https://i.nostr.build/M6znouhfsVCT3aAg.jpg
nostr:nprofile1qqsza748zkamgmw4he4hm2xhwqpxd5gkwju38wqh3twmtshx8kv8xvgprpmhxue69uhhxurpw35kzttpwf3kzmnp9e3k7mf0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnrd3hh2epwwe5kumn90yh8s7...
I like it. Err, I like it more than I dislike it. Its a net like. And I think most differences are contrived for the sake of maintaining teams.
When I look at Christianity and Islam, for example, I see teams which are exactly the same in every possible way, but which are determined to maintain their separation - why, who benefits? Each has a power in the center benefitting by maintaining enmity.
So, IMO, power itself is the problem. It doesn't matter if the power is on your team. A real radical would give away power if he has it, subvert it if its on his own team, and push anything which is falling.
But there's a dilemma : there are two extreme opposites which achieve the same goal. One is to defy the center by atomization - more teams approaches no teams. The other is to nullify the team aspect by unifying into one team, so that there's no "other." Both qualify as anarchism, which is how anarcho communism and anarcho capitalism can both claim anarchism. These extremes appear to be incompatible at a foundational level. IMO, the modern nation state tries to to both, and that's how it manages to piss off everyone. This tension, IMO, is what's driving our descent into police state.
Suppose the two sides did put aside their differences to fight the managerial center. Both can rightly see that center as representative of the other extreme that they've called a truce with, but in a world of flying pigs, maybe they call the truce and destroy the center. What then? They'll realize that that common enemy in fact was the unifying force that kept the peace between them. So if there's to be a peace between the communists and the propertyists, some new mechanism must be found to replace the managers. Can there be a gentlemanly agreement that each side gets territory and never violates the other? I doubt it, but such a peace would certainly require absolute freedom of movement between the territories, so if someone decides they prefer the other way if living, then they won't try building a state.
Idk. *Exaggerated shrug and hands in the air.*
When I look at Christianity and Islam, for example, I see teams which are exactly the same in every possible way, but which are determined to maintain their separation - why, who benefits? Each has a power in the center benefitting by maintaining enmity.
So, IMO, power itself is the problem. It doesn't matter if the power is on your team. A real radical would give away power if he has it, subvert it if its on his own team, and push anything which is falling.
But there's a dilemma : there are two extreme opposites which achieve the same goal. One is to defy the center by atomization - more teams approaches no teams. The other is to nullify the team aspect by unifying into one team, so that there's no "other." Both qualify as anarchism, which is how anarcho communism and anarcho capitalism can both claim anarchism. These extremes appear to be incompatible at a foundational level. IMO, the modern nation state tries to to both, and that's how it manages to piss off everyone. This tension, IMO, is what's driving our descent into police state.
Suppose the two sides did put aside their differences to fight the managerial center. Both can rightly see that center as representative of the other extreme that they've called a truce with, but in a world of flying pigs, maybe they call the truce and destroy the center. What then? They'll realize that that common enemy in fact was the unifying force that kept the peace between them. So if there's to be a peace between the communists and the propertyists, some new mechanism must be found to replace the managers. Can there be a gentlemanly agreement that each side gets territory and never violates the other? I doubt it, but such a peace would certainly require absolute freedom of movement between the territories, so if someone decides they prefer the other way if living, then they won't try building a state.
Idk. *Exaggerated shrug and hands in the air.*
2
