- SGforce ( @SGforce@lemmy.ca ) English59•25 days ago
Had this convo last night. Friend is confused as hell about what is left/right. Frustrating trying to undo years of doublethink.
The conversation wound up with this: How do you best raise a child? With one parent’s word being the only thing to consider like a god? Or with the help of aunts/uncles, siblings, family, doctors, teachers, community, etc, to help them form their own opinion? Then ask yourself why is it that everyone considering themselves “conservative” spends the majority of the time screaming about how each one of those things is the enemy.
Yeah, I have a terminally racist relative and was trying to explain to her why we should look after refugees. I asked her if her neighbor’s house burnt down whether she would invite them inside and offer them some shelter and comfort, and she agreed that “of course” she would. Then I asked about if it was someone from the next street over, and she immediately became hesitant about it. Sometimes I think as a species we just never psychologically evolved beyond living in a tiny village and fearing anyone we don’t know personally.
- Rhaedas ( @Rhaedas@fedia.io ) 29•25 days ago
She saw where you were going. Or there is someone she’s racist towards that lives on the next street.
But this is the best way to both keep discussions level headed and root out the real cause of the opposition. Avoid the labels and names and just talk about general ideas, see how far they will go with “hypotheticals” that don’t trigger the reactions they’ve been embedded with. Even better, some street epistemology, often used with religion but it can be for any beliefs. The basic idea is to ask the person about their own beliefs and guide them in reasoning why they think that. It’s far more complex than just that, but that’s the idea, to let them come to conclusions themselves rather than some debate where their defense will come up and block any more discussion.
- oberstoffensichtlich ( @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org ) English1•24 days ago
It’s okay to care more about people you actually know in person.
- petrol_sniff_king ( @petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English2•23 days ago
It’s not okay to not care about everyone else, though.
- wren ( @wren@feddit.uk ) English41•24 days ago
when talking to my parents, if I say “community” instead of “communism,” or “nobody deserves to starve” instead of “free food”, and “help vulnerable people” instead of “benefits” and “everyone deserves to feel safe from harm” instead of XYZ - everyone wholeheartedly agrees!
But if I let them go off on a tangent without guiding them, then they’re “anti woke” even though they don’t know what woke means
- Hellfire103 ( @hellfire103@lemmy.ca ) English18•25 days ago
Man, it’s annoying what characters like Mao and Stalin (as well as America) have done to those words.
- novibe ( @novibe@lemmy.ml ) English6•24 days ago
Evil spoon man 😢
- umbrella ( @umbrella@lemmy.ml ) English4•24 days ago
🥄👿
- gwen ( @gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English5•24 days ago
scary socialism coming to give people a better life in general
- novibe ( @novibe@lemmy.ml ) English5•24 days ago
Evil Mao almost doubling the life expectancy and having an average growth rate of 7% for decades 😢
- averyminya ( @averyminya@beehaw.org ) English3•23 days ago
D-didn’t he also destroy the agricultural system in place displacing millions of people and then destroy their cultural heritage? I might have missed a /s
- novibe ( @novibe@lemmy.ml ) English1•23 days ago
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic. But no. He didn’t.
Unless by “agricultural system” and “cultural tradition” you mean the semi-feudal system of pre-CPC China. Then yes, he did.
Now China has the highest percentage of home ownership in the world!
- huginn ( @huginn@feddit.it ) English18•24 days ago
… Doesn’t help that it described fascism as well.
I mean that’s, like, literally their name
- novibe ( @novibe@lemmy.ml ) English10•24 days ago
People really need to read Marx man…
He literally described fascism decades before it was born. He said the contradictions of capitalism would cause people to look for solutions, and a “false” path people would find was that indeed capitalism had to be overcome. But that they had to return to a pre-capitalist life, return to the land and to feudalistic idealisms. Fascist Italy literally had “guilds”…
Marx said these “anti-capitalists” would see value in communist rhetoric, because they agreed with communists half-way. But they missed that the only solution is to move forward. That before capitalism, there were contradictions that inevitably led to capitalism, and it would just happen again.
Fascism is literally miopic anti-capitalism. It’s what happens to actual justifiable dissatisfaction and anger at the system without theory and understanding.
Yes, fascism really does sound like communism. It’s the goal, it’s how it’s born. It SOUNDS like communism, but has none of the solutions or the substance.
- huginn ( @huginn@feddit.it ) English9•24 days ago
I have read Marx. I’ve also read Gramsci in the original Italian.
My point was just that “Fascism” comes from fascio - the binding of individual sticks together to make a stronger whole.
It’s literally “Sticks together strong”
- novibe ( @novibe@lemmy.ml ) English3•24 days ago
Sure, but as others have said, that is just a basic political observation that most ideologies have made. Fascism is, as I said, entirely devoid of substance. Only the appearance of such.
“Sticks together strong” is as much a political statement as “water is wet”.
- Comment105 ( @Comment105@lemm.ee ) English5•24 days ago
I honestly don’t see how literally all politics don’t boil down to “apes together strong”.
Some of them have smart apes manipulating the rest to use their strength against their own interest. Some of them have apes going together using their strength to enforce things we don’t agree with, like racist tribalism/nationalism. But it’s all a matter of people cooperating to enforce and otherwise enable what they think they need to, to meet their goal.
- freeman ( @freeman@feddit.org ) English2•24 days ago
Isnt anarchism more scattered and small groups of people fighting one another over power?
Thats what I imagine when I hear anarchism
- AccountMaker ( @AccountMaker@slrpnk.net ) English7•24 days ago
And that’s very unfortunate that that’s the most common perception of anarchism, because all anarchist theory focuses on how cooperation beats competition. The “anarchy” in the name means that nobody has rule over someone else, but rather all members voluntarily help one another because it’s the most efficient and safest way of living.
- freeman ( @freeman@feddit.org ) English4•24 days ago
But what about bad actors? Surely anarchists believe, that there are “bad people” who want personal gain/wealth/possessions by stealing or through fraud for example?
So then there needs to be a (central) authority who can make enforce rules, even if they are trivially “natural” or democratically validated.
And for that authority to do their job, they need authority over other people. The ability to lock a appartment up to investigate a murder for example. Or maybe even search a house of a alleged criminal.
Or is all of that just the capitalistic way of dealing with things and there is an other way? Or do anarchists believe that problems of that kind wont exist in their utopia?
If there is a bad tone, Im sorry, not a native speaker and I am not trying to argue in bad faith.
Edit: Thats kind of the thing about the intersection of anarchism and feminism I find curious. (In my city I see stickers like “feminists for anarchism” or “anarchy: …, …, and feministic”)
And at the same time feminists want a stronger percicution (sorry) and punishment for sexualized crime, better institutional protection in labour-law and so on. In my view all things that are only achiveable with “more government”, or at least better government/laws and certainly not with less government/rules/authorities.
- AccountMaker ( @AccountMaker@slrpnk.net ) English5•24 days ago
That is a big question which I am sadly not equiped enough to answer adequately, as I have not invested that much time into anarchist works. What I can give is an example from Kropotkin’s book “Mutual Aid”:
He mentions how in village societies every dispute was treated as a comunal affair. If no resolution could be found, the case was brought to a group of people (can’t remember specifically how they were chosen), and they would pass a verdict and resolution. The disputing parties could then either accept the verdict, or they would be excluded from the community. By excluded I mean that they would not enjoy the hospitality and aid of other members, and would thus have to leave the community. So if you are deemed a problematic member and won’t change accordingly, nobody would exert power over you, you would just cease to be a part of the community. Obviously if someone got violent, self-defence would be acceptible.
As for feminism, I know that there is a thing called “anarcha feminism”, but I don’t know any details.
- freeman ( @freeman@feddit.org ) English2•24 days ago
Thanks, sounds interesting altho on first impression it doesn’t seem too viable to mee. It reminds me if the “jury” some countries have, where a group of people decide, what to do with a alleged problematic person. Am not too sure thats the best way to do it.
And also the “I am not angry, just disappointed” vibe and love-starving seems a bit odd.
It seems hard to imagine in todays world. But maybe on a local level? In Switzerland we have communal-discussions and votes as local legislation, the other two state powers on communal level are elected. Thats enough politics for most people.
- Comment105 ( @Comment105@lemm.ee ) English1•24 days ago
That is a big question which I am sadly not equiped enough to answer adequately
It’s a question Anarchists in general can’t answer. But they can make some shit up, hope to get a chance to give it a go, and fail miserably some day though.
Obviously if someone got violent, self-defence would be acceptible.
So many ways to exploit weak cunts. Just threaten them, show up in force, take what you want, do fucking whatever. See where they snap and where they’ll bend. Abuse their weaknesses.
- Swedneck ( @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ) English11•24 days ago
in sweden we have the concept of “folkhemmet” (the people’s home) which i like a lot for this reason, it’s a big part of why sweden is such a nice place to live.
- Overshoot2648 ( @Overshoot2648@lemm.ee ) English3•24 days ago
Sweden has something like 20% of housing under housing cooperatives which I like as a Mutualist who doesn’t like shareholder ownership or government ownership.
- Biorreactivo ( @precariousmind@paquita.masto.host ) 8•24 days ago
@Flatworm7591 careful with the ape holding the fasces…
- Overshoot2648 ( @Overshoot2648@lemm.ee ) English8•24 days ago
I usually just talk about worker and consumer cooperatives and if I have to name an ideology I say Mutualism.
- Schmoo ( @Schmoo@slrpnk.net ) English2•24 days ago
In your view, what differentiates Mutualism from Anarcho-syndicalism, and on the other end, from Anarcho-communism?
- DragonTypeWyvern ( @DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ) English3•24 days ago
Isn’t the goal to use words that won’t scare the libs?
- Schmoo ( @Schmoo@slrpnk.net ) English2•23 days ago
Based on @Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 's other comments under this post Mutualism seems to be a label they really identify with, and I was just curious about why. I consider myself an anarchist but don’t really read theory, so I guess I’m trying to make sense of the differences in these hyper-specific labels.
- Lad ( @AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com ) English7•24 days ago
I think it’s pretty easy to talk about the sort of political policies you want to see without feeling the need to attach political ideologies to them. You can talk about wealth redistribution all day without ever mentioning socialism.
- Dagwood222 ( @Dagwood222@lemm.ee ) English6•25 days ago
Have you thought about using words like “unions” or “The New Deal?”
- umbrella ( @umbrella@lemmy.ml ) English6•24 days ago
how do we even undo that stigma?
almost everyone i talk to who hates marxism doesnt even know what it is.
- Overshoot2648 ( @Overshoot2648@lemm.ee ) English3•24 days ago
I hate marxism, but that’s because I’m a Mutualist and agree with Proudhon’s criticisms of Marx.
- oberstoffensichtlich ( @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org ) English1•24 days ago
He materialist approach of Marxism misses far too much of what motivates humans to be viable.
- Emmie ( @Emmie@lemmings.world ) English1•24 days ago
Extreme leftist trying to sound reasonable to not be immediately ostracised by real people, challenge impossible