I don’t disagree that anarchist ideals about localization make sense as a reaction to our modern, global, hierarchical world. I’m not arguing to preserve the efficiencies of centralization but pointing out that their gravity makes opposition by other means impossible. Here’s the issue that I never see resolved:

if one group starts consolidating power and turning coercive, that’s a problem. However it’s not solved by having centralized oversight in the first place. That’s how we got here.

Then how does it get solved? History shows a thousand instances of empires expanding through piece meal conquering of fragmented autonomous polities. Look at the European conquest of Mesoamerica, how the Roman’s picked apart most of the world, the colonization of Ireland, the fate of the Iroquois Confederacy, etc… The aggressor doesn’t even need a material or martial advantage, as in Macedonia’s subjugation of the loose federation of Greek city states.

Generally, the expansion only stops from an internal shift (dynasty change, leader death, coup, etc…), hitting a geographical limit, or when the aggressor runs into someone too large to bully.

I’ll point out as well that this doesn’t even need to be a nefarious, expansionist scheme. Changes in climate can apply a survival pressure to take what you need from neighbors. Take for example, sea level rise reducing arable land for the Vikings, one of the causes for their invasion and settling in Britain.

I asked this in a thread a while ago but I’ll repost it here since I never got an answer:

[I don’t see how anarchism] would work in practice. Hierarchies form to simplify the logistics and social cohesion of a disorganized network of subunits.

As a basic example, how the hell do collectives even communicate with those on other continents? It took millenia for humans to develop reliable seafaring technology, only made possible through the direction of state actors. Sea cables cost millions to maintain; satellite communication is even harder to achieve.

Assuming that any of these could even be accomplished strictly via collectives (“Why the hell should I give you my Chilean copper so you can throw it in the ocean to talk to Europe?”), operating these essential services gives access to power and coercion.

Somebody has to launch the ships or run the heart of the telegraph network. Will you centralize the authority of multiple collectives to regulate and monitor it?..

And if you don’t do anything to bridge the ocean, what’s to prevent ideological drift for that continent; getting a little too centralized for more efficient resource use? Even if your accessible web remains strong and ideologically pure, you have to pray that completely separate webs will be just as strong.

Anarcho-primitivism is the only critique that seems to own the inherent anti-civilization logic, but even then there’s nothing stopping a collective-of-collectives from making a bigger pile of sharp rocks to subjugate you.

The gist of it being that hierarchies form due to the natural gravitation of civilization towards efficiency. Delegating someone with power to direct the actions of a large group will always be more efficient than getting N subunits to reach a web of equilibrium. If you’ve ever tried to horizontally coordinate a group of a large size it’s pretty obvious.

Efficiency begets power and power propogates and entrenches the system that it’s derived from.

Are you a child/young teen with a completely different brain structure than a mature adult? Do you have already have the media literacy needed to navigate disinfo and toxic content online?

Kids really are a different species, but have predictable development. For every kid that’s responsible enough to have unrestricted device access there’s 50 more who just aren’t mature enough yet. There’s a limit to how much you can coach responsibility into them

Friendly reminder that reducing/eliminating outdoor lighting is one of the most impactful changes an individual can take to reduce their ecological/climate footprint.

https://darksky.org/

The theory behind DEI policies is to formally challenge personal bias (both explicit and subconscious) in hiring and participation. There’s nothing inherently tied to unfairly favoring minority groups other than the fact that they are usually the target of negative bias.

It’s a pretty basic and logical idea that acknowledges human fallibility. I hate that it was rapidly co-opted on all sides as a shorthand for racism and opposition to cis-white-male dominance.

Maybe we just didn’t let enough children die… 🤔

Step back everyone, we’ve got an Enlightened Centrist here!

Don’t call for violence, let’s just compromise to allow a little fascism! 🤏

Nobody here is calling for purging wrong-think. There are very obvious and visible threats to our society from an enclave of people tearing it apart. You’re making a strawman to conflate targeting them with targeting freedom of thought

That’s not totally true.

Republicans turned out at slightly higher numbers than Democrats relative to their representation in the U.S. population (8 points vs. 5 points).

And there’s a lot there suggesting a leftward lean from the independent portion (eg. disproportionately non-white, non-Christian and urban)

Edit: If anyone has a counter argument I’d love to hear it. Its just weird to dismiss the entire massive non-voting bloc in a country with a long history of right wing voter suppression and anemic left wing opposition.

Republicans put a ton of effort into voter restrictions, ostensibly to prevent mass voter fraud which study after study proves does not exist. Why do they go through the trouble?

Is that any worse though?

Fascista Leggera ⚖️ Full blown McFascism

Old Sierra games do suck as actual games. But the satisfaction of beating them is unrivaled, I’d put them above any Souls like.

They played best when you had other people to commiserate with. Hot seat multi-player getting more and more frustrated until someone realized you have to walk completely around the police car to check it before driving… 🤬

Conspiring to make and keep people stupid is a conservative top 10 hit. For them the ideal populace is homogenous, fertile, docile, fearful and uneducated.

Anti-intellectual attacks have been the go-to for centuries, they’ve just gotten more modern and efficient. Look into groups like the heritage foundation, prager u, the heartland institute and (most importantly) the people bankrolling them.

Its a long legacy of chipping away at the foundations of democracy and critical thinking. Blaming technology and the free market is buying their propaganda. It’s the same lie they use to frame climate collapse as an unavoidable natural cycle.

👆 Room temperature IQ take.

This is the opposite of a headless mob with no goals. This is an explicit show of support for these politicians and their platform. The goal is to elevate the message both generally and within the Democratic party.

If nobody shows up to support it then the top brass can ignore them. The large crowds force the issue, it’s a de facto primary on policy. Suppressing and ignoring the issue is a bad look. It only works if opposition doesn’t reach a critical mass to tip the scales.

The exact same thing happened when Trump hijacked the Republican party. Opposition Republicans were faced with getting on board or losing on a split ticket, and suddenly every primary at every level was a MAGA-off

The maga problem isn’t just Trump. This is the culmination of decades of work by christo-fascist conservatives. They’re not resting on their laurels and lining their pockets like a normal regressive administration. Every effort is being taken to solidify their power and deconstruct any threat that might rise up post-trump. Even if they did eat themselves there won’t be a government to rebuild.

We’re passing an inflection point in American politics. People want change and polls indicate they don’t care what side it comes from. The Democratic party has never polled lower. Being the milquetoast neoliberal corporate party is objectively the worst anchor to tie around your neck.

AOC and Bernie’s message isn’t wildly popular on accident. That energy needs to be captured and amplified, Democratic party or not. What’s the worst that happens from a split ticket? More people stay home?

Edit: you don’t even have to run against them to capture the Democratic party. Just have headliner progressives threaten it with a broad show of support and you force them to open up the primaries. Their policies have no support, they have no chips to call the bluff.

Nah, it’s the lead and microplastics

I resent the implication that the USA is not a sane and civilized country. God bless America 🇺🇲🇺🇲

To play devils advocate with the original comment, if you’re pretending it’s a police action then he’s a hostage

Very well answered, thanks.

I think there’s generally poor discourse around protests. I appreciate the long form opinions that you and others have put together, but a lot of commentary is very reductive.

I get the “net negative” sentiment, but the only thing worse than feeling like you didn’t make an impact is feeling that while being berated as naive. For something as low stakes as a one day boycott, not much is lost if you use it as a case study to teach from. Here’s why it didn’t work and what we can do better. The important part of the discussion should be on building goals and organizing, and detaching those from the endorphins of political action.

I’m of the opinion that the only truly performative and useless protests are digital. If you went somewhere or did something (or changed plans to avoid either) you’re infinitely closer to making a change than putting a hashtag into the digital void.

The truth is we’re in uncharted territory. What does or doesn’t work may be unintuitive. Protests haven’t really happened:

• in the 21st century western world
• & against the massively expanded tools of surveillance
• & the highest wealth disparity in history
• & most communication channels and social spaces replaced by digital corporate platforms
• & the rapid fascist takeover of a government looking for their Reichstag Fire

The George Floyd protests in 2020 were the closest thing we’ve seen but today is different beast.

As an example, I get the feeling that organizing at your workplace won’t work for long. The administration would smash your legal right to unionize without hesitation. Similarly, signing up with the DSA might have been effective political action 4 years ago but put you on the no-fly list today. Maybe clandestine but highly visible protests (vandalism, sabotage, etc…) will have more impact than marching on Washington DC out of the gate? Time will tell…

Everyone knows that puts you on a list

Would it be wrong to view this as economic accelerationism? Even if businesses can adjust to consumption cycles, not all consumption needs on one day translate to the next.

Skipping lunch at the diner might mean you increase demand for pb&j sandwiches, but you’re putting the waitress and cook out of a job. Maybe that’s just freeing up their labor to be put to more… productive endeavors.

Honest question, what’s your stance on hunger strikes or other protests outside the workplace? I’m of the opinion that, in 2025, any disruption is good disruption.

Save yourself the trouble, this isn’t going anywhere