#revolutionarism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 2 months

Text

J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?

Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists, we must clarify a few points first. Let us be clear, non-syndicalist anarchists usually support the ideas of workplace organisation and struggle, of direct action, of solidarity and so on. Thus most non-syndicalist anarchists do not disagree with anarcho-syndicalists on these issues. Indeed, many even support the creation of syndicalist unions. Thus many anarcho-communists like Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta and Emma Goldman supported anarcho-syndicalist organisations and even, like Malatesta, helped form such revolutionary union federations (namely, the FORA in Argentina) and urged anarchists to take a leading role in organising unions. So when we use the term “non-syndicalist anarchist” we are not suggesting that these anarchists reject all aspects of anarcho-syndicalism. Rather, they are critical of certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalist ideas while supporting the rest.

In the past, a few communist-anarchists did oppose the struggle for improvements within capitalism as “reformist.” However, these were few and far between and with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the 1890s, the vast majority of communist-anarchists recognised that only by encouraging the struggle for reforms would people take them seriously as this showed the benefits of anarchist tactics and organisation in practice so ensuring anarchist ideas grow in influence. Thus syndicalism was a healthy response to the rise of “abstract revolutionarism” that infected the anarchist movement during the 1880s, particularly in France and Italy. Thus communist-anarchists agree with syndicalists on the importance of struggling for and winning reforms and improvements within capitalism by direct action and solidarity.

Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of mass organisations like unions. As he argued, “to encourage popular organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas … An authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power to impose its ideas, has an interest in the people remaining an amorphous mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore easily dominated … But we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves … we want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of their development and advance as they advance.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 90] This can only occur when there are popular organisations, like trade unions, within which people can express themselves, come to common agreements and act. Moreover, these organisations must be autonomous, self-governing, be libertarian in nature and be independent of all parties and organisations (including anarchist ones). The similarity with anarcho-syndicalist ideas is striking.

So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists? There are two main reasons for this. First, there is the question of whether unions are, by their nature, revolutionary organisations. Second, whether syndicalist unions are sufficient to create anarchy by themselves. We will discuss each in turn.

As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply reformist and bureaucratic in nature. They are centralised, with power resting at the top in the hands of officials. This suggests that in themselves unions are not revolutionary. As Malatesta argued, this is to be expected for “all movements founded on material and immediate interests (and a mass working class movement cannot be founded on anything else), if the ferment, the drive and the unremitting efforts of men [and women] of ideas struggling and making sacrifices for an ideal future are lacking, tend to adapt themselves to circumstances, foster a conservative spirit, and fear of change in those who manage to improve their conditions, and often end up by creating new privileged classes and serving to support and consolidate the system one would want to destroy.” [Op. Cit., pp. 113–4]

If we look at the role of the union within capitalist society we see that in order for it to work, it must offer a reason for the boss to recognise and negotiate with it. This means that the union must be able to offer the boss something in return for any reforms it gets, namely labour discipline. In return for an improvement in wages or conditions, the union must be able to get workers to agree to submit to the contracts the union signs with their boss. In other words, they must be able to control their members — stop them fighting the boss — if they are to have anything with which to bargain with. This results in the union becoming a third force in industry, with interests separate than the workers which it claims to represent. The role of unionism as a seller of labour power means that it often has to make compromises, compromises it has to make its members agree to. This necessities a tendency for power to be taken from the rank and file of the unions and centralised in the hands of officials at the top of the organisation. This ensures that “the workers organisation becomes what it must perforce be in a capitalist society — a means not of refusing to recognise and overthrowing the bosses, but simply for hedging round and limiting the bosses’ power.” [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 29]

Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their unions are decentralised, self-managed and organised from the bottom up in a federal manner. As Durruti argued:

“No anarchists in the union committees unless at the ground level. In these committees, in case of conflict with the boss, the militant is forced to compromise to arrive at an agreement. The contracts and activities which come from being in this position, push the militant towards bureaucracy. Conscious of this risk, we do not wish to run it. Our role is to analyse from the bottom the different dangers which can beset a union organisation like ours. No militant should prolong his job in committees, beyond the time allotted to him. No permanent and indispensable people.” [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 183]

However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the bureaucratic tendencies created by the role of unions in the capitalist economy. While such libertarian structures can slow down the tendency towards bureaucracy, non-syndicalist anarchists argue that they cannot stop it. They point to the example of the French CGT which had become reformist by 1914 (the majority of other syndicalist unions were crushed by fascism or communism before they had a chance to develop fully). Even the Spanish CNT (by far the most successful anarcho-syndicalist union) suffered from the problem of reformism, causing the anarchists in the union to organise the FAI in 1927 to combat it (which it did, very successfully). According to Jose Peirats, the “participation of the anarchist group in the mass movement CNT helped to ensure that CNT’s revolutionary nature.” This indicates the validity of Malatesta’s arguments concerning the need for anarchists to remain distinct of the unions organisationally while working within them — just as Peirat’s comment that ”[b]linkered by participation in union committees, the FAI became incapable of a wider vision” indicates the validity of Malatesta’s warnings against anarchists taking positions of responsibility in unions! [Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 241 and pp. 239–40]

Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause problems: “In modelling themselves structurally on the bourgeois economy, the syndicalist unions tended to become the organisational counterparts of the very centralised apparatus they professed to oppose. By pleading the need to deal effectively with the tightly knit bourgeoisie and state machinery, reformist leaders in syndicalist unions often had little difficulty in shifting organisational control from the bottom to the top.” [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 123]

In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their initial radicalism is usually watered-down. This is because, “since the unions must remain open to all those who desire to win from the masters better conditions of life, whatever their opinions may be …, they are naturally led to moderate their aspirations, first so that they should not frighten away those they wish to have with them, and because, in proportion as numbers increase, those with ideas who have initiated the movement remain buried in a majority that is only occupied with the petty interests of the moment.” [Errico Malatesta, Anarchism and Syndicalism, p. 150] Which, ironically given that increased self-management is seen as a way of reducing tendencies towards bureaucracy, means that syndicalist unions have a tendency towards reformism simply because the majority of their members will be non-revolutionary if the union grows in size in non-revolutionary times (as can be seen from the development of the Swedish syndicalist union the SAC).

So, if the union’s militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms, more and more workers will join it. This influx of non-libertarians must, in a self-managed organisation, exert a de-radicalising influence on the unions politics and activities in non-revolutionary times. The syndicalist would argue that the process of struggling for reforms combined with the educational effects of participation and self-management will reduce this influence and, of course, they are right. However, non-syndicalist anarchists would counter this by arguing that the libertarian influences generated by struggle and participation would be strengthened by the work of anarchist groups and, without this work, the de-radicalising influences would outweigh the libertarian ones. In addition, the success of a syndicalist union must be partly determined by the general level of class struggle. In periods of great struggle, the membership will be more radical than in quiet periods and it is quiet periods which cause the most difficulties for syndicalist unions. With a moderate membership the revolutionary aims and tactics of the union will also become moderate. As one academic writer on French syndicalism put it, syndicalism “was always based on workers acting in the economic arena to better their conditions, build class consciousness, and prepare for revolution. The need to survive and build a working-class movement had always forced syndicalists to adapt themselves to the exigencies of the moment.” [Barbara Mitchell, “French Syndicalism: An Experiment in Practical Anarchism”, pp. 25–41, Revolutionary Syndicalism, Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe (eds.), p. 25]

As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and, obviously, mainstream unions too) this seems to be the case — the libertarian tendencies are outweighed by the de-radicalising ones. This can also be seen from the issue of collective bargaining:

“The problem of collective bargaining foreshadowed the difficulty of maintaining syndicalist principles in developed capitalist societies. Many organisations within the international syndicalist movement initially repudiated collective agreements with employers on the grounds that by a collaborative sharing of responsibility for work discipline, such agreements would expand bureaucratisation within the unions, undermine revolutionary spirit, and restrict the freedom of action that workers were always to maintain against the class enemy. From an early date, however, sometimes after a period of suspicion and resistance, many workers gave up this position. In the early decades of the century it became clear that to maintain or gain a mass membership, syndicalist unions had to accept collective bargaining.” [Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe, Op. Cit., p. 19]

Thus, for most anarchists, “the Trade Unions are, by their very nature reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary spirit must be introduced, developed and maintained by the constant actions of revolutionaries who work from within their ranks as well as from outside, but it cannot be the normal, natural definition of the Trade Unions function.” [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 117]

This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour organisations. Nor does it mean rejecting anarcho-syndicalist unions as an anarchist tactic. Far from it. Rather it is a case of recognising these organisations for what they are, reformist organisations which are not an end in themselves but one (albeit, important) means of preparing the way for the achievement of anarchism. Neither does it mean that anarchists should not try to make labour organisations as anarchistic as possible or have anarchist objectives. Working within the labour movement (at the rank and file level, of course) is essential to gain influence for anarchist ideas, just as is working with unorganised workers. But this does not mean that the unions are revolutionary by their very nature, as syndicalism implies. As history shows, and as syndicalists themselves are aware, the vast majority of unions are reformist. Non-syndicalist anarchists argue there is a reason for that and syndicalist unions are not immune to these tendencies just because they call themselves revolutionary. Due to these tendencies, non-syndicalist anarchists stress the need to organise as anarchists first and foremost in order to influence the class struggle and encourage the creation of autonomous workplace and community organisations to fight that struggle. Rather than fuse the anarchist and working class movement, non-syndicalist anarchists stress the importance of anarchists organising as anarchists to influence the working class movement.

All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or individual anarchists cannot become reformist. Of course they can (just look at the Spanish FAI which along with the CNT co-operated with the state during the Spanish Revolution). However, unlike syndicalist unions, the anarchist organisation is not pushed towards reformism due to its role within society. That is an important difference — the institutional factors are not present for the anarchist federation as they are for the syndicalist union federation.

The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists is the question of whether syndicalist unions are sufficient in themselves to create anarchy. Pierre Monatte, a French syndicalist, argued that “Syndicalism, as the [CGT’s] Congress of Amiens proclaimed in 1906, is sufficient unto itself” as “the working class, having at last attained majority, means to be self-sufficient and to rely on no-one else for its emancipation.” [The Anarchist Reader, p. 219]

This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the syndicalist movement must be fused into one, with syndicalism taking the role of both anarchist group and labour union. Thus a key difference between anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists is over the question of the need for a specifically anarchist organisation. While most anarchists are sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism, few totally subscribe to anarcho-syndicalist ideas in their pure form. This is because, in its pure form, syndicalism rejects the idea of anarchist groups and instead considers the union as the focal point of social struggle and anarchist activism. However, an anarcho-syndicalist may support a specific anarchist federation to work within the union and outside.

So anarchists critical of anarcho-syndicalism are also active in the labour movement, working with the rank and file while keeping their own identity as anarchists and organising as anarchists. Thus Malatesta: “In the past I deplored that the comrades isolated themselves from the working-class movement. Today I deplore that many of us, falling into the contrary extreme, let themselves be swallowed up in the same movement.” [Op. Cit., p. 225] In the eyes of other anarchists anarcho-syndicalism in its “pure” (revolutionary syndicalist) form makes the error of confusing the anarchist and union movement and so ensures that the resulting movement can do neither work well: “Every fusion or confusion between the anarchist movement and the trade union movement ends, either in rendering the later unable to carry out its specific task or by weakening, distorting, or extinguishing the anarchist spirit.” [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 123]

Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that “anarchists must not want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act within their ranks in favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as groups and as federations of groups… [I]n the situation as it is, and recognising that the social development of one’s workmates is what it is, the anarchist groups should not expect the workers’ organisation to act as if they were anarchist, but should make every effort to induce them to approximate as much as possible to the anarchist method.” [Op. Cit., pp. 124–5] Given that it appears to be the case that labour unions are by nature reformist, they cannot be expected to be enough in themselves when creating a free society. Hence the need for anarchists to organise as anarchists as well as alongside their fellow workers as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics and aims. This activity within existing unions does not necessarily mean attempting to “reform” the union in a libertarian manner (although some anarchists would support this approach). Rather it means working with the rank and file of the unions and trying to create autonomous workplace organisations, independent of the trade union bureaucracy and organised in a libertarian way.

This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but which (in part) work within the labour movement for anarchist ends. Let us not forget that the syndicalist organisation is the union, it organises all workers regardless of their politics. A “union” which just let anarchists join would not be a union, it would be an anarchist group organised in the workplace. As anarcho-syndicalists themselves are aware, an anarcho-syndicalist union is not the same as a union of anarcho-syndicalists. How can we expect an organisation made up of non-anarchists be totally anarchist? Due to this, tendencies always appeared within syndicalist unions that were reformist and because of this most anarchists, including many anarcho-syndicalists we must note, argue that there is a need for anarchists to work within the rank and file of the unions to spread their anarchist ideals and aims, and this implies anarchist organisations separate from the labour movement, even if that movement is based on syndicalist unions.

As Bakunin argued, the anarchist organisation “is the necessary complement to the International [i.e. the union federation]. But the International and the Alliance [the anarchist federation], while having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. The International endeavours to unify the working masses … regardless of nationality or religious and political beliefs, into one compact body: the Alliance, on the other hand, tries to give these masses a really revolutionary direction.” This did not mean that the Alliance was imposing a foreign theory onto the members of the unions, because the “programs of one and the other … differ only in the degree of their revolutionary development … The program of the Alliance represents the fullest unfolding of the International.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 157] Nor did it imply that anarchists think that unions and other forms of popular organisations should be controlled by anarchists. Far from it! Anarchists are the strongest supporters of the autonomy of all popular organisations. As we indicated in section J.3.6, anarchists desire to influence popular organisations by the strength of our ideas within the rank and file and not by imposing our ideas on them.

In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones as well. For example, many anarchists dislike the emphasis syndicalists place on the workplace and see “in syndicalism a shift in focus from the commune to the trade union, from all of the oppressed to the industrial proletariat alone, from the streets to the factories, and, in emphasis at least, from insurrection to the general strike.” [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 123] However, most anarcho-syndicalists are well aware that life exists outside the workplace and so this disagreement is largely one of emphasis. Similarly, many anarchists disagreed with the early syndicalist argument that a general strike was enough to create a revolution. They argued, with Malatesta in the forefront, that while a general strike would be “an excellent means for starting the social revolution” it would be wrong to think that it made “armed insurrection unnecessary” since the “first to die of hunger during a general strike would not be the bourgeois, who dispose of all the stores, but the workers.” In order for this not to occur, the workers would need to “take over production” which are protected by the police and armed forces and this meant “insurrection.” [Malatesta, The Anarchist Reader, pp. 223–4] Again, however, most modern syndicalists accept this to be the case and see the “expropriatory general strike,” in the words of French syndicalist Pierre Besnard, as “clearly insurrectional.” [quoted by Vernon Richards, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 288] We mention this purely to counter Leninist claims that syndicalists subscribe to the same ones they did in the 1890s.

Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are slight and (often) just a case of emphasis. Most anarchists support anarcho-syndicalist unions where they exist and often take a key role in creating and organising them. Similarly, many self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists also support specific organisations of anarchists to work within and outwith the syndicalist union. Syndicalist unions, where they exist, are far more progressive than any other union. Not only are they democratic unions and create an atmosphere where anarchist ideas are listened to with respect but they also organise and fight in a way that breaks down the divisions into leaders and led, doers and watchers. On its own this is very good but not good enough. For non-syndicalist anarchists, the missing element is an organisation winning support for anarchist ideas and tactics both within revolutionary unions and everywhere else working class people come together.

For a further information on the anarchist criticism of syndicalism, we can suggest no better source than the writings of Errico Malatesta. The books Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas and The Anarchist Revolution contain Malatesta’s viewpoints on anarchism, syndicalism and how anarchists should work within the labour movement. The Anarchist Reader contains the famous debate between the syndicalist Pierre Monatte and Malatesta at the International Anarchist conference in Amsterdam in 1907.

13 notes · View notes

rose-reads-visualnovels · 1 year

Note

how do you get so good at analysis? ;_; i'm really dumb and take things at surface value, which i've been fine with up until now but seeing you read umineko so deeply makes me kinda like.... jealous isn't the right word? that sounds too spiteful. it just makes me feel like i'm missing out on a more fun way to experience things. but it seems so daunting i don't even know how to start. to me it seems like picking out every detail and exaggerating it as far as possible but it's obviously more refined than that because you're able to keep things together thematically and make some good theories. do you have any advice for it?

Hi, anon!

Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re being jealous/spiteful with this ask. I also used to want to write analysis on things because they seem fun, and actually this is my first proper try at it! I think I’ve said it before but if I’m not careful I’ll binge everything on first watch/read and miss details. (This is why I rewatch Utena every other month). So yes, I know sometimes I’m grasping at straws but that’s because I’m actively squeezing everything I can out of a page/scene.

I think what sets this liveblog apart and the reason I can pick up threads/themes is that Umineko seems very upfront about what it wants to say.

「MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, EVERYONE WANTED A LOT OF MONEY RIGHT NOW…!」

Utena is the same in that - even though people say it’s too symbolic - I think the fact that it bares its inner mechanisms for all to see is a huge kindness. If everything means something else, or represents both itself and a larger concept, then a show where everything is allegorical is actually discarding layers of obfuscation.

I think a good place to start to Notice Themes is at the very beginning.

The Golden Witch invites you to take things easy and accept them as they come, but The Revolutionary Witch tells you that - in any story - the first introductions matter the most.

Up until now, Umineko has drilled inside our heads again and again, repetition after repetition, that the Ushiromiya’s Western schtick is a product of Kinzo’s reverse weeb affectations. He started many of the “traditions” that seem so inescapable, he invented the name for the fucking chair he sits at the breakfast table and the order of the seats according to his own patriarchal standards.

His Western obsession is tied very obviously with his “black magic” obsession and he even gets angry when you don’t call them “grimoires” because part of the charm of magic is that it’s foreign and cool. He speaks of black magic when ranting about his urges to sexually abuse a dead Beatrice, all his children speak of Western things when recalling their own childhood and abuse.

The only exception to this is Kinzo’s Japanese sword - both a true object and a phallic symbol that doesn’t deny itself its origins - that he uses to spank Jessica’s naked butt.

I feel like, in Umineko, you just need to sit and listen to the characters and wonder at their motivations. But you also need to wonder about the choice of presentation.

For example, Kanon alone in the garden after he left the conversation, being dismissed by Gohda. All he says is “…even me” or something among those lines, very mysterious! But the way this is presented, the camera not caring about the Cousins + Adults but following an actor after he’s being kicked out of the stage? Unusual! Curious! Very interesting! The way the narrative describes it, (paraphrasing here) “you needed to get closer if you wanted to hear the words whispered to his heart”? Why would it be written like that? Who is the narrator speaking to?

So I think - to make an analysis close in methodology to what I’m doing - you need to question what’s onscreen, not in a “this isn’t real” way (it may not be real but that’s not the focus!), but in a “why is this being shown the way it is” way. This is a novel after all. Choices of words, choices of POV, what is described and what’s left unsaid!

Those are the tips from the Revolutionary Witch!

— Rose, the Revolutionary Witch

#anon ask #askbox #umineko #rgu #revolutionary girl utena #on the matter of meta analysis

25 notes · View notes

ritchiepage2001newaccount · 9 days

Text

Project2025 #CorpMedia #Oligarchs #MegaBanks vs #Union #Occupy #NoDAPL #BLM #SDF #DACA #MeToo #Humanity #FeelTheBern

JinJiyanAzadi #BijiRojava Establishment of the first military force of the Armenian component [UPDATES]

Hasaka – The Armenian component announced on Wednesday, April 24, 2019, the establishment of the first military force of the Armenian in Tal Tamar. The brigade was named after the martyr “Nubar Ozanyan” , it is a part of the Syrian Democratic Forces and stands side by side with the components of the region…

RELATED UPDATE: 1st Armenian military force in SDF's ranks announced

RELATED UPDATE: In Ain Issa…Armenian fighter confronts Ottoman descendants

RELATED UPDATE: 'The Rojava Revolution is also the revolution of the Armenians'

RELATED UPDATE: Street in Qamishlo named after Armenian revolutionary Nubar Ozanyan

RELATED UPDATE: Memorial for Armenian TIKKO commander Nubar Ozanyan in Qamishlo

RELATED UPDATE: First Armenian woman conference kicks off in Hasaka city

RELATED UPDATE: Armenian Women’s Union condemn brutal murder of female soldier

RELATED UPDATE: Threat of invasion against Rojava and the current situation in North-East Syria – VI

FURTHER READING:

3 notes · View notes

unpluggedfinancial · 4 months

Text

The Philosophy Behind Bitcoin

Introduction

In the world of finance, few innovations have sparked as much intrigue and debate as Bitcoin. But beyond its role as a digital currency, Bitcoin embodies a profound philosophy that challenges traditional financial systems and proposes a new paradigm for economic freedom. Understanding the philosophy behind Bitcoin is essential to grasp its potential impact on our world.

The Origins of Bitcoin

In 2008, amid the global financial crisis, a mysterious figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin whitepaper. This document outlined a revolutionary idea: a decentralized digital currency that operates without the need for a central authority. The financial turmoil of the time, characterized by bank failures and government bailouts, underscored the need for a system that could function independently of traditional financial institutions.

Core Philosophical Principles

Decentralization-Decentralization lies at the heart of Bitcoin’s philosophy. Unlike traditional financial systems that rely on centralized authorities such as banks and governments, Bitcoin operates on a decentralized network of computers (nodes). Each node maintains a copy of the blockchain, Bitcoin's public ledger, ensuring that no single entity has control over the entire network. This decentralization is crucial for maintaining the integrity and security of the system, as it prevents any one party from manipulating the currency or its underlying data.

Trustlessness-Bitcoin's trustless nature is another fundamental principle. In traditional financial systems, trust is placed in intermediaries like banks and payment processors to facilitate transactions. Bitcoin eliminates the need for these intermediaries by using blockchain technology, where transactions are verified by network nodes through cryptography. This system ensures that transactions are secure and reliable without requiring trust in any third party.

Transparency-The transparency of Bitcoin’s blockchain is a key philosophical aspect. Every transaction that has ever occurred on the Bitcoin network is recorded on the blockchain, which is publicly accessible. This transparency allows anyone to verify transactions and ensures accountability. However, while the ledger is public, the identities of the individuals involved in transactions remain pseudonymous, balancing transparency with privacy.

Immutability-Immutability is the concept that once a transaction is recorded on the blockchain, it cannot be altered or deleted. This is achieved through cryptographic hashing and the decentralized nature of the network. Immutability ensures the integrity of the blockchain, making it a reliable and tamper-proof record of transactions. This principle is crucial for maintaining trust in the system, as it prevents fraudulent activities and data corruption.

Financial Sovereignty-Bitcoin empowers individuals by giving them full control over their own money. In traditional financial systems, access to funds can be restricted by banks or governments. Bitcoin, however, allows users to hold and transfer funds without relying on any central authority. This financial sovereignty is particularly valuable in regions with unstable economies or oppressive governments, where individuals may face restrictions on their financial freedom.

The Ideological Spectrum

Bitcoin’s philosophy is deeply rooted in libertarian values, emphasizing personal freedom and minimal government intervention. It also draws inspiration from the cypherpunk movement, a group of activists advocating for privacy-enhancing technologies to promote social and political change. These ideological influences shape Bitcoin's emphasis on decentralization, privacy, and individual empowerment.

Real-World Applications and Challenges

Bitcoin's philosophy extends beyond theory into practical applications. It is used for various purposes, from everyday transactions to a store of value akin to digital gold. However, this revolutionary system also faces challenges. Regulatory issues, scalability concerns, and environmental impact are some of the hurdles that need addressing to realize Bitcoin’s full potential.

Conclusion

The philosophy behind Bitcoin is a radical departure from traditional financial systems. Its principles of decentralization, trustlessness, transparency, immutability, and financial sovereignty offer a new vision for economic freedom and integrity. As Bitcoin continues to evolve, its underlying philosophy will play a crucial role in shaping its future and potentially transforming the global financial landscape.

Call to Action

Explore more about Bitcoin and consider its implications for your own financial freedom. Engage with the community, stay informed, and think critically about the role Bitcoin can play in our economic future. Let’s continue the journey of understanding and embracing the Bitcoin revolution together.

5 notes · View notes

sundown-racoon · 2 years

Text

GUYS,, PLEASE. VOTE FOR HOMOEROTIC PSYCHO COMPRTITIVR RIVAL OF WILBUR SOOT,, CASINO OWNER,, POLYAMOROUS CASANOVA,, KARMALAND PRESIDENT AND REVOLUTIONARE,, PATHETIC GIRLYPOP ALEX QUACKITY AS MCYT TUMBLR SEXYMAN,, I AM ON MY KNEES BEGGING.

#quackity #c!quackity #dream smp #quackity sweep #mcyt tumblr polls #DO IT FOR KARMALAND PLEASE #I AM ON MY KNEES #POR EL LICENCIADO #EL LIC #if you guys vote for Quackity I will give you a drawing doodle #i'm serious

73 notes · View notes

darkeagleruins · 5 days

Text

3 notes · View notes

the-east-art · 1 year

Text

If any of y’all are curious. It’s nothing that hasn’t been said before haha

#utena #rgu

39 notes · View notes

boymagicalgirl · 1 year

Text

Anthura

#leo arts #puella magi madoka magica #madoka magica #screenshot edit #homura akemi #anthy himemiya #revolutionary girl utena #shoujo kakumei utena #la fillette revolutionare

31 notes · View notes

page-2-ids · 1 year

Photo

[ID: A flag with nine horizontal stripes, the middle is twice the height of the others. The colors are darker at the edges and lighter moving towards the middle, except for the very middle, which is darker. The colors are, from top to bottom, dark denim, denim, dusty light green, light yellow, orange salmon, pale pink, dusty violet, purple-gray, and dark washed-out purple. END ID]

Gooddonica: A revolutionary gender related to success, fame, recognition, critical acclaim, and attention. It’s also related to changing ideals and aesthetics, cognitive dissonance, inner turmoil, and trying to reconcile one’s current/previous self with new, radically different circumstances that clash with it. It may also be related to the albums and/or singles Dr. Feelgood and/or London Calling, though it doesn’t have to be.

The name is a mix of good from Feelgood, don from London, and -ica a suffix for musicagenders

The colors are inspired by my associations with the vibe of this term, as well as the covers of the related albums

This was for the eleventh day of my coining event! Prompt: Dr. Feelgood (Motley Crue) // London Calling (The Clash)

Suggested Names and Pronouns 🔽🔽🔽

Pronouns:

Acclaim/Acclaim/Acclaims/Acclaims/Acclaimself

Clash/Clash/Clash/Clash/Clashself

Doc/Doctor/Doctor/Doctors/Doctorself

Doct/Doctor/Doctor/Doctors/Doctorself

Doctor/Doctor/Doctor/Doctors/Doctorself

Doctor/Doctor/Doctors/Doctors/Doctorself

Fame/Fame/Fames/Fames/Fameself

Feel/Feelgood/Feelgoods/Feelgoods/Feelgoodself

Feelgood/Feelgood/Feelgoods/Feelgoods/Feelgoodself

I/Ideal/Ideals/Ideals/Idealself

Ide/Ideal/Ideals/Ideals/Idealself

Ideal/Ideal/Ideals/Ideals/Idealself

In/Inner/Inner/Inners/Innerself

Inn/Inner/Inner/Inners/Innerself

Inner/Inner/Inner/Inners/Innerself

Inner/Inner/Inners/Inners/Innerself

Lon/London/Londons/Londons/Londonself

London/London/Londons/Londons/Londonself

Rev/Revolution/Revolutionar/Revolutionars/Revolutionself

Rev/Revolution/Revolutions/Revolutions/Revolutionself

Revo/Revolution/Revolutionar/Revolutionars/Revolutionself

Revo/Revolution/Revolutions/Revolutions/Revolutionself

Revol/Revolution/Revolutionar/Revolutionars/Revolutionself

Revol/Revolution/Revolutions/Revolutions/Revolutionself

Revolution/Revolution/Revolutionar/Revolutionars/Revolutionself

Revolution/Revolution/Revolutions/Revolutions/Revolutionself

Names:

Cess

Crue

Doc

Feelgood

London

Lonny

Moi

Moira

Nance

Nancy

Rad

Raddy

Rev

Revo

Revolution

11 notes · View notes

expendablemudge · 10 months

Text

BEGIN THE WORLD OVER, what happens if other hands hold the keys to the world, via AK Press. My 4.5* #BookRecommendation says it's great for #Booksgiving:

2 notes · View notes

planetsstarsandmoons · 2 years

Note

hi dear :) just saw that you wanted to practice reading birth charts so here’s mine:

oh and off topic but i think that the synastry between you and your crush is very cute and has a lot of great potential!

take care and stay safe 🤍

Thank you so much sweetie! ☀️☀️

So I see your mars in the second house of value and in capricorn. Very much a go getter aspect for earning money and a creer ! It corresponds greatly with your taurus moon in fifth. Your emotional ‘relaxing’ world, your inner child comes forth when you’re having fun, like doing leisure activities. In taurus, ruled by venus, it flourishes when you’re relaxing, indulging in beauty and coming to rest on a say vacation or fun trip to enjoy. You’d be the ideal person to have a very serious and high end corporate career and enjoy your yearly bonus in the bahamas. You’d be the ideal person to live that life, completely fulfilled unlike some others who were pretty much born to not fit into that scheme kind of scheme. Your mars is focused on ‘getting that bag’, your moon is focused on really just enjoying herself, and together they live in harmony in this perfect exact trine. Your libra sun in your tenth (!!) house trine your saturn creates this perfect charming and professional individual you’d like your company be introduced to. Your mercury in libra in eleventh makes you great at diplomatic small talk. All i’m saying is that you’d be the perfect CEO😂 fair and agreeable, but really about the business, which will create a square tension with your mars, but I believe in this case it will be good tension. Your uranus and lilith in third house make you voice certain revolutionar ideas that are sharp, interesting and make a lot of impact. And you know how to make those ‘rebellious’ thoughts into action and agreement, and overal the discipline to make them work with uranus trining saturn. That makes us 2002 kids (more or less) a funny year with not as much typical ‘youth culture’ but revolutionary social media posts that happened to inspire thousands of people to become activists, in just a simple few characters. This what I’m talking about in our generation, coincides a lot with those points like lilith and uranus falling in the third house, which makes those young people sag risings with pluto in first. Very magnetic individuals with a lot of ‘all or nothing’ style in their way of being. Optimistic sag plutonians with an almost intrusively expansive power to teach and educate anyone anywhere. Your chart ruler jupiter is in your 8th house and your venus is in the house op jupiter, the ninth, in virgo which is ruled by chiron and mercury. You have that notorious BDE and knowledge thirst 😂 To travel and gain understandings of the world. You might be somewhat of an intellectual even! I bet you’d love backpacking around the south of asia, getting to know every single culture and eating with strange people and learning all about foreignity, but the thing that’s stopping you fear of getting bedbugs bugs or getting sick from eating street food.. I also see mars apart from trining your moon exactly, opposing your jupiter exactly and that jupiter is sextiling that moon exactly! With mars opposing jupiter, you may feel that whatever it is your after and you’re passionate about/you’ve achieved, it’s never enough. Another great career woman aspect 😂 god. This can be a good thing, but I also see this aspect in a lot of men who cheat in their relationships and are womanizers. That trining and sextiling your moon, also with a venus trining your moon wider, there’s a lot that you can love and like that moves you, that can really nurture that emotional world in the fifth house of yours. You might fall in love easily because you feel passionate easily, and you might come to a point in your life where going after something will mean building a whole new emotional base skeleton and leaving your old ground behind, and you will feel it’s worth it. Leaving that job for another one, moving to another country, falling in love with a different person and then divorcing, you’re a person who gets easily inspired to make such radical movements. It may be hard on your psyche, because humans can’t really choose what they feel.

Now you goal in life: your north node is conjunct your path of fortune, both in cancer and the seventh house. Now I’m not telling you to find a husband and get married and be like a mooney cancer to fulfill your spritual path, instead find a sense of guardianship and sensitivity in the things you care about. Create that long lasting relationship that has an actual impact on your life. Work is not the only thing that takes work. Relationships and family do too! And paying attention to taking on those qualities will bring you success and fulfillment in life 💞💖

I love to see a chart with a lot of aspects. I think it creates a dynamic person with a lot of vibe and stuff to discover. 🦋🦋

6 notes · View notes