Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

October 20 2019


marxism and terfism

  • say they want to overcome gender/class
  • women/workers are assumed to be fundamentally virtuos victims
  • men/entrepreneurs are assumed to be fundamentally vicious perpetrators
  • everything that blurs the lines of gender/class is seen as either irrelevant or betrayal of women/workers fight
  • apparently gender/class won't be gradually eroded but disappear in a magical explosion
  • often flirts with authoritarianism

repost from here: https://chaos.social/@Sofia/102996364825617287

Reposted byp856 p856

August 29 2019


well, i agree with her point that professional sports have pretty much nothing to do with free markets. "competition" means very different things in both cases.

in a free market, cometition would just mean that that multiple people offer/demand a comparable thing and are free to choose who they cooperate with. people would follow their own goals and and the goals they share with others.

in professinal sports, it is decided beforehand who you cooperate with and the goals are not your own. the winning condition and it's scarcity are entirely fictional, because it's all a game. it should have minimal consequences other than the enjoyment of participating or observing.

in fact, professional sports are incompatible with a free market, as long as there is tax money poured into them, thus making them less voluntary and probably causing overproduction.

it annoys me when commies claim market competition would be about creating arteficial rivalry, when really it's about maximizing genuine cooperation. and there you are comparing it to professional sports. :P

Sponsored post
you are awesome!
Reposted bysirthomasbolton sirthomasbolton

June 09 2019


"regulation" may an unhelpful term here. it is typically for state-enforced control, but in a society people always affect each other's behaviour, be it by individual contracts, majority descision, prices or whatever people are willing to participate in.

i don't think there is really a consensus among anarchists about how desirable or undesirable weapons are. i suspect there are large georaphic differences. but i think there is a rough consesus that the guns that do exist should be reasonably dispersed among the population and not to concetrated among a particular organisation and class. even tho people in security-organisations would tend to be more likely to have them than others.

personally i find it plausible that (everything else being equal) lower weapon-ownership lead to a safer society. that's mostly because weapons seem to be better suited for attack then defense. i haven't really seen a convincing counter-argument, but i have some nagging doubts about my position..

but in any case, for now my position is after states and criminal organisation are disarmed, there should be some kind of disarmament movement and the manufacture of weapons should probably be economically and socially penalized. but if course that's not up to me on my own, and i'd have to compromize with my surrounding community.

Reposted byshikajipaket

February 25 2019

uns wird durch parteien ständig staatsgewalt als heilmittel gegen alles mögliche verkauft, und dann sind alle enttäuscht das die fiesen politiker wieder ihre versprechen nicht gehalten haben. für mich heist anarchismus heist nicht zuletzt, die plausibilität dieser heilsversprechen allgemein zu hinterfragen. es ist halt auch kein zufall dass alle wunderheiler inkompetent oder unehrlich sind..
— ich auf discord
Reposted bynaich naich

February 23 2019

The whole questionare assumes that I'm unwillingly being stripped off my earned money.

um it does adress that some people may willingly pay taxes without coercion. and sure, it's not against paying for stuff in general, including public goods.

I would want to financially support the programs I agree with, not the bombing foreign citizens thing

welcome to anarchism, then! :D

So I guess the best solution would be a plain-old paycheck for services you think are great for society instead of a certain price percentage?

well, that's up to your contract. i would say it would make sense that you pay more insurance for a bigger house or more expensive car for example.

personally i would most favour cooperative models, where you have a choice between multiple competing organisations, but also a say in the one (or more) you are in. mutualist gang 😎. but i'm supportive of ancappy to ancommy approaches, as long as they don't want their models shoved down everyones throat. which i would say is kinda the point of anarchism to begin with..

February 22 2019

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...