Communist

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/3102

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/749

here’s your issue trackers.

I must say though, this seems like a strange feature to draw the line on, is it really that important to you what image format is used?

On linux, generally everything you install is through a centralized repository, you can think of it as an app store, arch is all entirely updated through pacman, pacman is just a command line way to interact with the app store.

Wrong, it’s 1. I expect a corrected post on my desk by 4.

Why do you say anarchism doesn’t work?

i don’t think there’s ever been an experiment with controlled variables that shows that, and when you control for as many variables as possible, it shows it is plausible

Probably the nearest ones

I’m glad the god emperors undeniably beautiful regime is focusing on the most important problems facing us, like this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

edit: I also think it’s important to mention that this system has not been given a fair shot, we would not do science where variables aren’t controlled, and there are outside forces that desperately want this system to fail.

Every single powerful person, every single wealthy person wants anarchism to fail desperately, because it would invalidate their reason for existing. It is impossible to name even one settlement that wasn’t attacked by very poweful outside forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

please just read the first paragraph aloud and try again

And also Mikhail Bakunin was a Russian Anarchist, so how exactly were his ideas suppressed by capitalism?

I said by the people in power, not necessarily by capitalism… capitalists are just currently the people with power, anarchist is a very anti-people in power ideology… duh.

again, which anarchist philosophers agree with you, name them. Name just one and you will prove me wrong.

also, you linked statism and anarchy and fundamentally don’t understand that the state is separate from the government in anarchy, because you again, have no formal education on the topic but a lot of opinions.

We were taught about political systems in 7th grade, so it’s quite stretch for you to claim people need to read philosophers to understand them.

If you don’t read primary sources then you don’t know what they actually say, this is how you end up being propagandized into believing the absolute nonsense you believe about what anarchists believe.

Here’s an example:

Buffalox firmly believed that all races other than whites are inferior and hates democracy because he hates democratic systems except fascism.

See how I can just say you said anything? That’s what a secondary source does for you. That’s why they aren’t used in any serious academic analysis.

But i actually have read philosophers, but it wasn’t very big reads and it was long ago, doesn’t take much to recognize when you are confronted with bullshit.

which ones?

OK that’s not anarchy. maybe someone calls it so, but that has NOTHING to do with what anarchy actually means.

Bakunin, proudhon, literally every single founder of anarchist thought would COMPLETELY disagree with you, can you point to a single one that agrees with you? You can’t, because you have no idea what anarchism is, just some nonsense your teacher told you in 7th grade. Orwell would also completely disagree with you, I literally can’t even name one anarchist thinker who would agree with your definition.

I’m sorry but are you really claiming that the FOUNDERS of anarchism don’t know what anarchism is and what they’re doing has nothing to do with anarchism? Is that really what you’re going to go with here?

Maybe your definition is just not what any anarchist thinkers actually believe, again, simply name one and you will prove me wrong. Don’t you think it’s more possible that you’ve simply been lied to about what anarchists believe?

just as an example, why do you think bakunin did this:

“By organizing and heading Czech and German secret societies to instigate a revolttionary movement in Bohemia, he made extraordinary efforts to help German democracy which, at that time, was preparing for the struggles of 1849.”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/maximoff-the-political-philosophy-of-bakunin

I’m sorry but you don’t know anything about anarchism and are confidently asserting you do. Read ANY anarchist philosophers and then get back to me.

Have you ever read a philosopher on democracy? If not, how can you have such strong opinions without doing your research?

Yes, I have, I wouldn’t if I didn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t have strong opinions if I was unread on the topic. It is hilarious to me that you thought this was a gotcha, this is just embarrassing on your part tbh.

It’s not like Anarchy is some very complex concept, Fundamental political ideologies are not that hard to understand, like theocracy, dictatorship, communism, democracy. It’s all pretty simple, and so is anarchy.

The notion that you think they’re simple is my proof that you are completely unread on them. Explain mutualism to me, I doubt you can. Political philosophy is one of the most complex fields on the planet, the idea that these things are simple and easy to understand is actually hilarious, and could only come from someone who knows very little about the topic.

And of all of the above, democracy is the best we have, but in that context, it’s important to notice that USA is NOT an actual democracy!!! It’s a flawed democracy, and the flaws are very fundamental.

I agree, democracy is by far the greatest system ever created, that’s why I maximize it, I want democracy in the workplace, democracy for every single law, I want democracy everywhere. The flaw is that we don’t actually have a democracy, our democracy lets us elect representatives, but not choose laws that actually benefit us. Democracy is entirely core to anarchism, such that they cannot be separated, in fact, anarchism may be the very most democratic system… but you seem to believe democracy is a separate idea from anarchism, communism, capitalism, etc, it’s not, you can have a democratic anarchist society (in fact, i don’t think there’s such a thing as a non-democratic one), communist, capitalist, these are economic systems that have no bearing on whether or not they’re a democracy. You don’t even seem to know what democracy means, this is why i’m saying you shouldn’t have strong opinions if you’re unread.

PS: Descartes was strongly in favor of anarchy, but even he ended up admitting that it cannot work. That was about 400 years ago, when philosophers were very busy trying to rethink models for how society can work. But the fundamental idea of Anarchy hasn’t really changed since then. If it had, it would be called something other than anarchy.

The notion that descartes couldn’t figure it out and therefore it must be fundamentally flawed is actually legitimately hilarious. that was before even PROUDHON. 90% of anarchist thought hadn’t even happened at that point, descartes was not some god that could figure out every detail of everything. Furthermore he was highly influenced by the church and there’s a ton of evidence that he was forced to give up on research that hurt the church orthodoxy. They did y’know, burn people alive for heresy back then.

I reestablish that none of these are good critiques, they all reek of being uneducated on the topic. Learn to be humble and learn humility, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t have strong opinions. You certainly shouldn’t be insulting things you haven’t even done preliminary research on.

There are tons of actually valid ways to criticize anarchism, but you don’t know enough to do any of them. Research comes before strong opinions.

I stated only facts. You can’t even name an anarchist philosopher you’ve read but have strong feelings about the ideology.

if you want to have a valid, useful opinion on something, do the bare minimum of research.

It could also have been used for a game

Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.

There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.

I should not have to change that i’m an anarchist when I know what the word means, just because people are using it to mean something else, it’s the political philosophers that established it that get to own the term, not colloquial speech.

There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.

Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.

Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.

There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.

There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.

Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.

No you have to show it actually works, the idea of anarchy goes back to ancient Greece, and there has never been a functioning society based on it. Because it doesn’t function.

categorically false, i have shown that it works, it’s just that people with power destroy it, and people with power are good at destroying things.

So it wasn’t anarchist, it was merely one among many groups, it had a traditional government, and it lasted for only 2 years

You’ve already proven you don’t know what anarchism is or how its defined by saying that because it had a government it wasn’t anarchist.

I’ve read philosophical books about forms of government

there’s a reason we use primary sources to analyze things, which books of proudhon, kropotkin, or bakunin have you read?

Communism works so poorly, while Social democracies seem to be just about the best form of government we have achieved yet. This is in combination with my interest in national economy, and psychology from an evolutionary perspective.

Have you ever considered that maybe people with a lot of resources want these things not to happen, and that’s the primary reason they don’t happen, rather than them being fundamentally flawed?

And yes based on my experiences it’s extremely clear that anarchy is not a realistically functional form of governance. Anarchy for bigger societies is ONLY something countries devolve to, for instance after a war, and things ONLY get better when a proper government is restored. And by better I mean not killing each other, and not die of starvation, and the economy working and access to hospitals and education. All the things we normally take for granted in developed societies.

This has nothing in common with any definition of anarchism or any implementation of anarchism by any of the founding philosophers of anarchism, you don’t even know how to define anarchism, those things “devolving into anarchy” has literally nothing to do with anarchist philosophy, and is just a co-opting of the term.

I’ve presented to you the LACK of anarchist societies of scale as an indication it does not work. This means there is no proof it works, and since the idea and principles are clearly not working even in theory in my opinion, the lack of evidence to the contrary mean I see Absolutely no reason to believe it can work.

How do you know that the reason it doesn’t work isn’t because there’s very powerful people who want it to not work? All evidence seems to point to that, considering the ones that work well are always destroyed by outside forces.

You have shown NOTHING to make a plausible argument for anarchy, on the contrary everything I’ve been shown by you and others turn out to be clearly flawed and not support anything that is claimed.

I have, you just are arguing against a strawman, you believe that if there’s a government, it isn’t anarchy, because you don’t know what anarchists actually believe.

Again Anarchy as an idea dates back to ancient Greece for fucks sake, and there is NO society of scale in history to my knowledge that has proven it works even partially. It’s very easy to prove me wrong, because if there is, all you have to do is provide a link to said society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

Many things have been tried for the past 2000 years around the globe, if Anarchy which has been a known theoretical model for all that time actually worked, it should be very widespread by now.

Categorically false, you could’ve made this argument about capitalism during feudalist times, capitalist countries absolutely do dogpile anarchists and communists.

This is so much bullshit. the modern form of capitalism is only 5-600 years old. EVERY society before that cannot have been oppressed by capitalism.

No, but they were then oppressed by feudal lords… before that, there were plenty of anarchists

Capitalism also isn’t a form of governance, it’s a method to facilitate economic activity. Which is why ALL democracies are capitalist. Capitalism may suck hard, but we have nothing to replace it with yet.

No, all democracies are capitalist because capitalists destroy democracies that aren’t. Consider what a disaster for the super-wealthy it would be if socialism succeeded… The reason all communist countries are authoritarian is because only authoritarians can hold onto power when the CIA, the worlds largest military tries to destroy them.

Anarchy is not an alternative to capitalism, on the contrary. Anarchy as an idea was always about pursuing individual interests. The exact opposite of socialism. To facilitate the pursuance of individual interests, capitalism in a democracy is the best model we know of.

You again don’t even know what that means. Which anarchist philosophers did you get these ideas from? Name them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism literally read the first paragraph on wikipedia… this is how unresearched you are. It was literally founded as a socialist ideology…

Create a list of anarchist societies that failed on their own merit, and not because they were destroyed by a capitalist or feudalist overthrow, the zapatistas, for example, would be COMPLETELY FINE if mexico wasn’t trying to destroy them. Nothing about their system of government is the problem they have, it’s external forces, and there are a lot of very powerful external forces that want anarchism and socialism to fail.

I don’t know anything about or care about christiana, so, i’ll just assume you’re right about all that, but it really doesn’t matter. Problems with one society do not mean the ideology is fundamentally flawed, it just means that society was flawed, you’ll have to demonstrate issues with the fundamental ideology that apply to all anarchist societies, not some of them.

“They are usually destroyed by outside forces”

By significant size, I’d say it needs to be at least 50000 people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

again you haven’t even begun to research the topic, but are very confident.

before you say, revolutionary catalonia doesn’t exist anymore, yeah, that’s what happens when fascists destroy you with a military, you’ll note none of the issue was internal politics…

Every single capitalist country immediately dogpiles and tries to destroy any anarchist movement, that doesn’t mean anarchism is fundamentally flawed.

What do you do if that happens in non-anarchist societies?

There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.

Yeah, against the state, but not a government, which in anarchist philosophy are two different things.

What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded?

None, but plenty of government apparatuses would exist with funding through taxes…

Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence.

Usually through rotational authority, again, this shows you haven’t read any anarchist philosophy.

Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.

rotational. authority.

Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you’ve heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.

no anarchist philosophers supported cult-like systems.

It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin’s idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).

Their need to privately fund it only exists in a society that isn’t anarchist. I’m not confusing anarchy, I’ve read my anarchist philosophy, and could talk to you about the beliefs of bakunin, proudhon, and kropotkin, there’s others, but those are the basic ones.

It’s important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.

Sure, it is important, but I don’t see what that has to do with our discussion.

People like to focus on the “I can do…” freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are “I can refuse to have … done to me” freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.

yup, that’s true, don’t know what it has to do with anything though.

Literally everything, nothing about either of those places even resemble anything any anarchist philosopher ever said, anarchists aren’t even against government in the first place so the premise is nonsense.

You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.

Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.

Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?