Meh, it’s a practice in gratitude. We have it better than 99.99% of humans that ever lived. Is that an excuse to stop improving for future generations? No. It does make our shitty life seem a little less shitty tho. Things can always get worse, if it can’t your dead and won’t be phased anyways.
I poop in cleaner water than people used to drink. I still have teeth because a dentist filled my cavities. I’m typing this comment on a device that can show me nearly anything I want.
We’ve got it really, really good. It could also be better and more just.
There’s a ton more that people always forget. How often do you worry about random brigands attacking your town and burning everything? No, I don’t care if are actually still afraid of that (you scaredy cat). It doesn’t happen now, but it used to happen all the time.
How many of your 10 children have died of preventable illness? It used to be like 30%. Even royal families had problems with disease. Look at this shit:
Peter the Great had two wives, with whom he had fifteen children, three of whom survived to adulthood.
How afraid are you of having enough food to eat to last the winter? That was an annual worry, and is the reason why harvest festivals exist. Unless you are from the third world, your family has not worried about this for 100 years.
Eh it’s all subjective and honestly a bullshit statistic to get people to shut up about how bad they have it, à la “well kids are starving in Africa.”
Don’t get me wrong. Way less child death, way less time spent processing your own food for the winter, access to advanced medicine if you can afford it but otherwise it really doesn’t mean anything. It’s a clever statement to try to push back against people wanting it to be better and pretend they are enlightened to how bad it is.
Life expectancy is still basically the same. It’s not like people didn’t live well into their 90s even Before Common Era. Less physical labor is nice but also new health issues are arising anyways. And actually average lifespan is going down for those with less wealth.
It’s essentially a litmus test for seeing if you can be an optimist in the face systemic issues that are currently occuring and an easy hand wave of “well im sure people were more upset in the past”
I think the only true metric we should be comparing people to is the present. The majority will always be in the past but the people alive today are more important than ghosts.
I think it’s still not obvious that it just means a higher percentage are making it to older ages. If you made it into your 30s your likelihood of living to old age was pretty good.
I think my argument does make light of how much the average person was dying really young though.
Studies show that people still living in tribes are happier than people living in cities. I assume when most people were hunter-gatherers, people were happier (even though they were much worse-off in many ways). Large hierarchies and wealth and power disparities cause a lot of unhappiness, IMO.
It doesn’t necessarily build bad character, I didn’t have a great upbringing and I think it did result in some positives in my character. However, as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat and I think there are better ways of bringing out positive character traits…
Life being better is what actually builds character, not being worse. Arguably life being worse convinces people to be evil, albeit for pretty justifiable reasons.
maybe the lying presentation-style of the arguments in the given picture then sort of also represents the same style arguments of those who became rich and powerful by only lies and abuses?
not sure, just speculation ;-)
but if making it worse and causing losses on the other side for the gain of an “imagined good outcome” where the other (victim) just “has to accept the loss and work hard to make the good outcome to become real” is considered to be “good” behaviour by them, then maybe they also say within the same argument that bankrobbers, shoplifters and housebreakers should be honored (as in taxfree extra money paid by the victim or such) for “helping them (bank, shop, homeowner) to develop better security” instead of prosecution and forced handing back of what they took.
An anarchist’s idea of anarchy is never really the simple definition of anarchy that most people know.
From what I’ve read, the simplest way to put it is not the abolition of rules, but the abolition of any state mechanism that’s separate from the population or that could enforce rules without the broad consensus of the people.
For instance, most anarchist philosopers still argue for a form of government, but they always try to integrate it with the people as much as possible through things such as council democracies.
Well that’s not “the purge” obviously, but every description of Anarchy just sounds like it’s recreating a high school government (complete with cliques and everything). At any anarchist commune, the popular people are elected to the council. That’s how popularity works.
First world countries already have representative democracies. People are getting what they vote for. The problem is: people are stupid and shortsighted. That problem would be worse if you remove the institutions we’ve built up.
To a degree, I agree, and that’s why I’m not an anarchist. I do, however, believe that most of the reforms we need for our democracies are similar to the goals of anarchism, and therefore anarchists can be good to read critically for inspiration.
A more delegate inspired model of representative democracy with more accountability to their electorate, STV and proportional representation so that the government more closely aligns with the population, worker cooperatives and unions so that the population has a broader say in the economy. These are all things I believe we need and feel in line with the spirit of anarchism.
We do not have functional representative democracies. The material and economic reality of the current system leaves what little democratic practices we have vulnerable to manipulation. There is a power imbalance between our democratic systems of power and the purely economic power structures, resulting in the former being dominated by the latter.
What anarchists envision is not simply the removal of the current powerful institutions, but the replacement of them with alternative democratic institutions. For democracy to survive and function it must be the dominant power structure in a society.
Most forms of anarchism are extremely pro-social and left-wing, unlike nearly every portrayal in media. The word anarchy itself simply means “without rulers”. So, it’s understandable that those with a vested interest in avoiding such conditions would want to portray it negatively.
One of the major foundational assumptions in nearly all forms of anarchism is that hierarchical power structures are fundamentally unjust, unnecessary, and exploitative. Additionally, an important common assumption is that must humans are cooperative and, given the opportunity, engage in mutual aid (I’d argue that this is well-documented in history). So, as an anarchist, I’d say that the that the removal of the established power structures would lead to a more fair world where everyone is enabled to pursue their interests and strengths, rather than being sabotaged by things outside of their control, like what family they are born into, or ground down by the orphan crushing machine that maintains societal stratification.
What are you talking about? We’ve seen petty theft become decriminalized in certain cities and theft has skyrocketed. Just because most people wouldn’t steal doesn’t mean no one does.
I’m saying that people murder even when there are laws in place that criminalize it. You think LESS people will murder, not more, if it’s decriminalized?
Anarchism is not a lack of order or regulation, it is simply a removal of governing bodies - a stateless society.
That does not mean that there is no law or anyone enforcing it, it simply means that the regulations are decided upon from the bottom up instead of the top down
It demonstrates your political ignorance that you suggest some equivalence between Anarchy and the Purge; almost as if your conception of both is informed purely by Hollywood and pop culture.
Anarchy ≠ lawlessness. Anarchy in the most simple terms means ‘without rulers’ or ‘without authority’. Anarchists propose a stateless society in which all people engage in voluntary free association. In practice attempting to create an Anarchist society means eliminating coercive forms of authority by single groups or individuals, and instead distributing power as equitably as possible.
The Christian god is presented as all powerful, all knowing, and all good/benevolent. We see evil acts EVERYWHERE plain as day, but taking the Christian god at face value, it shouldn’t even be possible for evil to exist:
If a god knows everything and has unlimited power, then they have knowledge of all evil and have the power to put an end to it. But if they do not end it, they are not completely benevolent.
If a god has unlimited power and is completely good, then they have the power to extinguish evil and want to extinguish it. But if they do not do it, their knowledge of evil is limited, so they are not all-knowing.
If a god is all-knowing and totally good, then they know of all the evil that exists and wants to change it. But if they do not, it must be because they are not capable of changing it, so they are not omnipotent.
I dunno, I see Democrats more as Calvin’s “Life could be a whole lot better too!” Then they poll to find out how life could be better, make lofty campaign promises that inevitably become watered-down half-measures when they have to build a coalition around their various corporate interests, get stonewalled by Republicans who call them un-American socialist scum on Fox News for even trying to make life better, go on the political talkshow tour to sheepishly defend their character, get ignored, then give up and do nothing until the next election cycle.
Rereading Calvin and Hobbes as an adult is surreal. All the things you loved as a kid were still there, but you understand the philosophical musings so much better. Those wagon rides were wasted on 7 year-old me.
A couple lifetimes ago I worked for a company that provided web metrics for GoComics. We had a meeting to go over them, and I was so excited to see that Calvin & Hobbes comics had 5X the views of every other comic.
So I got on the phone and I pointed this out to the marketing drones on the call, and one of them said "Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. Why don't people like our new comics?"
Where are these defeatist democrats I keep hearing about? I’ve never actually met one. I’ve never had a conversation, even a casual one, where someone on the left is like, “Well, at least I can still afford my bag of rice…” But every fucking political meme I see has these shitbrain democrats that are just puttering around with no purpose like some limp dick avatar of social justice. Stop making up positions and then applying incorrect labels to them, you aren’t helping anyone.
Considering it's being contrasted to anarchism, the comparison of 'Life could be worse' with 'Life can be better' is accurate. Democrats are generally liberals who want to refine the system, not tear it down and build a better one. "Representative market capitalist social democracy is the best and most stable we've found, so let's not fuck it unnecessarily." Whereas anarchists are generally in favor of tearing down current extant institutions to be replaced with other systems of economic and social organization. "The current system is cruel and you cannot refine it. It has to go for life to meaningfully improve."
And, of course, Republicans seeking to tear everything down and build an intentionally worse system in its place.
I’m always interested in the comparison with programmers who want to start from scratch to make it better, only to make it just as bad as before, but after spending a lot of efforts.
It's always an interesting question to explore. I have some anarchist sympathies, though I wouldn't count myself in their ranks. I definitely get their criticisms of the current structures of society, and anarchism isn't nonviable. But at the same time, I don't know that it's the way forward.
All I know is that capitalism has outstayed its welcome.
A predominantly investor-directed market economy predicated on private ownership of the means of production. Is that specific enough for you to permit me to use the term 'capitalism'?
You don’t need my permission nor my approval; my agreeance even less so.
If I’m mistaking you, and you actually are attempting to engage me here, please forgive me my brusqueness— I’ve seen enough of people snapping back and forth at each other these days and am, no doubt, the nastier for it. It was not my intention in my previous comment for it to be a personal sleight against you, nor to have you stand a strawman for an ideology.
If that’s your takeaway, then you need to listen to more leftists and rightists. Rightists fundamentally have no fucking clue what Communism means, that’s where the whole “read theory” meme comes from. Leftists do understand Capitalism, and make genuine analytical claims against it.
It’s a shibboleth for either side, where the expression of distaste or hatred for the concept, or the quick association of evils with it marks you a member of the tribe.
Some Leftists understand Capitalism. Some Rightists understand Communism. Larger swaths than they wield the words about.
Nah, that’s just Enlightened Centrism nonsense. We are born into Capitalism, not Socialism nor Communism. I’m correct, leftists must first understand Capitalism to criticize it, while rightists just have to defend the status quo.
You can watch this in the real world, if you ask a right winger about Socialist concepts without calling them Socialist, most agree until you call them Socialist.
I think pure anarchism relies too much on people being good and working things out. Historically that just doesn’t pan out. So there does need to be some greater structure for organizing things, but I have no idea what it would look like.
Syndicalism offers some ideas for organizing into loose groups and interrelations between those syndicates but I haven’t dug deeply into the mechanics of it. I think ultimately humanity has to organize into groups of about 1000 individuals, related by common interests and mutual aid, with some grander scheme for global distribution of reaources. Soviets? Universal suffrage and democracy? Republicanism? Maybe each syndicate chooses for itself and somehow global anarchy between them “just works” (but I doubt it)?
Anyway, a fun problem to debate and armchair strategize about, since presumably none of us have the money and power to overthrow the current world order.
But at the same time, I don’t know that it’s the way forward.
As an anarchist, amusingly I fully agree with this statement. I don’t even think that a society in line with my ideals is currently possible (humanity needs to socially evolve) but more of a guiding light to aspire to and try to affect lasting change around me that can align with it after I’m gone.
All I know is that capitalism has outstayed its welcome.
One of the darkly humorous things that I find with the current state of things is that capitalism is a system that punishes stagnation but, those in power are desperate to maintain stagnation in the economic system or even regress towards earlier incarnations while preventing the system from evolving in any way that could better serve humanity. Those at the reins are, ironically, opposed to foundational parts of their own ideologizes economic system.
If you say that this is from the Anarchist’s perspective, then it is disingenuous or completely blind to reality, and I’m not sure which is worse. Truth and perspective aren’t mutually exclusive. Painting democrats as they have been in the comic isn’t an accurate depiction, and instead of trying to find an ally it seeks to further divide and aggravate. I say the same thing to Anarchists that I do to Libertarians. If your ideas are so great, why doesn’t everyone follow them? A political party shouldn’t need a hard sell, because that means that there can be no compromise, and like it or not, without compromise, you’ll die on the vine.
I thought anarchists wanted no system at all. Without being anar, the current system has to be replaced with a better one, because we’re on track to our demise wirh climate change and limited resources to fix the problems (limited copper, which needs clear water, or sand. Check out limits to growth). We’ll see the consequences in a few years…
No that’s a different ideology. Not sure what it’s called.
True anar is no system at all period. Everything that happens happens and there’s no rhyme or reason for it. A bit like the ass backwards Murphy’s law people talk about. Like war without rules kind of.
What you are talking about is a collective source of responsibility that is shared amongst a community. You decide where your taxes go and what it funds, how it affects your life, and what the ruling body does with it.
I have no answers but I feel like that is a proper explanation.
That’s not what the ideology is about. That’s actually not even possible, since in a structureless society, some system of hierarchies would emerge. This is called the “hierarchy of structurelessness” and what anarchists actually work against.
What you are talking about is a collective source of responsibility that is shared amongst a community. You decide where your taxes go and what it funds, how it affects your life, and what the ruling body does with it.
In anarchist ideology, there is no “ruling body”. Or rather: The ruling body is the people.
Sorry I could have been nicer about it. Anarchists advocates for societies that are highly structured in many ways. For example federalism, direct democracy, voluntary association. Anarchist groups and societies (like Makhnovshchina, Spain during the civil war etc.) model themselves after these principles. Here is some more info about it.
The everyday media consumer can see it a bit on American pundit shows, especially ones like Morning Joe Scarborough and variously on things like the Cspan callin shows.
I.e. you got to seek it out and willfully steep youself in poltical punditry.
That said, if you ever find yourself working on the political campaign of a progressive challenger to a conservative Democrat, you’ll get it directly. But I have never seen the defeatism assocated with anything leftist, always more as the criticism of Democratic party conservatism.
Add comment