"There are so many games out there that feature space travel and yet none of them really get it. The horror of an endless dark vacuum so intent on killing you that just 90 seconds in its inanimate presence is more than enough to freeze, suffocate, and explode you inside out. Space is literally the worst place in the universe.
People always think of space as above us, but it's not really; you don't have to look up to see space, you have to look away from safety to see space. Then, when you're out there in the nothing, there are jewels; un-process-ibly large balls of fire and light held together by our own fucking anger, rocks that can range between husks of nothing or everything some life ever knows, and an endless amount of phenomena that would take our scientific knowledge and fuck it from arsehole to breakfast.
But video games just don't get it. They just don't get space. Video games set in space are either just men with big swinging dicks firing at bug-eyed monsters or fucking truck driving simulators. If exploration does happen to be the focus, you'll find out that the main difference between the endless majesty that is life in this universe is the colour of the fucking grass. Yeah, you're in space but it feels inaccessible like a fingerprint wouldn't take on it; like it's behind glass.
The Outer Wilds - fucking hell - the Outer Wilds gets space. It doesn't care about scale or scientific accuracy, it gets the feel right. Yeah, your ship's made from wood and the majority of planets are the size of of a badly stocked IKEA, but watching all the stars in the sky go out one by one like far off fireworks and knowing that each one could be destroying an entire history and having to do that fucking every 22 minutes -- nothing. Nothing has made me feel like that before. No game, no book, no movie. It's beyond extraordinary.
Its planets - fuck - its planets; each one a bizarre impossible place riddled with life and death and decay and nonsense. Each one dense in history and vandalised by time. Each one nightmarish and so, so beautiful and in 22 minutes, they're gone
because the Outer Wilds isn't even really about space, it's about the question, the most important and terrifying and unanswerable question anyone ever asks: Why? Why bother? Why bother with any of this? People die, stars burn out, the universe will go quiet and dark and cold and in the longest run, nothing - absolutely nothing matters. Everything dies, the universe included. So why sit around the fire, playing music into a void that doesn't care? Why huddle around the light? Why play?
Because, well - look at it. It's mad, all of it. Life is a big stupid blob of meaningless nothing. Yet from that, we find meaning. People, things, animals, art, sofas, cereal, Rubik's cubes, silly little games about space, whatever. None of it matters in the grand scheme but fuck the grand scheme! There's no logical reason for life and nobody's gonna mourn it when it's gone, but that's what makes it fantastic. Life is a little song that we hum to ourselves and, I wouldn't want it other way.
The Outer Wilds is an optimistic game about nihilism. It's a game with no invisible walls, you can complete it in ten minutes if you know what to do - which you won't for hours - and the only limit is knowledge. It's a game literally like no other. The universe is big and long and impossible and daft and you, you happen to be experiencing it at the exact same point that you can play the Outer Wilds as well. Embrace that coincidence. Come on, what are you waiting for? The sun could explode tomorrow."
Which is my candidate for the most underrated youtuber, yeah he has 2.4 million subscribers but the videos bring in like 50k views, so it's obviously wrong.
All my new code will be closed-source from now on. I've contributed millions of lines of carefully written OSS code over the past decade, spent thousands of hours helping other people. If you want to use my libraries (1M+ downloads/month) in the future, you have to pay. ...
It's interesting you took that post because I thought it was a great example of how the language of memes changes with platforms. As the text at the top is just a classic Meme header but twitterified.
Woman wearing a labcoat, standing and looking blankly past the camera, with the caption, “my mom says we can mix bleach and ammonia together in a poorly ventilated space if it's okay with your mom”
And so people can see the alt text I had to compile for this: A meme based on the meme of the parent comment. That's based on a scene from King of the Hill. Peggy says "I told my readers to harness the cleaning power of amonia, with the whitening power of bleahch." Hank, horrified, says "Peggy that's the recipe for mustard gas" except the end of the text is changed to "that's the recepe for A meme from lemmy that refrences a scene from king of hill where Peggy says: "I t"
Post on Mastodon by @vozervozer saying "Half life subreddit is having a normal one right now" and sharing a screenshot of the Half-life subreddit with user u/Mirrakthefirst saying "ITS ALL HIS FAULT" with an image of Megaman being burned as a witch.
Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don't want to abolish capitalism, and don't want to fight archism? ...
"Vote with your wallet" is not ancap propaganda. "Abolish all money" is.
Edit: read it wrong. In my defence cap and com do sound pretty similar. And I think when I read this comment I forgot they existed which is what those oxymorons deserve.
It seems cloudflare has gone down and brought down half the internet, including half the fediverse. Lucky for us, the divisions by zero, is not hosted in cloudflare for that reason. Unlucky for the flotilla, the anarchist.nexus is on CF. ...
I just wanted to say thanks to anyone who may have donated. Again you have no idea how much it means. Not gonna spam this message all day today, don't worry, but thank you to those that did... Thank you so so much. And to anyone who upvoted or commented or gave well wishes. It means the entire world to me right now.
Oh I've been waiting for this. I have two, by the same band The Chainsmokers. "Don't let me down" and "Something just like this". Two song I absolutely despise, because I utterly love the first verses of both, and after these two moments of incredible music the song just turns to something that doesn't connect with me at all. All of the energy that's build up is released with this dance-poppy beat that just.. doesn't... work.... at all. And I utterly hate them because of this. There is so much potential there and yet it's all wasted. It's gotten to the point that I've been thinking about trying to remix the songs to fix this, but don't think I have enough musical skill.
Nothing is more despicable than wasted potential, and these songs are dripping with it.
More of an open source kinda person. I have actually looked at LMMS and Ardour. And have a reasonably good understanding of music. Just don't think I have enough persistence to focus on it. More of a programmer type.
The two languages are polar opposites in this regard, Zig places the burden on the developer and makes it easy for them to produce memory safe software, whereas Rust places the burden on the compiler and makes it hard for developers to produce memory unsafe software.
The article even points this out. I personally think it's very good to have these two languages for these separate use cases.The right tool for the job and all that.
I've reached that point where I'm good at programming but require to explain my ideas to someone or I just give up because it seems like too much effort for no benefit. So even someone who doesn't really know any programming but can listen and think along would be a important.
My main reason is ideological. Why should I waste my precious time working in a job that doesn't advance my goals of creating a freer society? while also making pennies for some shareholder at the top? on top of that I get bored of doing the same thing over and over again. I want my work to have more variance.
And I guess while being truly international is kinda difficult it seems that it's a lot easier within the EU and USA.
I actually don't care about the pay. As long as I can buy food and pay my bills I don't care. I would be willing to work for less than minimum wage if it meant I could have a say in my workplace.
And honestly it doesn't even need to be a tech syndicate. I would be willing to work for any syndicate, and most areas have some kind of IT.
No thanks. I like my theory to be from the current century. You know the one where we have stuff like the internet, imminent climate disaster and the hindsight of the soviet regime.
Also starting a cooperative is no individual solution. It's a first step towards establishing a collective economy. Which could fuel the collective spirit and start a political movement.
I think all ideology is faith based. At the end of the day your ideology is based on some fundamental beliefs that you hold. And holding these beliefs even when evidence points to the contrary. I think of anarchism as a faith. A faith that there is a world worth fighting for. That people are kind. That it's possible to dismantle these systems of oppression that have seeped into every facet of our society and culture.
I actually accidentally submitted my previous comment but because it wasn't really that cut off and I wanted to get started with other stuff so I left it.
I think the primary reason I think of anarchism as faith is that christians often say they have faith in god and that they believe everything that happens is part of his grand plan. To which I have made the anarchist counter of I don't need to believe in god, I believe in people. That through working together we can create wonderful things and that we don't need some omnipotent force to guide our movements. Both the evil and the good in this world is nothing but actions of people rippling through time. And I believe that most people are good.
It's this weird way of looking all of this theory through a religious lens, but I find it gives me a lot of hope, which is the point of faith. It is dumb and kinda blind, but also very comforting.
That final sentence really made me laugh. Thank you. You have such a fun way of talking. I really like how frequently you use ellipses to give pauses. They really work.
I'm not that serious about religion. I wasn't raised religious and have spent most of my life not really thinking about it. The anarchy as religion think is more just playing with thoughts. Approach ideas from angles that aren't usual and see what you come up with.
Thinking about it more I think the main reason why I've started trusting more in anarchism as a faith than a process is that I live in an environment where anarchist thought really isn't spread. I'm pretty isolated and so it's hard to trust in it as something real because I don't see it anywhere but through the computer. I guess Isolation really is the cause of faith.
But thinking about it further what I consider faith is really not baseless. As it is just "anarchy can exist if people try hard enough". And that's not baseless. pre-archy^1^ was pretty much the same as anarchy and many anarchist project have been incredibly successful. But does that mean that it's not faith and rather a rational belief? And is that difference really that important when most of humanity would say that anarchy is naive and impossible? Making it seem like the belief that people can work together without oppressing each other is just blind faith.
^1^: All of the societies that existed before being invaded by a "civilisation".
At the end of the day what is and isn't rational is entirely based on the information you have available to you. I imagine there were times that prospect of democracy seemed like blind faith.
And I have no concerns about your beliefs. They seem really solid and nice. I'm just here to discuss a topic I've thought about recently.
oh also: "No Gods, No Kings, No Masters, No chains except the ones we choose ourselves."
No need to apologise for both taking your time and your assumptions:
I don't expect people to be online and answer immediately. I know I wouldn't be if I had any way to express my anarchism outside of this. and sometimes you need to take your time and think about what's been said.
We all make assumptions when talking with people online. It's easy to make wrong ones, especially in text as you cannot have the other person immediately respond and correct you.
I appear to have run out of things to say as I don't really wish to delve into the situation in america. Just hope you stay safe.
I've been thinking a lot about the relationship between anarchists and the state. Obviously I understand the reason behind anti-statism but I think mindless opposition to any idea is unproductive. So I want to discuss the concept of an anarchist-friendly state. ...
For the anarchist side, absolutely. But what about the rest? Those who aren't willing to let go of the "old ways"? Those who have been raised to believe that law and order must be maintained? There should exist some mechanism through with they can be allowed to engage with the social revolution, otherwise they turn against you. Allowing them to federate would ensure they have a place and could help instead.
I'm seeing that from these comments. I consider the state a top-down managed structure with some form of governance and control/management of "it's people" aka citizens. A state has clear ruling class who dictate the customs or laws of the population.
It's at this point the enforcement of those laws comes into play and things get tricky. Having a separate group privileged with enforcement allows that group to decide how to enforce laws. As we've seen that wont do. 1312. The anarchist solution is security culture, making the enforcement of customs ^1^ the responsibility of every person. However couldn't that work with a state? It does requires more involvement and confrontation which is why I think anarchists should try and help out with this whenever they can. As any good anarchist would be used to de-escalation and conflict resolution.
^1^: using laws in this context doesn't seem right as laws are too specific to be enforced by everyone. Which would require some form of justice system which has the same problems as the police. they 1312 too.
And objectively it isn't that much more difficult to maintain a state, but because it's those same "jobs" and "culture" that are going to keep a lot of people back and I think we need to account for them and try and coexist and cooperate with them instead of just yelling "statist" and excluding them.
I'm not saying we try and turn the state into something anarchic. I'm saying we try and work alongside people who need^2^ the state to make sure they consider us if they get in power. It's a lot easier to oppose a state that doesn't try to control you.
^2^: read "aren't willing to let go of"
I'm just trying to have faith in people and think that even when they aren't willing to live like me they can still accept me, I feel like the right thing to do is accept them in turn. I'm probably very naive but that's why I'm an anarchist in the first place.
Are we really going to let them decide our terms? If you're letting others decide terms then anarchy means "The Purge". Socialism means state control. and communism means gulags and secret police or social scores.
When I say minarchism then I mean "minimal archy" with "archy" being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I'd be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist.
When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist in my eyes.
We need a new name for them. I call them oxymorons but sadly I don't think that's distinctive enough. Totalitarian Capitalists/TotCaps? Fremcs (shortend from free-market capitalist)? Kinda hard to say. Maybe something with yellow or gold or money? golks? Dollups (from Dollar) (I think that's a word already)?
whatever they are they are 100% archic. no an- or min- in sight.
Anarchism doesn't have law. It has customs. Law is a specifically worded series of commands that must be followed and if broken be interpreted by the legal system in order to determine the punishment. You cannot have law without also having the justice/legal system. Crime in anarchism is handled not by the courts but by the surrounding community on a case-by-case basis.
That is at least how I see it. What is the point of writing down pages and pages of commands if the only ones that enforce them are the people themselves. I think with law people will just start arguing semantics or interpretation instead of the actual severity, effect and consequences for the crime.
What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an alternative law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is custom -- namely the development of living "rules of thumb" which express what a society considers as right at any given moment. However, the question arises, if an agreed set of principles are used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?
So what do you call a country that has voluntary membership and community policing? One that doesn't have a police force or a justice system and is instead maintained by the will of all of it's citizens, as those who don't wish to be a part of the country can just leave.
I used country because I couldn't use state as "without the threat of violence it is no longer a state."
Isn't anarchy specifically managed bottom up? What if this state still has elections, government, ministries, state-run education and the like? Would that still be anarchy? I wouldn't call it anarchy, I'd call it minarchy. Because by being voluntary it is fundamentally minimising it's authority.
Borders and land ownership would be dynamic. If a citizen lives on a piece of land or citizens manage a company that land and company become part of the state. As soon as the people/companies move the border moves as well.
Fitting money into a minarchist state is tricky as even if participating in the state is voluntary money could still be exchanged outside of it. Unless you make the state currency digital and ensure that those who revoke their citizenship also lose access to their funds, but that's probably going to create a secondary "unofficial" currency. money is tricky.
And does a state need to have an elite? If the minarchist party is comprised of influential and trusted community figures that are focused solely on the benefit of their community would that make them an elite? Could a state function with a benevolent elite?
I guess all of this is describing less of a state and more of a voluntary elected bureaucracy. But isn't that what minarchy is? And couldn't we transition a state to that?
Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It's a very general definition and doesn't necessarily require money.
But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don't wish to be part of this "state" then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.
Actually It's very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.
Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.
Yeah. You're right. There couldn't really be that hard of a line between citizens and non-citizens. And because the hierarchy wouldn't really be based on violence and more just deferring of skill and effort it wouldn't really be a hierarchy at all.
But I still think that having anarchist-friendly states is possible. Maybe by having a border that can get moved as the demographics change or through territories voting to join either the anarchist side or the state side.
The left shows a futuristic sleeping pod captioned "the future we were promiced" the right shows a man sitting in a bed with a cage around it captioned "the future we got"
OK. here is my incredibly weird perspective on those pods. I like them. Recently I even stayed in one and the only complaint I have is that they are made of plastic and would squeak horrible whenever the person above me moved. I like small enclosed spaces, they make me feel safe, and if the pod was made out of wood or concrete then I would absolutely live in one, as long as there were adequate services nearby: like a kitchen and a bathroom.
They don't take up a lot of space allowing for more people to live in a single house. They offer enough privacy to be comfortable and as an anarchist I welcome the chance to live alongside other people. My apartment is a mess because I cannot bring myself to clean it. Having other people to share responsibilities with would solve that.
a political rant
They way we live reflect our politics. Every moment of our lives we are interacting with society. The way we interact reinforces our behaviours. Living in an apartment with just your family or a couple of room-mates reinforces individualism. It forces everyone to do everything equally because you could change who you're living with. You cannot divide up chores to the ones you're comfortable with because everyone should do everything.
I would love to live in a socialist living space that had these pods (not made of plastic of course), because it would allow me to live my life in a way that feels more in line with my ideology and beliefs. We are not just individuals looking out for ourselves but a collective, a society.
(Anyway it's rather late writing this and if I had any good sense left I would delete it for being too much but fuck it)
I spent one day almost entierly in my pod watching youtube, just like I would at home. For me the pod is my private space. But I understand that most people probably find it too cramped, I imagine in an actual living arrangement there would need to be private common rooms.
So you would rather keep fighting a hopeless war? Slowly losing people until they break through your lines? Alienating those in the state by allowing the state to paint you as warmongers? Instead of accepting a refuge and using what you have to keep fighting?
And is being a reservation really a problem? Why must it lead to collapse? You can start leeching all of the radicals from the state. Slowly building up a collective industry, maybe have some of those collectives/syndicates operate inside the state. If they pay tax why should the state mind.
I think there could exist potential in a dual-system. Obviously I don't like it, and would fight against it, but if it could be a path forward to practically achieve our goals should we not at least try to examine it?
What if the fighting started accidentality? What if the state that is actually a pretty decent liberal democracy where there is a large amount of political freedom.
Would you still be part of the revolt? and would you take the deal if, at least for the time being, the current government is sympathetic to your cause?
As for guarantees, what could they offer that would be enough? Lets say the deal gives you the city and surrounding area, opens up trade between you, and allows for free movement of people. There would be a guarded border on the state side but no troops or cops would be allowed inside. Or maybe a DMZ?
Also fooling them with a silly counter-offer is a really good idea, but a part of me thinks that it's kinda cruel to ridicule their genuine offer.
I imagine the state as more a liberal representative democracy. Some place that has freedom of speech and relatively fair elections. The kind of country that actually needs public support to enact their rule. Not an authoritarian hell-scape, I wouldn't trust any deal they make anyway.
I find it interesting that with just the description of "A state" you have immediately imagined a worst possible enemy for yourself.
they have no intention of peacefully co-existing with you. They want to destroy you utterly
Against a state like that I'm inclined to agree with you. If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap. However I would immediately ask how, in such hostile environment, did you manage to get a revolt started in the first place. My original scenario imagined a lot more liberal state that would not have enough power to stop the movement before it grew to open revolt, however with the monster you've imagined I don't think it's possible.
You pose an existential threat to their precious status quo
Do we? Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist? What would you do with the people who don't want to be? To say we pose an existential threat to states is to say that no person would voluntarily choose to live in the state if they have the option. I don't know if that's the case but I do think that states think that some people will always be loyal to them.
Why don't you ask all the colonised people of the world that?
There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before. Our revolt is carving it out. Obviously being forced to a reservation by a colonial power is wrong. But I don't see this like that. It's closer to a revolt down-sizing in order to maintain cohesion.
For that to happen there needs to either be majority in the state that think that way or a powerful enough propaganda machine to sway the general public. Not all states have that. If you are dealing with a country that has a well-educated population tactics like that simply won't work. This also outlines why it's vital for every anarchist movement to involve themselves with the general population as much as possible. So large portions of the population will think "oh those are the people that organise that game-night/open kitchen/workshop thing". At this point it becomes a lot more difficult to paint them as violent terrorists because people know them and have had direct interactions with them. It also becomes a lot more difficult to walk back your deal without spreading discontent.
that has normalised said society being run from the bottom up
Everyone in that society is by my definition anarchist. When you give up your dependency on authority you become an anarchist. I'm not using the term as they would I am using it as I would. So to specify: Do you think that every single person would be willing to give up their dependence to authority? Because if they won't they will form a state, when they do you need to coexist with that state.
That, too, is immaterial because the capitalist status quo will see and treat your revolt no differently. If they can isolate you, they can destroy you.
Reason I brought that up was to explain why I'm ok with political reservations and not native ones.
In this scenario you already are isolated. If the city they are giving you is no different from the land you already occupy and is just smaller then you aren't giving away any advantage. If there is some advantage in the area (Sea access, Narrow passing) I would try and argue that they give that instead.
That's no different than saying everyone in the USSR was a Marxist, or that everyone in the US is a liberal.
Those are states. Top-down civilisations that overwrite peoples wishes. They don't need everyone to follow their framework to enforce it, that's what the police is for. Anarchy isn't like that. You cannot force a person to be anarchist. Any anarchist society that exist must by necessity be populated by people that don't follow the statist framework. Who don't follow authority. Who are Anarchist.
The example you gave is perfect. Normal people who did not understand anarchism were too heavy handed with their judgement and thus actual anarchists needed to be found to help manage that society. People who haven't stop their dependence to authority are a problem to an anarchist society, they don't conform to our framework, our culture, our decision making process and our way of life.
Anarchism isn't just a label you put on yourself. It's a culture you pick up. It is a way to look at situations and people around you. Decide things both internally externally. It's a way of life. A way of life that opposes authority.
Anarchism is a way of looking at the world. And I cannot see an anarchist society function without most of the people most of the time acting and living anarcicly. Essentially when I say anarchist I mean someone living in a culture of anarchy. And that culture needs to exist for anarchic social structures to exist.
That was an assertion that needed to be true for the following to work, and another way anarchism differs from "liberalism" and "marxism". Because while you cannot force anyone to become those things too you can force them to be faked. You cannot fake being an anarchist.
it is absolutely not anything that can be called "cultural"
And there is the fundamental disagreement between our "anarchy"s. For me it is a culture. and not much else. Everything else comes from this cultural root. The critique of hierarchy is just this anarchic culture applied to political science.
When I see the black flag it fills me with a sense of belonging. Seeing a Circled A on a street corner frequently makes me smile. Reading anarchist literature gives me a sense of being a part of something bigger and what word could there be for that other than culture? Shifting through the near incalculable amount of stickers in an anarchist space with all the ACABs, black cats and antifa. What is it if not culture?
Although now thinking about I imagine you could call cultural anarchism "punk". I don't think I can. punk is too different. It's backed by the music genre which has a very specific sound and perhaps because I doesn't gel with me I don't consider it the anarchist sound. It's punk. It is anarchic, but it's only one side of it.
I wonder what it is that you consider culture, that it doesn't contain the collective effort needed to build anarchic structures.
Anarchists are not "abnormalities"
The current norm in almost every country is to be a worker in an industry and vote in elections, (even if they don't matter). That's quite far from anarchy.
When I use normal I mean the current mainstream. Or to give more examples: being an artist isn't normal, being self-employed isn't normal, not voting isn't normal (or voting is normal if you remove the double negative). Not working isn't normal. I could go on but I think you get the idea. Obviously anarchy is natural and exists in society but it certainly isn't the norm. But I probably should have used "mainstream" because it seems "normal" seems to invoke concepts of "accepted", "good". not "average"
You mean... what people were doing for thousands of years before states were invented? None of those people thought of themselves as anarchists, you know.
They weren't. Anarchy is the conscious opposition to archy. If those societies didn't have any interaction with archic structures then they didn't know to oppose them therefore they weren't anarchists, but they did live anarchicly and their culture was anarchic, and through that culture you could call them anarchists, because that culture probably had their own methods of dealing with archic structures that tried to impose themselves, which could be considered opposition, but it wouldn't be conscious, or would it... And this is getting out of hand, isn't it.
But that's words. imperfect abstractions over infinitely complex ideas. Shame anarchy is one the most complex ones, since it's entire concept defies singular meaning. The only one you can safely ascribe to it is "against authority", and even that's only if you have a specific meaning of "authority".
counter-culture there’s the word I was looking for when describing punk. That's what I meant with "only one side of it". Counter-culture is only one side of anarchist culture. The side called punk. But there are so many other facets to anarchy that punk doesn't cover. I agree that counter-culture can't build up social systems, which is why I don't call anarchist culture counter-culture. It's something different. Not simply about opposing what exists but also building and imagining what can.
I know the teen who made it doesn't know what it even means.
Are you sure of that? They might not know the theory but just by drawing it they showcase a willingness to act against the established rules. That's a good first step towards learning about anarchy, and while they could "grow out of it" they could also find actual anarchist movement and go deeper into it.
The person who drew it also doesn't matter. It doesn't change what I think when I see it. It doesn't change how much it matters to me. The symbol lives it's own life and even if the person who drew it didn't know that, the people who see it might. Some more curious might find anarchism because of looking up what the deal with them is.
perhaps you should reconsider your conception of "normalcy."
My "normalcy" is the direct result of the environment I was raised in and the people I interacted with. It is an idea that changes and evolves constantly as I interact more. I don't only reconsider my conception of "normalcy" but of every word I use as I grow and learn. But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.
There is a big difference between merely rebelling against "normality" and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.
Which is scary, which makes it unappealing, which makes it actively detrimental for outreach. There are many ways to fight battles, many ways to oppose the status quo and culturally is most certainly one of them. It's not inferior to military action just because people don't die doing it, but I also know it wont be enough on it's own. Just like militancy won't be enough.
One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong. Being able to dictate what you do and how you do it. I am a pacifist. My aversion to violence is one of the foundations of my anarchism. I could never be on the front lines. It scares me. But I know I can do other things, help out in other ways, and that me being able to do that is foundational to anarchism.
what does this "culture" actually offer the rest of the working class?
Anarchism. Although I understand that that term means different things to us so I'm going to use the meaning you gave it a few comments back:
Anarchism consists of a critique of hierarchy
And this cultural anarchism is taking that critique and applying it to culture. To everyday situations. To the way children are being raised and workers are being hired. To song, writing and all the other arts. What it offers to people is anarchism. A way to live your life without archy. Or as AFAQ calls it: "social revolution" https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj7
This is what I mean when I say revolution: A complete change to the entire social structure. The biggest driving force in any society is culture. While economic forces to play a part they can only exist as long as they are reinforced by culture. The value of money exists in culture. The concept of property exists in culture. An anarchist culture is about looking at these concepts in a way that consciously opposes archy.
Also participating in capitalism does not yet disqualify you from acting anarchically. It's not a all or nothing scenario. You do what you can, where you can. Obviously you should be on the lookout for better alternatives and constantly keep in mind what it is your participating in every time you shop, but as long as your thinking about it, considering your actions in an anarchic framework, you are acting anarchically.
And the more people keep doing this the more they start considering alternatives, at which point anarchic spaces become a vital component to in the process to collectivise the economy. You connect people with skills who don't like having to shop for food and some of them might start their own farm, and because they already have connections to other people in that space they start being able to benefit from that venture as well.
The social/cultural isn't separate from the economic which isn't disconnected from the political. Society is a collection of all and in order to effectively dismantle one we need the help of others. And culture is the easiest by far because all you need is for people to listen and consider the things you say. Culture is nothing more than the ideas we hold and ideas are a hell of a lot more easier to change than political or economic realities.
But that's just the framework that I use to think about anarchism and society at large. You probably have your own.
What's a piece of Media that is so underrated you must mention it?
Have you ever loved something, only to realize it’s a commercial flop or just obscure? What’s something that deserves more light than it got?
NVIDIA CEO says relentless negativity around AI is hurting society and has "done a lot of damage" ( www.techspot.com )
All my new code will be closed-source from now on - Marc J. Schmidt ( www.linkedin.com )
All my new code will be closed-source from now on. I've contributed millions of lines of carefully written OSS code over the past decade, spent thousands of hours helping other people. If you want to use my libraries (1M+ downloads/month) in the future, you have to pay. ...
I'm here for memes, not snappy Xitter, 4Chan, reddit or similarly sourced screenshots of texts
Science Rule
No Half-life 3 rule...
"Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"
Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don't want to abolish capitalism, and don't want to fight archism? ...
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]
Valve Responds To Steam Machine's HDMI 2.1 Display Support Controversy [HW support is there, but "The HDMI forum" doesn’t allow with OpenSource drivers] ( hothardware.com )
Cloudflare issues
It seems cloudflare has gone down and brought down half the internet, including half the fediverse. Lucky for us, the divisions by zero, is not hosted in cloudflare for that reason. Unlucky for the flotilla, the anarchist.nexus is on CF. ...
Do it. BRING IT UPON ME!
I just wanted to say thanks to anyone who may have donated. Again you have no idea how much it means. Not gonna spam this message all day today, don't worry, but thank you to those that did... Thank you so so much. And to anyone who upvoted or commented or gave well wishes. It means the entire world to me right now.
Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust for Real-World CLI Tools ( dayvster.com )
Am I crazy for thinking this is power-tripping? ( lemmy.blahaj.zone )
Got banned from ...
On finding a job.
I can't find a job. ...
It's not often that one scratches a lib quite so much to see them go full masks-off, but it does happen on occasion
Seeing someone "vaguelly left" unironically defending the extrajudicial murder of Rosa fucking Luxembourg was not in my bingo card. ...
Anarchist-friendly states, minarchism, and electorialism.
I've been thinking a lot about the relationship between anarchists and the state. Obviously I understand the reason behind anti-statism but I think mindless opposition to any idea is unproductive. So I want to discuss the concept of an anarchist-friendly state. ...
ICE ICE baby
You know you made it in life when you get to sleep in the fancy pod
A thought experiment.
Imagine you are a person fighting in an anarchist revolt. ...