Unvoiced and voiced? Which of my uses is which here?
sharkfucker420
joined 2 years ago
Honestly þis þread makes me sad. Can't a fella be a lil quirky in peace?
Good thing not everyone is ever going to do that. Just let people be a little weird maybe? Or block them if it bothers you
What is a user specific score? (Also curious about my number)
What is an improper use?
Lebensraum killed white people (unnaceptable) but manifest destiny killed not white people (acceptable).
Lebensraum was and is horrrifying to westerners because it took what we did to everyone else and did it to us.
You know the lesser evil is also ripping families apart right? What part of organize directly did you not understand? You don't have to just watch.
There are atleast 14 things in life
Honestly, it's very difficult to imagine and while there is plenty of literature on the subject I don't think any of us can truly say. I personally have not read the literature and for me to speculate on it would do more harm than good I think. The reality of a stateless society seems so far off from my lifetime that discussing how it might look feels like fantasizing to me. My focus has always been on getting to a point where one is possible and studying how to do so as this is far more relevant to my conditions.
Stateless societies absolutely have existed. The state had to arise at some point. Foraging and horticultural groups are examples of this but neither can sustain our current human population so no they are not practical in the way you are asking. There were also attempts at utopian communism that were internally stateless but ultimately subject to the whims of whatever state they resided in so their status as stateless is debatable. You won't find a largescale stateless society in the modern era primarily because it would make them incredibly vulnerable. Proposing, hypothetically, you eliminate class within a large industrialized society and therefore internally remove the requirement for a state, that society is still beholden to the global dynamic of imperialism. The state is still required to protect the interests of their society from the contradicting interests of capital abroad. This is why communism must be an international struggle.
I would consider authoritarian a useless word for describing them. Sure, you could call them that and it would fit, but it says very little about them and fails to distinguish them from other states.
All states are authoritarian. Holding and exerting authority is the point of a state. The state exists as a tool for a class to express its authority over the other.
This same issue applies to the term dictatorship as well. When we hear the term authoritarian we must ask authority for whom. When we hear the word dictatorship we must ask what group is dictating and to what end.
Until the state is abolished every society is authoritarian and a dictatorship. So what's the point of the descriptor?
Edit: if I have been too vague I'm happy to elaborate further
Makes for great justification of hierarchy
You are a good person and very cool actually