Coppola’s new movie Megalopolis is according to him primarily inspired by the works of Graeber and Wengrow including Dawn of Everything
When it’s reported to be a political film, it may be specifically anarchist, very interesting
Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
51–60 of 110 posts
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#52> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…
I'm not sure that anarchism works, but what I will say is that you can't really translate the way that people behave "in captivity" into an anarchist state.
For example, I gladly would give money to fund infrastructure in my neighbourhood, I help my friends, family, my neighbourhood both financially and with time, etc. I enjoy helping out those in genuine need.
When that becomes taxation and when I end up being forced under the threat of violence to fund all sorts of stuff that I don't feel I (or anyone) should be paying for, my behaviour changes, because it no longer makes me feel good to do so.
So I end up minimizing my taxes due, earning less via income, trying to avoid paying for things like parking etc etc because it doesn't feel like a fair and equal trade.
A lot of people feel this way.
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#53> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…
It's impossible to generalize this without factoring in the external environment. Put a group of mentally stable people together in a safe, hospitable community with unlimited resources and yes the theory will probably hold true. But what happens when the food runs out? If there's a natural disaster? A plague? Some other crisis? What if they get invaded by a neighboring tribe whose intentions aren't so great? That's…
This is completely untrue though. Yes, some people are and will continue to be complete assholes who will take advantage of any kind of situation, but pretty much all evidence point towards people banding together and helping each other in times of crises.
Its corporations and billionaires and dictators being able to mobilize massive amounts of wealth and/or people that lead to terrible outcomes. So anarchists are completely correct: their tenets reduced to the simple slogan of 'no gods, no masters' is the only fundamentally correct ideology.
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Left" is a relative concept. The original French revolution left was liberalist. Liberalism is the core ideology of the current western world. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberalists. Even Putin is predominantly a liberalist.
yes, this is what i am saying. modern liberalism is indeed a "core ideology", or put another way, a hegemonic centrist ideal. it is definitionally not leftist. i think it is well understood that most leftist political ideologies recognize the importance of a liberal movement as a precursor. to the original comment this stems from, leftism is in no way an endorsement of consumerism.
I find it more useful to use more "absolute" terms. If by left you mean some fashion of socialism, then indeed left is not liberalist. But in contemporary politics such left is almost non-existant. E.g. most European "socialist" or even "communist" parties are staunchly liberal, and mostly celebrate consumerism.
I don't think "leftism" is really an ideology, or at least it can mean very different things in different contexts.
Edit: I find it also better to use "liberalist" instead of "liberal" when referring to the political movement and ideology. "Liberal" is easy to misinterpret and misuse, and it tends to hide the fact that liberalism a quite specific ideology, that e.g. has no monopoly on liberty.
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#55> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…
It's impossible to generalize this without factoring in the external environment. Put a group of mentally stable people together in a safe, hospitable community with unlimited resources and yes the theory will probably hold true. But what happens when the food runs out? If there's a natural disaster? A plague? Some other crisis? What if they get invaded by a neighboring tribe whose intentions aren't so great? That's…
Actually in times of crisis and war communities tend to bond together.
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#56> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…
It's impossible to generalize this without factoring in the external environment. Put a group of mentally stable people together in a safe, hospitable community with unlimited resources and yes the theory will probably hold true. But what happens when the food runs out? If there's a natural disaster? A plague? Some other crisis? What if they get invaded by a neighboring tribe whose intentions aren't so great? That's…
Dawn of Everything has possible examples of that
Btw anarchy is quite new. You may learn from eg Zapatistas or Rojave but these are anarchy adjacent
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#57> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…
Yep which is why I'm ancap anarchist not socialist anarchist which seems almost an oxymoron. You cannot take things from people, like means of production they've produced, and force them to share without aggression. All anarchism stems from voluntary interactions, which depends on free trade .
Capitalism is based on theft of labour, which is the complete opposite of anarchism. You can either have capitalism or anarchism, not both.
And no, capitalism is not the same as voluntary interactions or free trade, no matter what people keep trying to claim.
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#58> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable. Reading the book f…
Yep which is why I'm ancap anarchist not socialist anarchist which seems almost an oxymoron. You cannot take things from people, like means of production they've produced, and force them to share without aggression. All anarchism stems from voluntary interactions, which depends on free trade .
Capital is hierarchy and relies on state violence for coercion power / protecting property ownership
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep which is why I'm ancap anarchist not socialist anarchist which seems almost an oxymoron. You cannot take things from people, like means of production they've produced, and force them to share without aggression. All anarchism stems from voluntary interactions, which depends on free trade .
Capitalism is based on theft of labour, which is the complete opposite of anarchism. You can either have capitalism or anarchism, not both. And no, capitalism is not the same as voluntary interactions or free trade, no matter what people keep trying to claim.
I don't believe in stealing labor. I think you should be able to trade your labor for gold or whatever other valuables you like.
Re: Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism is based on theft of labour, which is the complete opposite of anarchism. You can either have capitalism or anarchism, not both. And no, capitalism is not the same as voluntary interactions or free trade, no matter what people keep trying to claim.
I don't believe in stealing labor. I think you should be able to trade your labor for gold or whatever other valuables you like.
Capitalism and markets aren’t the same thing