I think I used to be much like you. I even volunteered for the Obama campaign in 08 and worked hard. It was the disappointment of the Obama presidency when the scales really fell from my eyes.
Much of what you’re describing is what’s led me to believe more and more in the virtues of an anarchist society. It’s been a long journey for me though, and I try to keep an open mind while at the same time having completely lost patience with being sold the same lies by our current parties.
Oh don’t give me that. It just sounds too pretentious. Tell me instead what system of governance you would think is best, rather than assume I will reach your conclusions. That’s the definition of pretentious.
Although I can appreciate the idea of a flat governance system, I don’t see hierarchy as an inherent problem, if not blown out of proportion… like with stuff like the US representative system. After all, effective hierarchies lead to effective governance - word to Xi. Yes, authoritarianism is very effective, like putting up hospitals in 2 weeks during COVID. But between having an ocean of teams and having some hierarchy, you can kind of guess which ones are more effective. Collectively we can do more, but that requires structures so that it can also be effectivised - no matter how the neo- and classical-liberals pine on about “democracy needs to be slow”, we could more effectively delegate by creating many smaller hierarchies, where self governing teams aren’t possible.
Therefore I’m more of libertarian socialist - believe it or not. I believe we should shut down the welfare office, simply because the tax office should automatically spit out UBI, along with a compulsory tax system (like in Norway), that government and registered politicians are fully transparent, along with a public tax list for all people, organisations and companies. I’m against laws purely made on the basis of nepotism and paying for favours- or lobbying as it’s called, as well as against the strict patent system, which is now a bargaining chip for westerners, but which is also technically very anti-liberal - funnily enough. I’m for subsidies to develop new industries and for culture programs and I’m for countries, or economic areas, collectively holding patents to develop new industries among other things.
I’m not anti-capitalist, as I’m pro sovereign wealth funds, and I see it as a tool that doesn’t need to be integrated into everything, but as something that can very effectively move assets and liquidity around - indeed, it is super effective at that. But then again, I’m largely against major multinational corporations because of historical precedent, but global trade between small to medium businesses is a must. Protectionism rarely works. I’m for the judiciary being it’s own seperated power and that politicians shouldn’t be in a position to sway the judiciary (again, like in Norway and not like in the US), I’m also for the military being a seperate power, because the Pentagon did try to stop US senators and the president from going into Iraq and Afghanistan - but since they could exploit the situation, they pushed the agenda, leading to one of the dumbest military operations in known history.
I do believe in decentralizing power, decentralizing knowledge and decentralizing money, and nothing I said above contradicts that lol
Now your turn. What do you actually believe would be the best governing system? If it doesn’t even include rule of law, or a national army (here in the now at least), then we’re gonna have a problem.
And here I thought we were having a nice conversation, and then you went full reddit on me. I’m just terrible at reading people.
Supporters of capitalism are not allowed here.
For clarification, the comment started with “Oh don’t give me that. It just sounds too pretentious” – like what?? about my comment was pretentious when I was just sharing a personal anecdote – and then it just went downhill from there in a multi-paragraph diatribe, including such hits as “I’m not anti-capitalist” and then went on to disparage anarchism to me, an anarchist. This is not your personal debate platform, and demanding someone explain themselves to you personally in a comment is incredibly self-absorbed. For anyone who comes across this, here’s a book I recommend that does a good job exploring how anarchist communities might work, including real-world examples of communities that function using anarchist principles.Here it is in audiobook form. I’m not asking anyone to be convinced, but it’s ok to share texts here. It’s even ok to share your personal worldview in a comment or post.
It’s NOT ok to demand other users answer to you personally (reddit-like behavior) or to disparage someone else’s worldview, especially not without doing your own homework first. Information on all forms of anarchism, communism, etc. can be found for free online now.
Obviously, this doesn’t include defending objectively oppressive systems such as capitalism, fascism, monarchism, etc.
I think I used to be much like you. I even volunteered for the Obama campaign in 08 and worked hard. It was the disappointment of the Obama presidency when the scales really fell from my eyes.
Much of what you’re describing is what’s led me to believe more and more in the virtues of an anarchist society. It’s been a long journey for me though, and I try to keep an open mind while at the same time having completely lost patience with being sold the same lies by our current parties.
Oh don’t give me that. It just sounds too pretentious. Tell me instead what system of governance you would think is best, rather than assume I will reach your conclusions. That’s the definition of pretentious.
Although I can appreciate the idea of a flat governance system, I don’t see hierarchy as an inherent problem, if not blown out of proportion… like with stuff like the US representative system. After all, effective hierarchies lead to effective governance - word to Xi. Yes, authoritarianism is very effective, like putting up hospitals in 2 weeks during COVID. But between having an ocean of teams and having some hierarchy, you can kind of guess which ones are more effective. Collectively we can do more, but that requires structures so that it can also be effectivised - no matter how the neo- and classical-liberals pine on about “democracy needs to be slow”, we could more effectively delegate by creating many smaller hierarchies, where self governing teams aren’t possible.
Therefore I’m more of libertarian socialist - believe it or not. I believe we should shut down the welfare office, simply because the tax office should automatically spit out UBI, along with a compulsory tax system (like in Norway), that government and registered politicians are fully transparent, along with a public tax list for all people, organisations and companies. I’m against laws purely made on the basis of nepotism and paying for favours- or lobbying as it’s called, as well as against the strict patent system, which is now a bargaining chip for westerners, but which is also technically very anti-liberal - funnily enough. I’m for subsidies to develop new industries and for culture programs and I’m for countries, or economic areas, collectively holding patents to develop new industries among other things.
I’m not anti-capitalist, as I’m pro sovereign wealth funds, and I see it as a tool that doesn’t need to be integrated into everything, but as something that can very effectively move assets and liquidity around - indeed, it is super effective at that. But then again, I’m largely against major multinational corporations because of historical precedent, but global trade between small to medium businesses is a must. Protectionism rarely works. I’m for the judiciary being it’s own seperated power and that politicians shouldn’t be in a position to sway the judiciary (again, like in Norway and not like in the US), I’m also for the military being a seperate power, because the Pentagon did try to stop US senators and the president from going into Iraq and Afghanistan - but since they could exploit the situation, they pushed the agenda, leading to one of the dumbest military operations in known history.
I do believe in decentralizing power, decentralizing knowledge and decentralizing money, and nothing I said above contradicts that lol
Now your turn. What do you actually believe would be the best governing system? If it doesn’t even include rule of law, or a national army (here in the now at least), then we’re gonna have a problem.
And here I thought we were having a nice conversation, and then you went full reddit on me. I’m just terrible at reading people.
Supporters of capitalism are not allowed here.
For clarification, the comment started with “Oh don’t give me that. It just sounds too pretentious” – like what?? about my comment was pretentious when I was just sharing a personal anecdote – and then it just went downhill from there in a multi-paragraph diatribe, including such hits as “I’m not anti-capitalist” and then went on to disparage anarchism to me, an anarchist. This is not your personal debate platform, and demanding someone explain themselves to you personally in a comment is incredibly self-absorbed. For anyone who comes across this, here’s a book I recommend that does a good job exploring how anarchist communities might work, including real-world examples of communities that function using anarchist principles. Here it is in audiobook form. I’m not asking anyone to be convinced, but it’s ok to share texts here. It’s even ok to share your personal worldview in a comment or post.
It’s NOT ok to demand other users answer to you personally (reddit-like behavior) or to disparage someone else’s worldview, especially not without doing your own homework first. Information on all forms of anarchism, communism, etc. can be found for free online now.
Obviously, this doesn’t include defending objectively oppressive systems such as capitalism, fascism, monarchism, etc.
Edit: Restored the comment for visibility.