Big Bad Wolf Thought

If the whole constituency of the community that the militia protects is involved in controlling that militia,

Like having the militia answer to a democratically-elected government?

A common anarchist definition of the state is: The institutionized power structure which alienates people from the businesses of their daily lives.

So not the government at all, right? Because they aren't responsible for hardly any alienating in my experience. I would attribute any alienating I feel to corporations.

Sigh, it always ends up being a semantic issue because people hear "anarchist" and think "no government". When really, the political philosophy of anarchism is a little different.

It is, that community will still have its marginalized groups that don't get representation, and if anything, on a smaller scale it's harder to form a group that would argue for necessary support for these people

No it's still definitely violence. Like, day to day, you try to use violence as little as possible but it is necessary for the laws of society to be backed by violence or people would ignore them. "Violence" doesn't have to refer to killing people, it means the use of force against somebody without their consent (killing them, arresting them, or evicting/exiling them).

The state we have right now in America and most of Europe is a community that decides how it wants to be policed (i.e. a democracy). Different jurisdictions make different policing decisions and have different outcomes, but they all follow that structure.

The point I was making was that any attempt by anarchists to "overthrow the state" is silly because the "state" will return in a new form as power reconsolidates. If you consider a recognized federal or state government to be a "state" but an armed "anarchist" militia that runs a city to not be a state, that's just a silly semantic argument.

I don't think anyone who has done any thinking on this topic would deny this, but our hypocrisy does not mean that change isn't desired or is somehow impossible.

Naomi Klein has written well on this topic in her book Doppelganger, which is the first place I ever heard this concept mapped out in all its dark detail.

I'll just paste the Q & A here, because I think it's important that people read it. You can look up more on this yourselves:

Q: You also write about another kind of shadow self, borrowing a formulation from the writer Daisy Hildyard—the idea being that, while we’re typing on iPhones, we also exist in rare-earth mines alongside poisoned teen-age laborers. The awareness of the plunder and damage inherent in the idealized American life has increased, but so, perhaps, has the lived acceptance of it, and the result is a simmering sense of unease.

NK: I quote James Baldwin a lot in the book, because I think he’s probably the most powerful theorist of the fear of what Hildyard is talking about. She calls it the second body—the shadow self that’s implicated in all of these systems that are unveiled. It isn’t just that they’re hard to look at, it’s also that we are implicated; we are not apart from them. There is my body sitting in this chair, and there’s my other body, hovering over the tax dollars funding drone warfare, implicated in oil wars, implicated in the plastic in the ocean. That’s not other people—that’s me, that’s us.

Emphasis mine. I just chose this link because it's free. Not the original source.

Well yeah, that is the social contract. It's how society works.

I mean its totally accurate, Pretty much all countries today can trace their current borders back to violence, most land ownership traces back to violence, laws are one way or another enforced by the threat of violence....

Wolfs do not normally loose to individual wild pigs

"I can take things from those people that are different from me because I'm physically stronger than them and might makes right. You should do the same."

The wolf who killed the pig distributed the pig's land and resources to other wolves. This is wolf-supremacy with a supreme leader.

Because he distributed land he took from pigs to his wolf friends. Even if you consider it as an analogy, you're dehumanizing the pigs.

If you're waiting for a powerful military force to end capitalism and allocate resources as their leader wishes, that's not anarchy. That's just new management.

And hot I mean based

That's literally most of world history.

You may be happy to know he and David Wengrow wrote The Dawn of Everything. It was published posthumously but his fingerprints are all over it. Great book to boot! Pirate Enlightenment was also published posthumously. Haven't had a chance to read it but I think it's safe to assume it's great too.

That only applies to news articles, not political essays. Those have titles not headlines.

When interpreting the comic, I find it interesting to keep in mind that a wolf pack is a family unit, consisting of parents of children. So the wolf is taking the property for his family. The comic is advocating banditry, basically.

What would a "peaceful takeover" even look like?

Where I live, The police are generally worse armed than the population. They're also haven't been any unwarranted police shootings in my memory. The only police shooting that I can remember happening in the came with a whole firefight. Unfortunately, this is generally uncommon in the more authoritarian states.

A peaceful takeover would in my mind involve a democratic decision to do the takeover - I don't see how the police would stand in the way of that. The bigger issue would seem to me to be convincing people to vote for such a democratic decision. But at least that is a peaceful path.

If the little piggy were a capitalist instead of a libertarian, he would have a pack of wolfhounds who would fuck that wolf up if he came near the piggy's house.

The moral of the story:

Liberal > anarchist > libertarian

I think that's a bit extreme - there are many different varieties of anarchism (some even say that every anarchist has their own definition, which makes the term itself very non-descript). Some might need to devolve to violence but I'm not convinced all of them do.

You're behind the times. Censorship and capitalist exploitation is mainstream now.

I haven't been for weeks, but got sent there today from Lemmy and saw this https://old.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/1cv9g73/after_recent_fuckup_from_reddit_what_is_decent/.

The last bullet point rule of this community says:

Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

However, the cute little piggy is literally being eaten alive - look at his cute whittle frowny face! Why, he is shocked, shocked I say, shocked! ... but perhaps capitalist piggy should not be quite so shocked, hrm?:-P In any case, it is "gore":

Murder, bloodshed, violence.

What makes it "funny" is the dehumanization - the play between how piggy wanted to devour the wolf('s work product), but instead got devoured himself, the implication being that the turnabout is fair play. I get it, I do think it's funny, it is an inspiring message, and if I had seen a gore warning I would have clicked past it and enjoyed it. Although, I will say that the gore portion does seem unnecessary - if capitalist piggy had been like on a treadmill hooked up to make electricity for the wolf, that would have worked almost as well to convey a message, without escalation. Anyway, I'm not here to criticize the author in any way, and the latter suggestion in particular does seem to spoil the purity of the vision, where what is best for the wolf is decided by himself (the carnivorous, apparently hungry wolf), not by either piggy or the external viewer. It's the ultimate anarchist freedom - maybe wolf will get shot in the evening, but this afternoon he dines on piggy!!

My points though are: (1) intellectual honesty - we can do whatever we want but why can't we follow our own rules that we claim to follow, in the rules tab? Is this truly "fun for people of all ages", REALLY? and (2) If we want to grow the Fediverse, e.g. to get more content, then like it or not we must either restrict ourselves to post solely more mainstream stuff (booo - yes that's right I'm booing this suggestion, bc I very much like an eclectic variety of message content and format), or else label the things that most "average" people are going to find objectionable. Like porn, I'm not suggesting to ban it, only label it so that it doesn't catch people unawares. Otherwise, back to intellectual honesty, we should just give up trying to claim that we want to grow the Fediverse, and accept that we don't really mean it - this is what it is, apparently, and we are never going to invest efforts to change it.

Right now, I am too ashamed to continue recommending the Fediverse to anyone else, as I have done several times in the past, if it is going to remain something that only the MOST extreme among leftists are going to be able to enjoy, and even among that crowd, the subset that ignores our own rules set up for our very selves.

I didn't even know what NAP was until a few weeks ago. Marx and Smith never used the initialism.

You have to be into Libertarianism or have debated Libertarians to know what NAP stands for.

"American Libertarians" are acolytes of Economic liberalism. They fetishize Adam Smith. Economic liberalism is generally referred to as liberalism. They are definitionally liberals. Not libertarians.

They call themselves libertarian. But they aren't. They don't believe in public ownership of natural resources. A core precept of Libertarianism. Or many of the other things actual libertarians do. Also the NAP isn't a libertarian thing itself. The man who coined and defined the term PARTICIPATED IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The NAP is a thought short circuiting exercise designed by Rothbard 100 years after the establishment of Libertarianism. To discourage and alienate actual libertarians from the group.

Those that often call themselves libertarian babble about the invisible hand of the market. As well as fetishizing Adam Smith and his ideology. Economic liberalism. Because they are liberals. In the actual political definition of the term. Not the modern colloquial misuse of the term.

People not versed in political theory won't see a difference.

But Communists would fully agree here, as they do on many things with Anarchists

And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

Every "-ism" either enforces itself with violence or it dies.

Would work better if the pig had a confederate flag pin

Man, go through a few Existential Comics. They're hilarious.

I'm 100% sure you're not getting the joke here.