tray5

I wish I could afford an apple phone. As much as I love open source software, I am willing to shift over to Apple as my android manufacturer doesn't really actually care, and I hate how much access googles tentacles have into my personal life. Apple seems to actually give a shit about privacy, now if only they were affordable!

> Left-anarchists assume that if you get rid of the government the world becomes a left-wing utopia, while right-anarchists assume that if you get rid of the government then the world becomes a right-wing utopia.

I'd say you're strawmanning both sides here, left anarchists know the state grows out of the conflicting class interests of the working class and capitalist class, and that abolition of the state necessarily requires abolition of capitalism. Propertarians believe that if you got rid of the government, the free market will sort things out because it's the gov. interference in private enterprise that causes societies conflicts. Neither believe in a magic switch or anything.

Sure it is, leftism occupies a spectrum of economic and social ideals, which the US left (led by the DNC) falls uniformly outside that spectrum. I mean Monarchists are left of fascists, but that doesn't make monarchists leftist just because you compare them to something further right.

Just because your system is dominated by capitalists doesn't make the rest of the spectrum irrelevant, and redefining the conversation to fit into your narrow band is what has led to the frustrations with the American situation.

The American left is not left when considering the entire spectrum of left-right political ideas, and you don't get to suddenly chose to define something as leftist within the context of your narrow window of acceptable thought, it must encompass all ideas.

Actually if you look at the history of anarchism you'll find it was the ancaps who tried to redefine the word, not the other way around. Murray Rothbard, one of the founders of anarchocapitalism literally says this almost verbatim.

‘One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertari­ans” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . .’ [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83]

>I think he's _wrong_ about Ancaps not being "true" anarchist

I don't believe they aren't "true anarchists", I believe they aren't anarchist at all. They aren't even in the realm of consideration of what constitutes anarchist. Their ideal society would end up corporate feudalism.

That's not true at all, anarchism is anti-hierarchy. The state is just one (and the second most prominent) hierarchy that anarchists oppose.

Personally I'm a fan of a workers run syndicalist economy. There are other options, like a workers run market economy, or an outright collectivist gift economy.

If I'm being honest it's because the American left really isn't leftist at all, and I think that Americans are becoming aware of it

The entire democratic party really isn't leftist, outside of the heavily skewed American ecosystem, they're centre right.

They never were TBH, capitalism is inherently hierarchical and a system of entirely private enterprise would resemble corporate feudalism, not an anarchist society.

Did you read the rest of my comment?

Your free market part is where you'll find the clash. Any anarchist would say that a free market is inherently oppressive. The only place a "free" market would work is in a mutualist economy, and even then, that requires worker ownership over the means of production.

I'd recommend you check out those books because they explain it far better than I or anyone else could hope to in a single comment, but it essentially comes down to the capitalist/worker divide. The capitalist will always be on top, and the worker will always be subservient to their interests. That is how it is hierarchical, because there will always be the capitalist class imposing it's will on the working class, and so anarchists and communists hope to abolish the class system. However the two groups disagree massively on how to achieve that abolition.

This is very much the truth, anarchists and communists want the same thing, a communist society, they just disagree fundamentally on how to do it. That's why you see them join forces and fight together, like in the Russian Revolution and Spanish civil war

All anarchists are left wing, the majority of which are communist (some are mutualist). Anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist movement (I guess it's fairer to say, it's an anti-unjust hierarchy movement), it's only been co-opted by propertarians ("anarcho"capitalist) in the past 50 years. And even then, that's largely localized to America, outside of America libertarians have always been anarchists (communist anarchists that is).

You should read Pyotr Kropotkins "The Conquest of Bread" and Alexander Berkman's "What is Communist Anarchism?" if you'd like to know more about anarcho-communist ideology. Or if you'd like to know more about mutualism (essentially a workers run system with a market), then check out the works of Joseph Proudhon.

I'd also argue that anarcho-capitalism and right-libertarianism are not anarchist in any sense, as they uphold the inherently hierarchical system of capitalism.

It was built by anarchists to be an explicitly anti-capitalist community

Eh it's not really a general purpose reddit clone, it was written by users of /r/anarchism as an alternative platform for discussion because they lost faith in the reddit administration. You can see this in the design of the site, with a larger focus on democratic decision making and an intolerance for any bigoted or racist communities. If voat was the alt-right's reddit alternative then raddit is the lefts.

Should link the whole Democracy at Work channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/democracyatwrk I think it offers a refreshing viewpoint that many people on HN should consider

Not what I'm saying, I'm saying it is well thought out and has reasoned arguments. Not just that he believes in it a lot.

>Personally I think Kaczynski was influenced more by his inability to get a date in his entire life.

You should read his manifesto, the dude had some funky ideas about society and there's no excuse for murdering innocent poeple, but he does defend what he believes in very vigorously. He wasn't a man without an ideological backing.

If the stats in the article are true, 96% less greenhouse emissions, 45% less energy, 99% less land use and 96% less water used in the production of the lab meat, I think it makes perfect sense to call it clean meat. Plus it doesn't involve the death of an animal, which is pretty "clean" I guess.

Interestingly enough OCD and ADHD have a huge comorbidity rate with aspergers/autism. My personal belief is that OCD and ADHD are just different manifestations of autism. I.e. neurodiverse vs. neurotypical behaviours

>However I do think 'spergs' have a better knowledge of the rules than normies.

You're absolutely right. It's intuition for neurotypical people, it's just something they get. For aspies socialization is about learning all the hidden rules that come naturally to others. But I do admit that knowing the rules and applying them in real time is a very, very difficult thing to do. It gets exhausting quick, and if this was one of the reasons hermits decide to become hermits, I can empathise massively.

My personal theory for explaining hermits throughout history is simple, these people had/have aspergers. I have aspergers myself, and I can very easily see someone who has aspergers who for whatever reason no longer wants to socialize anymore getting up and doing their own thing out in isolation. I don't truly believe that any neurotypical person, and for that matter many aspies could do it, but if you're brain is wired in a way that socialization doesn't provide that reward that it does for most other people, either because you don't understand social interaction and have no desire to learn the rules so you can play the game, or simply because you have discovered the rules and simply have no interest exhausting the effort, going out into isolation and spending the rest of your days pursuing other things that give you fulfillment.

> "Hard work." Hard work does not imply valuable work. You've conflated the two, as have all the thinkers you cite.

Now you've misunderstood me, I'm not saying that because they've done a lot of hard work that what they say is immediately relevant. I'm saying what they've said is relevant, and they've put in a lot of hard work to get their points across. You can't just handwave because in your ignorance you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, you have to actually confront what they've said

Down votes aren't disagreement votes. If you have an issue with their comment then reply, but don't put them into the negative because you don't like the facts they point out.

>Communism failed, not because of failed implementation, but because the concept itself is a bad one.

This is a frustrating and arrogant thing to say. If you can honestly go through and thoroughly criticize the core collective works of great socialist thinkers like Engels, Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and the uncountable thousands who have poured thousands of hours into tomes which are freely available online to study and understand, then you should do so. I would love to read this! You'd probably become a very famous person! But coming out gung ho and so arrogantly conclude that all these people, and all the hard work they have done in both theory and praxis is kaput without a very strong argument behind you is pointless and childish. It stifles conversation and is the reason discussing economic systems with people who don't understand them is an exercise in futility.

> I don't understand why everyone hates capitalism now

People have been hating capitalism since the invention of capitalism, it's not new. Americans might just be starting to hate it but thats due to the fact that they really haven't been able to ever have a fair and honest discussion about the various economic systems of the world because of 80 years of capitalist propaganda and suppression of socialists and communists

Last time I played Monopoly it ended up two people who were too big to fail constantly running around the board passing money back and forth. A subtle jab by the universe at two party politics within capitalist societies?

>It was designed partly as a joke, but partly to demonstrate ridiculousness of communism. The goal of the game was to become a secretary general of the communist party and emigrate abroad.

I can't read the Czech link (do you know if there's a translated link or something in English?) but that seems more like from your one sentence description (and my reading of the wikipedia link) a game satirizing the ridiculousness of playing politics rather than communism?