Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Wow, really? Propaganda against Nietzsche? I'm sorry, I must have missed that part where I was spreading false information and trying to manipulate the reader's beliefs. My bad. I must have just completely overlooked the fact that I clearly stated my deep respect for Nietzsche and his contributions to philosophy, and simply shared my own observations about how his ideas are often oversimplified and distorted by those who don't fully understand them. But hey, if you think my article is just propaganda against Nietzsche, then I guess you must have a deeper and more enlightened understanding of his philosophy than I do. Keep on rockin' in the free world, my friend.

A true Nietzschean would be obliged to overcome Nietzsche himself. I haven't read all of his works, but I am certain that Nietzsche has made this same remark.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

[removed]

I've never understood the issue that anarchists have with money. It can certainly be used coercively, but fundamentally it is just a representation and abstraction of human labor and productivity.

Claiming that money as a concept should be abolished seems tantamount to saying that the trade of goods and services between individuals should be abolished.

The other part that really stood out to me was >anarcho-primitivism does not entail the ludicrous refusal of all technology (such as fire, pottery or even agriculture, which, incidentally predates the horrors of state-run farms)... >it certainly doesn’t entail, as some critics like to believe, a recommendation for the extermination of mankind.

Which seems to be trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Quite simply, the world can not sustain its current population with the extremely limited agricultural technology proposed. Advocating for a return to the primitive agricultural technology proposed is either profound ignorance or advocating for the death of billions.

There were other minor quibbles where I don't believe it would turn out as the author proposes, but those were two things that really stood out to me.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

You can find some ideas to what it will take to achieve the next level of philosophical evolution in the book

Homo Unus: Successor to Homo Sapiens

From the headline it seems like it's a hit piece towards Nietzsche, but it's really not.

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.

In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor. The poverty inflicted on the masses to keep them in waged labor is artificial, and many of the "luxuries" are just distractions that are bad for us (like Reddit itself).

Also, this assumes that the current structure can survive indefinitely. I do not see any reason to see that it can. I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.

SMH….propaganda against Nietzsche

Private property is a specific kind of property.

So, let's use a house as an easy example. If I buy a house (outright, it's totally paid for), then it becomes my personal property. I can do with it what I want and my ownership is legally protected based on where I am.

If I rent my home, then it is not my personal property, it is someone else's private property. There might be some tenet rights that I have, depending on where I live, but overall the private property owner (who does not use the property for anything other than making money) has the property rights.

Similarly, if I take a mortgage on the house, then it is the bank's private property. The bank will for the most part not interfere too much, but at the end of the day, the home is not my property, it is the property of the bank for the purpose of making money. That is, the bank's private property.

And from this you should be able to understand what private property is. It's property you own, but do not use, for the sake of collecting some kind of passive income. It's the central feature of a capitalist economy. I own land and charge rent for someone else to use it. I own a building and charge someone else to use it. I have an idea and charge anyone else who uses it. In essence, I am allowed to hold something hostage from society unless they pay me. Maybe it's a national or international business, where I do not myself work, but from which I become independently wealthy. Like Elon Musk buying Tesla and then getting complete control over the company and personally collecting its profits. That's capitalism, and it's intrinsically totalitarian, as the article points out.

Markets, where stuff is traded or bought and sold, predate capitalism and will continue long after capitalism is gone. What the market is allowed to do is determined by the economic system that it's in. For instance, a slave economy is a kind of "free market" where humans can be bought and sold as property in a slave market. Feudal societies had markets. Tribal societies can setup markets. No capitalism is required for markets or property to exist. Private property, however, is a unique feature of capitalism.

>I think it would be very hard to make the case that a historical tyrant would look at the average retail or office worker with any degree of envy.

I would rather work 8 hours a day in retail and enjoy all the trappings of modern life than spend every hour of every day managing a realm while shitting in cold holes, drinking water filled with parasites, watching my children die young with alarming regularity, face a constant threat of assassination and power play resulting from primitive succession systems, confront the cold and dark of winter in a visceral even from within a gold studded palace, endure disease and injury without any real form of medicine, etc. Even the relatively modern history of 18th century Britain, from an aristocratic point of view, sounds boring AF from the literature describing it at the time.

But I get it. We are all subject to envy in some way; for example you envy the rich and powerful for their material comforts to such a degree that you aren't even a little satisfied with all the incredible things you do have, simply on the basis that a handful of people have more of it than you. Such relative comparisons would not be absent in an anarchist society, they would just follow different parameters. Someone will always have more than you.

The real question is, right now, would you be willing to give up everything you currently have to be more equal with someone who has much less than you? Would you accept living at the same standards as the poorest humans in the slums of Cairo or New Delhi in the name of egalitarianism?

[removed]

No one, and I mean no one, gives philosophical anarchism its due, because that potato is just a little too hot to touch.

Wait until you ask most people what their ideal society looks like.

And then ask them why it sounds like anarchism. Happy holidays mates 🍻🤘

[removed]

To me private property means that when I give you A and you give me B, you are entitled to keep A, I am entitled to keep B, and society recognizes those entitlements and stands ready to use force to repel anybody who attempts to initiate force to seize A from you or B from me. How does market exchange work without that?

>My dad is in the trap council

😳 ayo?

AHA ! money doesn't exist in Anarchy so you lose ! (also my dad is in the trap council)

I agree. My view is that Anarchism provides two things to those who understand it. The first is what you’ve said, ideals of utopian societies. The second is critical thought of power structures. Anarchism allows the individual to deconstruct any power structure in order to better understand and evaluate it. Without viewing the world in this way, titles and power and hierarchies are often misevaluated as being forces for good.