#anti hierarchies

[limetarte]

Hierarchies are the root cause of every oppression that exists, the second you get rid of them, oppression will cease to exist as well. Why? Because oppression is on the hierarchal idea that one group is below/above the other. If everyone actually realizes that everything is actually equal and there’s nothing inferior to you nor superior to you, oppression will cease to exist automatically, by itself.

If everyone viewed things the way they are, which is everything is inherently equal, then everyone would feel really happy. I don’t know what’s holding back people, probably a lack of self worth and collective worth. Which, by the way, were all created through lies and lack of shown love, care and truth. Which is caused by the systems we live in. It’s all a cycle, the systems create low self and collective worth, which makes people reproduce the systems even more and not allow themselves to believe in the reality that we’re all equals.

Most people are constantly bringing themselves and others down through the repeated violence the systems have taught us, which is so common that most don’t even realize how often they’re bringing anything down.

[wishesofeternity]

My problem with The Dragon Prince is that while it preaches about "breaking the cycle" and "choosing love", it repeatedly does so in a way that echoes the age-old idea of telling victims to passively accept their lot in life and the injustices inflicted upon them while their perpetrators never have to acknowledge their wrongs or face consequences for their actions. This is the kind of narrative they follow on both a personal and systematic axis, and it's exactly why the show will always frustrate me.

[press-f1-to-grieve]

nico rosberg sitting pretty, commenting on mclaren's performance, adding gasoline in the ongoing metaphorical dumpster fire at mclaren garage is never not funny

[evren-d]

EDIT: definitely turned into a massive rant about Vander's politics, I tried to not be petty and I failed, I can't fix it with another draft, he drives me nuts. In this unassigned essay I literally will...

Vander criticism incoming because I re-watched the Sevika rematch in the last drop and holy moly did he do Vi dirty (What his guardianship style meant for Powder, Mylo, and Claggor all deserve their own posts) and I can’t think about Vi’s struggles without thinking about VanderLand™. Not saying he didn’t do good, not saying he couldn’t have been worse, just that…:

Vander preached against fighting, but lived (comparatively) large off of his reputation for fighting AND through the exchange of a blind eye from the enforcers in return for keeping his own community under heel. Grayson saying, ���I keep out of your business and you keep your people off of my streets” or whatever, suggest to me the passes that Vander has enjoyed in his interests over the years.

His thriving business, the life he projects, no fighting oppression, only bar-keeping, but we see him throw his reputation around as a favor to to his friends, like Huck and Babette. Would the undercity merchant/business owner class want your protection if they knew what was up? Maybe, Benzo was on board. What about the rest of the undercity that aren't enterprising? Silco saying, "Not JUST for the Lanes, but for the whole of the underground," is huge.

It pays to be Vander’s friend, but no one else could possibly realize the success that I think he pretends he did. The lifestyle he's trying to get Vi to subscribe to (VanderLand) doesn’t actually exist. Everyone is seeing that but him and Vi is boiling over in confusion and frustration and self-doubt and anger.

If any other kids had caused the damage in Piltover that made Marcus go all ham, their parents would not have had the luxury of negotiating with Grayson, and I honestly don't believe that Vander would have turned himself in to protect them. When Vander or Grayson die, the little pocket of safety that he's carved out for the lanes will be lost, this only benefits a select few for as long as Vander can pull it off.

Bless you Sevika for leaving him behind, my god. The way he claims all responsibility for the day of ash is honestly just insulting. If you hadn’t led them across that bridge, maybe someone else would have, my guy.

Look at the lengths Sevika and others go to to fight YOU so they can have another chance to fight the real enemy without you protecting your cushy life (and kids, yeah, yeah, but it’s still painfully short sighted. People had kids the first time around, some people in the bar calling to fight back with Sevika surely also have kids. That’s -why- they want to fight) all over the conversation. He talks to vi like he opened and closed the book on revolution - get out of the WAY OLD MAN.

To Vi he’s like, Yes, I live a better life for myself, my family, and my friends leveraging just the sheer -memory - of when I used to fight, but you can’t.

There's a difference between self-defense in dangerous streets and planning a heist to steal your way through life, but he seems to lump them together. Then in the same conversation telling her that fists aren’t the answer, he checked quality assurance checked that she kicked Deckard’s ass, because ultimately that is what he expects from her. Attacking the root cause of gangs like Deckard's is immature and selfish, but you better be a good enough fighter to beat the shit out of them on call. WHAT a moving target.

What I saw in Vi’s delirium in the bar in the Sevika rematch was Vander dissing her guard and telling her she has no choice but to keep fighting, that she’s needed, whether she’s wanted or not. And yeah, it’s not Vander that said that, it’s in Vi’s head, but it's reminiscent of things we did see him tell her as a teenager, that message of “you are the only hope that the people you love have, you're responsible for everything that happens when you interact with them, you're not allowed to not interact with them, in fact you must -lead- them. Also, you're stupid.”

For that to be what her brain cooks up for her mentor to say to her to stay conscious and in the game, the way that she accepts it with a huffed laugh and it actually HELPS HER is so gaahhhhhhh.

Fundamentally, (in the admittedly very little we saw in act I of uniquely stressful time,) I feel that he offloaded the effort and responsibility of mentoring, nourishing, and raising all four kids individually, to Vi. He literally made the others leave the room before giving the soft side of his lecture in the basement, then barked at, confiscated from, and threw stuff at the boys on his way back upstairs. To expect Vi to take his guidance in, make sense of it (impossible), and redistribute it to the others is not cool, and that's why he makes me grump.

[nando161mando]

[i-am-trans-gwender]

What if I sent this to Rowling with no context? Haha just kidding....unless?

[lilithism1848]

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

I am absolutely about to SNAP today. Yesterday I started work, at my office desk, at 7.30 in the morning and finished at 3.30pm, a normal 8 hour work day. I left the house at 6.45am and was thinking about work really from 7, which I could have counted too if I wanted.

Having been informed when I started this job several months ago that our regular work hours run 7am-7pm and are fully flexible within that period.

Today I wake up to snippy email from my workstream manager that I didn't REQUEST to 'finish early' and that apparently now we have regular hours that I should be working (9-5) and I'm just over here like...

Do you actually think that you CONTROL me?

Are you really sitting over here trying to make POWER PLAYS over THE SPECIFIC HOURS WITHIN THE DAY that I do my work, given that the work in question is a list of pre-set tasks that I have a weekly amount of time to put towards that has already been signed off by people WELL ABOVE YOUR pay grade?

Sorry but I will not be 'requesting' anything of somebody who is not actually my BOSS and who is only a few years older than me and who I already do more work than in the company.

I didn't 'FINISH EARLY' if I STARTED working in the day 2 hours before you did...

Noting also that since I started this job where apparently the work hours are 9-5 Mon-Fri now I have already worked:

on a Sunday, for no extra pay, because she asked me to prepare something for her

into the evening beyond 5pm up to 6 to get something urgent finished

Up to 5.30 pm most days! So I've been doing extra have I?

You can shove that kind of passive aggressive email up your ass miss local government. What is WRONG with people that they get off on controlling others like this? Get a kink or a hobby and leave this out of the workplace please.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Differences Between Anarchism and Authoritarian Leftism (Marxist-Leninist-Maoism)

A significant difference between anarchism and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is hierarchy. MLMs depend on cadres (leadership) to make the ultimate decisions, which is why they often stick to a central message handed down from the top. Anarchism is horizontal, which means having a lot of intentional discussions around consensus and each person’s needs. MLM organizing tends to be more oriented towards building critical mass and numbers because they believe that the solution is to displace the current state with a “people’s state” — a point that anarchists fundamentally disagree with because we believe that states in any form simply replicate the existing hierarchies of violence and systems of oppression.

The tensions between anarchist and authoritarian leftist organizing also often come down to questions of capacity, scale, structure, and urgency.

It’s often the case that authoritarian leftist organizing (in its many variations) is willing to sidestep conversations on internal conflict and will readily engage in disposability politics for the sake of scaling up rapidly, at an unsustainable pace. Which is something I’m not down with — because I am definitely one of the people (among many who make up my community) who gets left behind over and over again due to chronic illness, precariousness, limited access to resources, etc. But it’s tougher to build a large group with anarchism because of decentralization — with the intent that the focus is on meaningful relationships and not burn out or exclusion.

What is a “movement” between billions of people who don’t know or have any deep investment in each other? Another frustrating part of focusing on mass movements is that the more that people push for critical mass, the less considerate they are of pace — and the less attention they pay to who they leave behind in the process of growing, growing, growing.

I believe that small and committed groups of people can do big things if they want to. I don’t think we need to change everyone’s mind. I think that change happens all the time, on the ground, in relationship, at a scale that people don’t/won’t take notice of because they are too busy looking elsewhere.

I believe that small and committed groups of people can do big things if they want to. I don’t think we need to change everyone’s mind. I think that change happens all the time, on the ground, in relationship, at a scale that people don’t/won’t take notice of because they are too busy looking elsewhere.

At the same time, we are still working on how to organize autonomously in ways that are resilient and lasting. It seems like anarchist organizing, while more forgiving and flexible, is also far more susceptible to disintegration when hard-line demand for consistency isn’t made. And yet autonomous spaces are the ones where I have felt the most whole, and where my needs and limitations have been taken seriously.

[aronarchy]

https://twitter.com/butchanarchy/status/1663942855746895875

Schools are sites of extreme social control and abuse, serve as state propaganda distribution centers, and are by and large focused on creating docile servants to capital rather than inquisitive learners. School abolition is a necessary radical demand.

If you got through the experience of schooling with your love of learning and self-esteem intact I’m honestly very happy for you but that is not reflective of how many youth experience school as an institution. Reach beyond your own experiences in your analysis please.

The idea that children can’t and won’t learn unless they are under power of centralized authority has the same roots as the belief that no one would ever labor if not under the coercive control of the state and capital. It’s a myth to justify control and domination.

If you find yourself scoffing at the idea of school abolition I hope you will see that reaction for what it is: a defense of something you have always been taught to see as natural and inevitable. As a radical such a reaction calls for analysis, not dogmatic acceptance.

Liberalism has taught many that politics need only ever be in reaction to what conservatives are doing. Right-wingers attack the institution of schooling? This must mean School = Good and that any critique of schooling = conservative. Radical politics require we step beyond this.

Teenage suicide rates fell when much of school turned to remote learning, and they rose again (by 18%!) when in-person schooling resumed. This is not an institution that needs your defense. It is an institution that inflicts frankly incalculable levels of trauma on youth.

Let’s go even further than just critique the authoritarian institution of school, keep digging up the roots! What would happen if we opened ourselves up to inquiring about the values laden in the conceptualization that education is something that can be “given” Teacher ➡️ Student

Let’s analyze the idea that the Teacher is someone who is Already in possession of Knowledge, who then pours that Knowledge into the Passive Vessel of the Student, who has no Knowledge. Is this the only way learning happens? Is it really the best way?

What other lessons are we teaching youth when we accept the above as true? What are they learning about their own worth, what about themselves and their learning process are they being taught to ignore and suppress because it does not align with the processes dictated by Teacher?

What wounds do we ourselves still carry by being taught in this way? Did this process teach us how to explore, how to be creative, how to drive our own learning process forward without the dictates of an Authority figure? How do we see these wounds reflected in our peers?

And what lessons are we missing out on when we believe that youth are simply receptacles of Adult Wisdom? When we devalue their agency so much as to outright deny its existence in our defense on institutions that control them? Could they not also be our teachers?

The beauty of radical politics is that they reveal that all forms of social relations are vulnerable to critique. Social structures are choices, not states of nature we cannot help but reproduce. We can keep digging, keep questioning. imo it is a moral imperative that we do so.

There are always more questions to ask! There are always more options for exploration than we are presented by authoritarian hegemony. That many of us are not accustomed to analyzing and exploring this way is, itself, a symptom of how our society approaches learning.

[midnight-specialist]

Wanting people to suffer because “LiFe Is HaRd” is so capitalism and bootlicker coded it’s not even funny. Please get out of rich people’s ass and stop letting yourself be brainwashed by the one’s who literally couldn’t care less if you live or die.

[furiousgoldfish]

I hate that us humans built a whole ‘who deserves what’ hierarchy and it follows no sense or justice or benevolence. If people have to deserve to live, to eat, to have a shelter, to be safe, then it’s so much easier to abuse someone by saying ‘you didn’t deserve it’. And even more easier for abusive parents to convince their kids they haven’t deserved to be cared for.

Animals don’t do this shit, as soon as they exist they go ‘I will demand this thing I need until I get it’ and nobody can condition them to think otherwise. But, you can condition humans to believe they’re not worthy of resources, shelter, affection, acceptance, love, and everything else. There is no real ‘deserving’ system. It’s our birthright to have things we need to survive, we’re alive! The alternative is that we die or live in pain! Nobody deserves that. There is no justice in this idea. Nobody is getting what they deserve.

[poolboyservice]

ygs do know that the host of a system also counts as an alter, right?

[ankhmeanswombman]

Anti capitalists come from a place of deep entitlement and ego, because they still want the same resources they had before, they just want someone to provide ideas and labour to keep their consumption going for free. They don’t seem to understand that material reality is a ladder. Just switch on any nature documentary and see the cruel reality for yourself. If you want to end capitalism and all other systems, close your legs and cut off the portal between the spirit realm and the carnal limited 3D world. These people wanna eat, drink and live and in someone’s house without due repayment which goes against the principle of polarity/cause and effect. They are not ready for mentalism yet, yet they desire for a bunch of rugged, immature and careless workers to run a production factory on their own accord as if they have the vision or vigor for that, as if there isn’t a deeper reason why they’re just workers. Sorry but putting the production line in the workers hands is not going to work no matter how much the egalitarian, social justice mind screams and begs for it.

[nando161mando]

Our leadership isn't digitally competent

[sparksinthenight]

I say this as a queer. I fucking hate queer people who like hierarchy, like those who have power over others, and like the capitalist system where the bosses can exploit the fuck out of their workers but are still hailed as benevolent job creators.