditional freedom for all people from starvation, homelessness, or the inability to access medical care. It is an intentionally utopian ideal, that we should strive for something that may not even be possible, because that is how we’ll create the best possible world.

        Once upon a time, anarchism was effectively synonymous with libertarianism. That word was bastardized in America to the point that it is unrecognizable now.

        • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well. That’s a wholly different picture than the word itself paints.

          It’s almost sad, as anarchist has such a negative connotation that, to me, it feels what you’re describing may deserve a new name to relieve it of the baggage associated with the name. It will be awfully hard to get people to listen in America when it’s so saturated with the idea that anarchism is, well… anarchic, ungoverned chaos.

          • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The broader tradition of political thought that anarchism falls under is libertarianism. That one also doesn’t have great connotations for obvious reasons, unfortunately. If you’re interested in learning more about anarchism ;Zoe Baker, Anark, Andrewism are great YouTube channels with very comprehensive videos on history, theory, and praxis. Be warned, Zoe bakers delivery is dryer than a saltine and anark is very theory focused and many of his videos are 90 min+

            Zoe Baker is a PhD in anarchist history. Anark has several videos on revolutionary politics and theory. His most recent series is a synthesis of many strains of anarchism to form a modern iteration of anarchism. Kind of “bringing it all together”. Andrewism is focused on black anarchism, pan-africanism, degrowth, solar punk and a lot of other praxis, lifestyle, and activism. Between the three of them I doubt there’s a question on anarchism and liberatory politics that couldn’t be answered

        • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          My brother lent me “The History of Everything” and it’s appealing, but in the end i couldn’t go along with it because a) it billed itself as an academic work but was a polemic and b) the privilege of the authors screamed across every page, as much as they stated that they weren’t.

          IMO, anarchism fails to confront the fact that there are malignant psychopathic in the world. As much as they claim not to fall into the Noble Savage trap, that was the essence of the book.

          There will always be exploitative people, and assuming that a Return to Nature (regardless of the many other benefits to sustainability that I in no way want to impugn) will eliminate that is, in my view, somewhat naive.