I'm left leaning, aka a "lib" and I'm a fan of things that are anti-capitalist.
I think capitalism has outlived it's usefulness, just like religion did when we created modern criminal forensics.
At this point, we have so much in excess that if we did things in a reasonable and logical way, nobody would be homeless, nobody would go hungry.
The people with the power (money) don't want things to change, because they get to stay in power that way. The only way to oust them is to overthrow the system.
If you wanna be on a list, start collecting old army field manuals. It's one thing to say "we should start fire bombing McDonald's," it's another thing to say "we should start fire bombing mcdonald's, and here's instructions on how to do it"
Not that we should be firebombong McDonald's lol I would never recommend that
But I would recommend reading TM 31-201-1, especially pages 78-82
I don't get lib as an insult. Seems like pretty much everyone on Lemmy is on liberal side of center. I've seen some hexbear users use it to refer to anyone who isn't as tankie as they are, but I don't get it.
The US uses lib to mean socially liberal, in opposition to the cons. The rest of the world uses it to mean fiscally liberal, as in support of not regulating capitalist markets, which is an anti worker position.
People often get pissy that a word can have more than one definition.
And even more generally, Western liberal democracy which most flavors of anarchism and socialism view as a system that is neither based on securing liberty or particularly democratic.
I'm an anarchist socialist. We hate tankies, we hate libs. Libs are capitalists. Tankies are authoritarian. We hate both of those. Eh not hate but you know what I mean. Not ideologically compatible, therefore not allowed in the commune and you aren't allowed to hurt others, and if I hear a lib say how they're going to employ someone or a tankie talk about a vanguard state I'm gonna be upset
Tangent topic, but how does an anarchist system prevent popular leaders from gaining authority? Also, how does it defend against an aggressive authoritarian neighbour that wants to annex territory?
I like the idea of anarchism in theory, but I just don't see how it could be possible to get there from here where every existing power would see it as an ideological threat to their own power (similar to how capitalist powers reacted to communism), or how it would maintain stability if it was realized.
And as much as I don't like the monopoly on violence system because it seems to encourage corruption on the side with more access to violence, I can't help but think it would eventually devolve into a lot of in-fighting.
Like power constantly rises from nothing more than physical strength, charisma, or good strategic thinking in groups of humans. Some primates other than humans go to war with their neighbouring groups. Egypt became a kingdom when one tribe conquered the rest, and that one wasn't the first to try. Countless empires have risen and fallen, most of the time despite violent resistance of those who would rather be neighbours than subjects. The Vikings sailed around raiding for their own benefit and then later conquered regions like in France, Britain, Sicily, and Kiev. The Mongols did the same except using horses instead of boats. Then European powers did it. Then America started pretty much puppeting anyone who went against corporate interests while a cultural movement in Russia and China started out trying to move power out of the hands of their ruling class only to see even more authoritarian powers take over.
History is full of cases of "I don't care what you want, this is what I want and I'll just kill you if you don't go along with it." How could that change?
The great irony there is that the Tankies love anarchists. They want the west to burn themselves down.
It's honestly hard for me to believe there are more than a handful real Anarchists on the fediverse and not just a bunch of masquerading Tankies, because at the end of the day Anarchy will just bring any currently existing state one step closer to an Authoritarian taking complete control.
The real nail in the coffin is that there is a political party in the USA, in Canada, in Australia, and in the UK who would absolute regulate government and industry, keep courts clean, and protect and expand the rights of citizens: but anarchists more often side with the deregulating authoritarians.
Layla Moran on the left is a member of their Liberal Democrats and someone who police were called out to when they allegedly beat their partner over an IT issue.
Ed Milliband in the middle is a minister and former leader of the Labour party. Maybe not the biggest leftie but enabled members to vote for their leader which paved the way for Jeremy Corbyn to win.
Based on the above two points, this feels to be quite badly labeled if you know who they are.
Was the problem that her partners work VPN is somehow fucking terrible and is too slow for the kind of work they do but they still kept calling her to reset the router even though the problem was coming from 2000 miles away?
Was it intentional that your next post was about Krampus?
I watched a holiday movie recently that said he wanted to misuse the watch list, I mean naughty list or whatever Nick used these days lol. Think it was Red One. Had a depthy cast, not that usually makes good movies, but it wasn't bad
Hard to say. Her public attitude towards a lot of issues is fantastic but she comes from money. She wouldn't be able to pursue her personal interests and campaigns without the wealth she has.