• usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Very true, although I can’t think of a better solution than having the state monopolize violence and enforce things like personal property etc and that’s not necessarily anything specific to capitalism either.

    • theluddite@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some very smart and imaginative anarchist philosophers have been working on exactly that for a very long time, from Mikhail Bakunin 200 years ago to more modern writers like Noam Chomsky or David Graeber. I think their work is worthwhile.

      • fkn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I haven’t found Chomskys work to be convincing… it’s always so… extra…

        • theluddite@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it’s extra. Quite the opposite. If anything, it could use a little extra, because it’s extremely dry and academic.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Luckily solutions don’t rely on your imagination.

      If people who “can’t think of a better way” would stop trying to impose their lack of imagination on the rest of us we would be able to progress.

      There are smarter people than you or I in the world and they aren’t the ones running things, the ones whispering, “You’re nothing without me”

      The first step of any abusive relationship is recognizing it’s an abusive relationship. The second is to stop making excuses for your abuser and just leave, no matter what they claim the cost to be.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes and there are people who can’t leave, eg have no place to go, no means of survival, otherwise. Disabled, power differentiate between men/women/children, etc.

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. We’re all stuck and only together can we get unstuck. Unionize. Vote. Share ideas. Help others escape the fog when they get stuck.

          Unfortunately some don’t want to be help. They’ll defend their abusers with violence. They are the most dangerous. Flying monkey’s doing the bidding of the powerful.

          No shame when they wake though; capitalism is a mind fuck.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t think of a better solution than having the state monopolize violence and enforce things

      I can’t think of a worse one.

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, it’s the internet so I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not (I’m hoping hyperbole).

        Are you genuinely saying you think everyone using violence at their own discretion for example is better?

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Individual descretion occurs within a context of established norms and rules, which would be very different under a society in which everyone protects one another, rather than one in which such responsibility has been forfeit to a power that controls the population.

          A society of the prior kind would be safer, by not being held hostage, and by not being disempowered to control itself.

          • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Individual descretion occurs within a context of established norms and rules, which would be very different under a society in which everyone protects one another

            It’s called a gang. That’s just gangs. Or tribes. Not a thing that scales up too well. Also not known for its safety.

            by not being held hostage

            You could literally be held hostage, unless your gang (hope you belong to a tough one) does something about it.

            We aren’t disempowered, we vote and elect representatives. We give input that takes those norms and rules and puts them into laws to eliminate that individual discretion that is most often faulty (people have emotions after all, so don’t behave fairly when it’s personal).

            Basically all the safest places in the world have violence monopolized by the state to enforce laws. All the most dangerous are where that isn’t the case (gangs, warlords, cartels, corruption) with few exceptions.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              A gang is a criminal organization. Its relation to surrounding society is antagonistic, and it is broadly indifferent to the harmful effects it causes to anyone outside. Gangs often enrich themselves by theft supported by violence. They generally do not produce.

              A group whose members live nearby to one another and who keep each other safe is a community. Members of a community generally participate in production, as the shared source of wealth and sustenance.

              A tribe is a political structure often constituted as a loose affiliation of bands. A band is a kind of community. Bands are usually relatively isolated socially and geographically from other communities.

              Many other communities, as often found in modern societies, are highly integrated with other communities, and maintain favorable relationships with them, seeking a minimization of violence, and fostering shared peace and prosperity through production and trade.


              Voting is not empowering.

              Voting is at best a choice of whom to empower. Those who compete against one another for the votes of the public generally have more in common with each other than with the public. Most rules change very little regardless of who is elected, and most rules carry the broader effect of protecting the power of those already empowered.

              Broadly, voting generally maintains and protects, not challenges, the status quo and the disempowerment of the public.

              For the public to become empowered, it would need to gain some power relative to those for whom it votes.


              States perpetrate violence on massive scales. They function to protect themselves, not to protect the public. For almost the entirety of human existence, people have protected each other without states.

              The idea that the state, even as a principle, should protect the public, is quite recent, even relative to the duration since states have emerged, and the practical reality is quite different from the principle.

              When the interests of the public come into conflict with the interests of the state, then the state inflicts violence against the public.

              When the capacity of the state becomes strained, to inflict violence against the public, then the state simply exercises its power to augment its capacity to inflict violence.