Good example of the goals of homeschooling and private religious schools. An army of ignorant sycophants at your beck and call
I listen to certain podcast uhumh people and they're falling over themselves for home schooling. And school vouchers.
And I'm over here pissed that the only way I can at least give my kid a chance at a decent school education is to go private. Our public schools have been systematically eroded to the point of barely being called daycare so the only way to give my kid a chance to actually learn is a private school that has the resources and small class sizes.
Imo, education should not be paywalled. Everyone should have equal access to quality education and not just "memorize these facts" and "be a good worker for the overlords" but actually be encouraged to think and understand the world as it is and how it can be
Education should be funded at least as well as our neverending war machine we call the armed forces. War against ignorance would make the world a much better place
Because they're achieving the privatization of the public education system and re-building segregation.
Don't listen. They consider a set of listening ears a win, and so do the ones advertising on that platform.
“The American school system is failing you.”
“I was homeschooled dimwit.”
“Literally proving my point.”
“(rage)”
I've met a decent amount of homeschooled kids, and though most were "smart" none were really knowledgeable about most things.
Shit I was homeschooled and I tend to keep that on the DL just due to the stigma lol. Really sucks that fundies like this ruin something that can really be beneficial for some kids. I'd stress the worst offenders of homeschooling stem from religious fundamentalism and it can be done very successfully in a secular household.
We homeschooled our kids while we lived in Utah simply to avoid the religious fundamentalism. But we definitely also knew religious people who “homeschooled” their children, who ended up completely unable to read at age 10. Turns out spending time with the pigs doesn’t constitute a well-balanced education.
turns out spending time with the pigs doesn't constitute a well-balanced education
it genuinely can, but you might need to take notes when its time to butcher one.
As someone who wasn't home schooled, can you explain what the benefit is when the goal isn't to indoctrinate your kids into believing exactly what you want them to believe, especially when those beliefs go against societal norms?
Because that seems to be the only purpose from those I've seen even entertaining the idea of homeschooling, though luckily those acquaintances require dual incomes and didn't have the time.
I ask this sincerely. Because it seems like if you want a better education than public school offers, supplementing their normal school with additional home lessons seems better for their socialization, and gives the best of both worlds.
I can see an argument if the kids have special needs that aren't being met at school, or insulation from extreme bullying. But both of those seem to lead to a rude awakening when they're eventually forced into the real world.
Well for background my wife was public schooled and did pretty well. Honors, AP classes, extracurriculars, good grades,etc. Ultimately she still felt held back while also having similar concerns to me with how public school can shape a child, and we ultimately discussed this over the years candidly before having kids and came to the conclusion that we would try homeschooling. Our state partially contributed to that decision, similar to the other user's reply mentioning being in Utah.
I don't want to put down teachers or public schools because I do believe they have a positive benefit of lifting these boats but let's also be clear: they're very much a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all institution. They don't do well with outliers. The very notion of these institutions seemed born more out of the fact that our system needed child daycare to maintain an adult workforce undistracted from raising kids. I'll rapid-fire some of our bigger reasons for choosing to homeschool our kids:
Public School tends to be where creativity and passion go to the die. My wife (the smarter better half) talked about this. She suffered serious burnout and as a result by the time college came around lost a lot of interest despite her being very book-smart and having photographic memory. She always admired my own passion and curiosity for knowledge by contrast.
Peer-pressure, band-wagoning fallacies are potent. In public school there very much exists this Blind-Leading-the-Blind mentality that shapes right from wrong — popular from unpopular. That can be extremely detrimental and crippling especially to those who tend to be outsiders by default. When you have fellow children dictating norms more so than adults, that can set up an extremely toxic environment.
And that's reflected in rising adolescent suicidal/homicidal rates. And while I'm here and despite the statistical improbability I'd be remiss if I didn't say we had concern for school shootings just the same. It should be noted that my own mom pulled my older sister from school because of bullying and sexual harassment and that's where it all began for the rest of us. (I should point out that at the time my household was religious, though I wouldn't go so far as to say fundamentalist. We've all since changed from conservative religious Republicans to progressive leftist non-religious Democrats... Well except one of my siblings).
Related to the former, there tends to be less adult oversight and less dedicated attention. In Public schools you get 1:15 or 1:30 teacher-student ratios; with homeschooling you have a PARENT who cares more about your future than any teacher would in a 1:1-4 ratio, generally. And again not to downplay what teachers do, but the vast majority of grade-school work isn't post-graduate by definition... There are well-established curricula and teaching methods that can be used as templates. And in this day, it's easier than ever with massive resources that weren't even fully available to my generation: state resources, supplementary cyber-school programs, robust libraries, etc.
While there isn't a ton of data out there, what does exist seems to show that homeschooled kids do tend to perform above-average both academically in life satisfaction. I'll dig up my sources of these for those further interested. There is a lot of concern about socialization, which you can still get by becoming involved in local communities, get into team sports, martial arts, improv/theater, volunteer work, etc. Ultimately I think there is just as much risk to public school teaching the wrong kind of social skills as opposed to learning the good kind.
Do I think homeschooling is for everyone? No. And that applies not just to the uniqueness of the child but also the circumstances and willingness of the parents. On the flip-side, I don't believe public schooling is for everyone either. I don't think I would've done well, but I do think someone like my sister would have. There are particular advantages in precision-targeting education to interests and personality. Catering to adhd, autism, social sensitivities, etc.
We want our kid to be surrounded by adults who love them; to be role-models rather than the loudest biggest kid in their classroom. We want our kids to maintain their passion for curiosity and learning and to grow in their own unique way without being forced into a one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter box often found in public schools.
To your final point that often gets raised about, "preparing for the real world," the "real world" is QUITE different from public school, which can feel like an inescapable prison for many kids. Why? Because they have no agency as an adolescent. They are forced to go back to their hell-hole every day and not even have a modicum of protection from the school who tends to look the other way. Meanwhile your own parents have very limited capacity to help you.... But when you're an adult... At least there's a level of decorum even for those bullies who grow up... And at least you have the capacity to say fuck-you in most cases and ghost someone, leave your job, and so forth. A child doesn't have nearly the same agency, which is what makes school so difficult for many. And sure, some come through the other side despite severe bullying successfully, but I'd caution against making a survivor-bias fallacy.
Hopefully this gives a little insight into our perspective even if you may not necessarily agree personally.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
I think I understand where you're coming from, and it seems to me that being an active parent gives a lot of those same benefits. And learning how to redirect and navigate difficult and/or adverse social situations is certainly a skill that's used daily in the real world.
But I do see your point that isolated, controlled nurturing is almost definitely better than the worst case scenario of extreme bullying, particularly if the child isn't able to cope to come out the other side.
I'd also argue that philosophy could also subconsciously teach your kid to run from adversity, even imagined adversity that hasn't materialized.
But in the end, it's your choice as a parent. Your reasons are respectable, and I hope your kids turn out better for it!
No problem, thanks. Yeah we'll see. Both our kids are still pretty young so we're only on the cusp of diving fully into it, but I think I've learned a lot from my own experience on where to improve in this 2nd generation. Either way, we're not opposed to trying something different if it doesn't seem to be working out, be it private or public school. We're also very lucky that our circumstances give us the capacity to do this when I know many parents are just trying to make ends meet on dual incomes unfortunately.
Isn't the idea that your kid is special and unique blinding yourself in front of your public school?
I don't know what public schools are in the US. I know in France that diversity means a lot to how successful it is for everyone. That you need both silver spoon fed kids and poor kids in a classroom for the whole society to get greater out of everyone's ability. Fail to do this and you'll only feed segregation. France is now quite high in reproducing inequalities because of how it decreased diversity in school.
So I don't know about US public schools, and I expect them to be quite bad. But I know for a fact that if you arz good parents you can have your kid in public school, and both your kid and school, and thus society as a whole, benefit from it.
Ultimately what you're describing is that you like individualism and you like how to can both profit from and participate to it. It is a cultural problem in your country imo. And it is contaminating mine. Which makes me sad eventhough I have no kids.
In my view I don't think teaching individualism is mutually-exclusive from teaching tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Sure I think conservatives have led the misconception that these are, but that's not my view. To the contrary my family turned toward diversity despite my own parents being pretty low-educated, rural, religious blue-collar Republicans. Empathy was highly emphasized in my household mostly thanks to my mother and as a result I'm ardent progressive-leftist fighting for everyone's rights. I do agree that at a societal level that we of course benefit from diversity; the "Melting Pot of America" — the huddled masses yearning to breathe free scribed below France's gift, Lady Liberty, is after all a part of our identity.
For my kids I'll get them involved in all sorts of extracurricular activities that will allow them to interact with all backgrounds; but I won't put them in a situation where they feel trapped in an inescapable hell, for some of our schools can be pretty brutal. We plan to get them enrolled into community college a bit earlier, too, allowing them to earn college credits and get used to a classroom environment ahead of university.
I don't think you get my point. Sure, you did educate your children the best you could, and for the best goal of humanism. But you did so beside your society. That means that, at your core, you believe you are better than your society, AND you think your children are better learned OUT of it.
This is individualism at its core. You go the lone wolf path if it means it can ensure the better for your own tribe. At the expense of the society as a whole.
This is a self feeding cycle. Society will get worse and worse while some lineages of individuals will get better. That's how the liberal neo-feudalism is born.
I'm not blaming you. You do what you think is the best for your children in a society that pushes for this choice with all its strength. I'm merely trying to explain where it leads.
Individualism and Collectivism can coexist in my view. Again, I simply do not buy the premise that this is an either-or situation whereby I consider myself above society in all things; simply that in this narrow domain, I do believe I can do better with my child. Is that always the case? Of course not.
Naturally both pure individualism and pure collectivism carry their own risks and it's an endless pursuit of perfection for a society to find the right balance between the two.
The short answer is the ability to tailor the entire learning experience to one child's specific needs and interests. For example: My sister loves cooking so for history and chemistry she got to do it from a culinary perspective.
Extra curricular activities can help supplement public education but kids still need unstructured play time, so there is a limit to how much can be added.
I know two people who thrived in a homeschooling environment, for them it was 100% the right choice. 99% of the time it is the wrong choice.
Side note: Virtual learning has created a weird third option that isn't quite public school but also isn't homeschooling. This gets mixed in with homeschooling conversations but I think it confuses things and belongs in a separate category.
Sorry for the cheap gag, but I can't help myself.
My sister loves cooking so for history and chemistry she got to do it from a culinary perspective.
Those must have been some pretty dark lessons on the Holocaust.
The American public school system is pretty bad. I don't see why any parent that has the time and ability to homeschool wouldn't do it.
Same. I tend not to mention it, especially IRL. I fucking loved it, and feel like I got a much better education than most public schools offer. But fucking fundamentalists make me feel like if someone finds out then they're going to assume I'm a cousin fucker who thinks the planet is 300 years old and that Jesus rode a dinosaur to rescue America from the communists.
I was raised young earth evangelical and home schooled K-12.
That is not a flex, I have just summarized the trauma that is defining my middle years of life as I deconstruct and unpack it - now that I recognize it as the trauma that it is.
Good on you for realizing it and working to fix it ! Unfortunately many have fallen for the lies they were fed and never will realize it.
I was sort of homeschooled. I kept getting kicked out of school for... basically civil disobedience, and dad just had enough and decided to homeschool me.
he had a masters in education, and I got all my lessons from university professors for a few years. people still think I have a LOT more formal education than I do. there were some really incredible school trips, some of which I can't even talk about without doxxing myself. I got three aquariums, and most of the backyard, and if I did anything other than routine maintenance, I had to justify what I was doing and why. if anything died that wasn't supposed to, I had to cut it open. which is great, because I was a few years behind and really needed the motivation to catch up. there was a textbook, and I paid a LOT more attention to it than I did in any class. I called my teachers for help. I was far enough ahead on humanities and tech shit, dad really just had to occasionally remind me to do critical thinking about whatever I was reading, and throw books in my general direction. he made me write a few essays, which I resented at the time. I remember the sparse geology classes (really just a couple field trips-it wasn't my whole education, and the previous year science class was geology, so there probably would have been more) I got involved a lot of rope.
I feel like I mostly wasted the opportunity, but I'm more well read than probably 95+% of the country, and was before I hit high school, where I promptly squandered my entire advantage with a year or two before dropping out, but I can still pass as having a degree in a small handful of subjects.
I agree that most parents should not be fucking home schooling their kids, but in my case, its probably the only way I got any education at all. I think every kid should get opportunities like I did, but can't really think of a way to scale it up without just generally making the world better in every way. why are we not doing that, again?
Right wing motherfuckers who froth at their mouth complaining against making ultra rich pay their fair share have annual family income of $45k
They wouldn't want to make more money because that would mean they'd have to pay a higher tax rate. Don't try to explain how tax brackets actually work because you'll just make them angry for highlighting their ignorance.
I remember having to explain to someone how overtime worked, he was convinced that any overtime was completely taxed away so there was no point. Taxes are hard.
Because all these rich people making 1000x what they make are paying taxes out the ass right. Right?
In all fairness, no one actually teaches what communism is because then everyone would be a communist.
Well 90 to 95 percent of us would be. The other 5-10 percent would be afraid to have their wealth redistributed, and would do anything they could to not let it happen. Kind of like what they do now.
Yep, that would ideal. Having to govern a vast population without leaders seems difficult. You could evoke some sort of democratic communism but that creates weak chains where corruption can take hold like in our current situation.
Just to be clear, when you say "socialized capitalism" you mean capitalism, but with a welfare state?
The system currently burning the world to death with no particular sign of actually changing course.
Not endorsing the system, but I think a certain global superpower seems to have missed the memo on the welfare state part.
Tell me if I get off course but some bullet points:
Resources are not limitless.
Unrestrained capitalism always leads to consolidation of control over finite resources and exploitaton of other individuals.
Limiting opportunities for individual development is negative to the society.
Individuals in the society are a distribution of variable abilities.
So....
Governments role in a well regulated market would be:
Limit consolidation of resources by any individual providing equal access for responsible use.
Preserve resources by limiting and regulating their use.
Provide equal opportunity for all individuals to engage in the market.
Provide a support network for all individuals to allow them to take reasonable risks.
Pretty much my thinking, but it shouldn’t even be necessary to mandate “limit consolidation of resources”. We do need wealth to be attainable, as the driving factor of capitalism, however the other factors you list would have the limiting affect if they were implemented.
Also, one of the goals of such a government needs to be “for the benefit of its citizens”. Every choice of a well-run government to regulate capitalism needs to be “for the benefit of its citizens”, and most failures in actual governments are when they don’t follow this
The main problem I see with this approach is regulatory capture. If you allow individuals to consolidate resources even slightly then they begin to form 2 distinct classes, the owners and the workers, where one is economically advantaged. Even in a democratic society that economic advantage allows the owning class to exert greater influence and nudge things in their favor. This has a snowball effect until you end up where we are now, a bourgeois democratic government that functions exclusively for the owning class.
It’s all a matter of degree: it’s the excessive inequality that results in excessive advantage. I’m all for reducing the inequality gap (a lot) but there does need to be one for capitalism to work.
As a prime example with income taxes in the US, most people prefer it be progressive.
you're describing bolshevik/bismarckian state 'socialism', a conservative compromise/trick/ratfucking that generally starts by executing all the communists, like the bolsheviks did. bismarck specifically talks about how he did this on purpose to keep actual communism from blooming out of these huge mutual aid projects that were happening.
the short version is: the workers own the means of production. individually or collectively. so the steel workers own the steel mill. the seamstress owns her serger. the plumber owns his wrench and snake. just that, and it all exists for the good of everybody, with everybody acknowledging that they can't do it on their own, or offering a lot of public entertainment by trying to.
there's a bunch of forks from there, and ways to make this function and eliminate the frictions, but that's all communism is. some proposals still even include markets (though im not a fan), some are regional, some federated in a bunch of different ways, some are centralized, some are radically decentralized, some are 'return to monkey', some require cutting edge technology for communication and collaboration (a cool example of that from the 70s is called cybersyn, which was, like, kick starting the star trek future in chile before everyone involved was hunted down and killed by CIA proxies, except two guys who were out of the country, one of whom was literally taping a debate about it for the CBC at the time, which got REALLY awkward for his conservative opponent)
What you described is socialism; a communist society would also be a stateless, classless, and moneyless society.
to be fair; I am generally angry, and can't prove im not a bot.
but I think looking at it in terms of 'government' and 'decay'. it may seem pedantic, but 'coordination' and 'adaptability' are much much better ways of thinking about it.
Communism depends on the people on top not being greedy fucks who will just keep the power instead of distributing it. Humans aren't like that. We're greedy for power and we won't share it from the top down.
Socialism is much better as it works within the confines of the established system and just wants to alter it. Communism work on paper but humans are the part of the plan that doesn't work. By the way I say this as a survivor of a murderous, Communist regime.
The workers run things. The crazy idea is thinking that society can't run without trust fund brats who contribute nothing while siphoning away 90% of the resources.
Millions of people can't run things? It seems pretty clear by now that small groups of people especially can't be trusted to run things. You've got to hear about this thing they call democracy. It's the tits. It can balance precariously, but it's the most free way to live.
The idea isn't to have too many cooks. If management is required, workers elect them from among their ranks. They serve for a term or two, then get replaced and go back to being workers. The workers can impeach them by vote. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to fire your lousy boss? Doesn't that make a lot of sense? The point is that nobody should ever be allowed on top for too long. Management should not be a position considered on top of others. The workers must have the final say in how a company and a government are run.
The only reason a few people are allowed to become fabulously wealthy and powerful is because we never established democracy in the workplace. The workers owning the means of production is the most basic principle of communism. Communism cannot exist as a dictatorship, it's antithetical to it. Communism is radical democracy at all levels.
Correct, which is why communism is a bottom up system.
Sorry you've been propagandized to believe otherwise.
I was raised under a communist regime, so it's not propaganda but reality that showed me humans make communism impossible.
I depends what you mean in particular.
I'll preface this by saying I self identify as a socialist (I say self-identity, as I have not read specific books on the topics of communism and socialism. Think what you will of this), and believe in from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
However, communism has become a bit of a loaded word where I feel myself both defending it from people on the right, and feeling weird about communists calling for communism (well, especially the two things below).
This is because of some of the variants I think are a bit generous in their belief that people won't act selfishly:
Anarcho-communism? Sure, if you believe in fairies and that every single self-governing group will uphold the social contract with every single other self-governing group and not raid their shit. I hate to say, but I think at our current population levels, we need some kind of state to have a monopoly on violence, which the people as a collective have meaningful control over. Anarchism was only possible when there weren't as many people, and let's be real, I'd prefer not to worry that another group might attack us...
No money? I think this is just a recipe for corruption where managers wield influence over the production they oversee for personal gain. Money is just a useful symbol for value which can be exchanged. I'm for "no money" in the sense things which ought to be subsidised should be free, public transport, healthcare etc. However I think it would be truly dumb to make everything free, because it would reduce people's choices, in a world where we have finite resources but unlimited desires.
If we are each given equitable money (i.e. I'm not entirely against people earning more or less, for example if you have to work a job where you necessarily need to be away from friends and family) then some things ought to cost money so that the people who want something most will pay more. And prices could be guided partially by demand, or public policy as appropriate. The profit would be redistributed to the people.
Else you're left with a system where you're waiting years to get a car, it's a lottery, or more likely corruptly given to some over others.
I think I do want communism, in general, but the specifics, remains to be seen. I don't agree that everyone would be a communist if they knew what communism is, because communists themselves also don't agree on the specifics, it would seem.
As an Anarchist I'm irresistibly compelled to respond to this in order to spread propaganda. (Sorry for the ramble I don't know how to write concisely.)
To start I don't use communism, democracy or even socialism to refer to my beliefs. I use anarchy. That's because anarchy in my mind is concrete. no-archy. against hierarchy. Even though anarchy does follow the classical definition of communism, and is socialism, as in worker-owned means of production. These words are unnecessary as anarchy does the trick. And communism has too much bloody history to most people, me included.
Anarchy is not possible in the current cultural space. Anarchy requires a complete transformation of all parts of society, including culture. A lot of your problems come from having underlying archic (hierarchical/capitalist) beliefs. For an anarchist society to succeed these beliefs must be abandoned.
This is because of some of the variants I think are a bit generous in their belief that people won't act selfishly:
This is a comprehensive answer on a popular FAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca215
Anarcho-communism? Sure, if ...
This entire paragraph is based in tribalism. An inherent idea that people belong to distinct groups that compete with each-other. It is one of those archic beliefs that I mentioned. There are many different responses to this but I believe in federation (Thanks to this video: https://youtu.be/lrTzjaXskUU timestamp 36:44). This system envisions the anarchist society not as distinct groups but a large number of intersecting groups. No group would "raid" other groups because they have friends in all those groups. On top of that everyone in an anarchist society should be educated enough to understand that everyone in the society has a role to play and hurting them is hurting the society which is in turn hurting them.
On your opinions on money. It seems you do not understand how an anarchist economy would function. In anarchy you wouldn't buy something, you would order it from the person or co-op who makes those things. Generally used items like food and clothes would probably be available for free, but anything requiring construction would be ordered. This allows you to receive a completely personalized item. Otherwise people would just work for no reason and end up with things they don't need. I don't see any point in producing an item just so it would sit on a shelf somewhere. There might be a small storage for conveyor-produced items in order to reduce order times, but in general retail wouldn't need to exist.
Also due to your usage of "managers wield influence" I can see you haven't read any socialist theory as in socialism and anarchism the managers are responsible to the workers. If they are acting in corrupt ways that's because the workers don't care enough to uncover it and change the manager. And when it comes to "oversee production for their own personal gain" I am left wondering what personal gain would that be. without money there is no incentive to hoard and if that personal gain is abusive then it will be discovered and the manager changed.
Else you're left with a system where you're waiting years to get a car,
The fact that you think cars are a thing in a socialist society again reveals your inexperience. Cars are a fundamentally capitalist construct that have no use in socialist societies.
finite resources but unlimited desires.
The unlimited desires (that I'm interpreting as material as spiritual and mental desires don't need resources) are exactly the thing that anarchy seeks to destroy. It is a poisonous mindset cultivated by capitalism that leads to catastrophe (for example look out the window). It is incompatible with continued existence and the destruction of it in an individual is the first step towards anarchism. It was made with the specific need to fuel the hyper-consumerism of the modern age. You get told from everywhere that you need more stuff. Understanding that you don't is fundamental to all anti-capitalist thought.
I want to suffix this post with a point that if any of this comes across as rude then that was not my intention. The points made reflect my own ideas and opinions and other anarchist will have their own. I hope you consider what I wrote (and again sorry for the rambling.)
I appreciate your response, and will respond fully later. Edit before I post: turns out later is immediately when I started typing. (Again, very much appreciate your engagement)
But just quickly wanted to get in that I very much dislike cars, just a convenient example because of cars being notoriously long to get in the Soviet union.
Which I recognise was not a anarchist project.
I want to preface this, this is all with the assumption that any system has successfully met all the fundamental basic needs of health, shelter and food, and is no longer capitalist.
Your proposed system isn't even anarchy to me though, a federalised system? Smells a lot like a an archy to me. Freely associated groups, who set rules amongst themselves? Doesn't sound very anarchist at all, sounds quick democratic if you ask me, though that might be my bias talking.
Sure, Europeans states are free to do what they want, with certain restrictions they agree to by being part of the EU. This reeeeealy doesn't scream anarchy to me (replacing states for freely associated smaller groups). Plus, I don't really think being able to up and leave it a great way to run a overall society anyway, as sometimes disagreements will not be settled by the groups in question, and the rest of the larger federated group will need to enforce the consensus. Is this anarchy? Really feels like some kind of democracy to me.
(I invite you to correct misconceptions, in your view, as I am cognisant I may be straw-manning you here due to misunderstanding. I have no yet read the long FAQ you linked)
No group would "raid" other groups because they have friends in all those groups.
I would suggest groups wouldn't necessarily need to stay in one place, of course no one wants to hurt friends. Go a couple hundred kms down the road, steal some shit. Yes, most people won't, I wouldn't. Even fewer people would if hypothetically their needs have been met. But there will be people who will. How will we deal with this?
Let's say I accept federated groups are "anarchist", which I don't, what is to stop other federated groups coming to raid your federated groups stuff. (Yes this is tribalism, but let's be real here, if your system relies on everyone letting go of tribalism, and being educated you're never going to achieve it, there will be dumb people, there will be some subset of tribally minded people, or people who have different aims that the majority. A hypothetical: you're from a federated group from an area with fewer natural resources (more on how I think a moneyless ordering system would not work, and would fail to adequately distribute finite resources later), you're having a laugh if you there's no chance they would organise an army to get more resources.
If they do, is your group gonna organise an army in time? Else, you already have standing army? How are you going to play your part as the federated group, by sending someone from your collective? What if your collective has no one willing to be a soldier, hmmm wouldn't it be great if we had some way to compensate people for their time so that you can specialise in a large federated group of people. If you have a standing, paid army, and all the other groups are keeping all the other groups to their word and pulling their weight, this does not feel like anarchy to me. That's a federated democratic state.
On ordering things. I'm not capitalist, it's a stupid system, but supply and demand aren't made up things we can leave behind in a post capitalist world. There will be stuff that is more desirable and people will want it more. How exactly do anarchists propose allocating these things fairly. First in best dressed? That will mean long waits for some things, and none for others. This is silly because people have different wants, and value things differently.
Money is great. It's just accounting, and allows for greater personal choice (in a hypothetical post-capitalist world where amassing wealth is made impossible).
I have $x, I'm gonna spend most it on dance classes, because I really like that, and barely any on clothes, because I'm not a fashionista. Others might spend more on nicer food, but hate dancing.
Some options with moneyless ordering the things you need, without money
Money also seems necessary, because while there are many jobs (including mine, I'd do mine) which are fine to do, I think there are some jobs who should get paid more. Working unsocialable hours at a bar? I think you ought to get paid more for that. Air traffic control at 3 AM. Yep more money. Working in sewer work? Yeah, I think you should get paid more.
How, exactly, are you gonna deal with that without money? Just hope people are willing to do the necessary jobs? Let people work however much they want, okay, now we have a worker shortage in XYZ undesirable area. Nah, pay them more, enough so there are enough people to do the job. Sounds like your federated group needs to get together and decide how to fairly pay these people hmmmm. Gonna need to enforce that, smells a lot like regulation :O
Small freely associating groups are no longer possible we have cities of millions. And people will disagree, absolutely no doubt about that. Are you suggesting breaking those up into smaller groups to be managed entirely separately? Sounds like a nightmare at city scale. And if you hand wave it away to say, oh we can set up larger structures to freely associate city wide rules, well, again this doesn't exactly smell like anarchy to me, unless any part of the city can just go, nah, we don't want to associate with you, we want our lovely park to ourselves now, if you're then enforcing them to do something when they don't want to (not blocking off their neighbourhood), it doesn't really feel like anarchism, (to me) it feels like democracy.
If you're suggesting keeping groups of millions, are you seriously suggesting not having a police force? Not having courts? Like, I'm not in the US, and I get how bad cops are there (and somewhat generally elsewhere), but what, you think crimes are only committed by people in poverty (which is a large part, sure).
Generally, most people are good, would have little to no reason to commit violent crimes in a socialist/communist world, but, there will be some level of violent crime, for which you would need some system to deal with fairly. And you will need to enforce it on those who don't agree. Else what, dude across the city negligently caused my friends death, but doesn't think it's his fault, and his group also doesn't think so. What are we going to do, politely agree to disagree? Or, is it then gonna have to be taken to some justice system all the groups agreed to. What if the group really decides not to play ball, and they control vital infrastructure? Threaten to leave the federation if they don't get their way?
Hate to tell you, family is a kind of tribe, and you cannot be claiming people won't be tribal in the future.
I would say, it's something to be managed and controlled for, and I don't think anarchy would do it.
This was a ramble, I will get around to reading the FAQ haha, hope you enjoy rebutting my not very well laid out arguments!
Glad to see I'm not the only one having rambling problems. Hope you're ready for a swim (of an alphabetic variety).
But just quickly wanted to get in that I very much dislike cars, just a convenient example because of cars being notoriously long to get in the Soviet union.
the soviet union is the primary reason why I shy away from communism (technically state capitalism but that doesn't matter).
any system has successfully met all the fundamental basic needs of health, shelter and food, and is no longer capitalist.
I'm using the word capitalist the classical (marx) sense of private ownership of the means of production. Companies are capitalist and coops are socialist. one is privately owned, the other collectively.
<sidenote> Yes. Soviet Union was capitalist. state ownership isn't socialism, only collective ownership is, and just calling them collectives is not collective ownership. </sidenote>Freely associated groups, who set rules amongst themselves? Doesn't sound very anarchist at all, sounds quick democratic
Why? If there are no hierarchical structures, Eg the rules are made collectively, why would it not be anarchism? On the democratic part I would say that without majority rule, which is still rule and thus would be opposed by anarchists, it shouldn't be called democracy as the original meaning of the word is "people rule".
Sure, Europeans states are free to do what they want, with certain restrictions they agree to by being part of the EU.
States are fundamentally archic structures, and the EU is even more archic. They are all managed top-down. You have someone at the top of the pyramid who says what will be done. That's archy. That's vertical organisation.
Anarchy is managed differently, through horizontal organisation. Instead of choosing people who will have power over you, you use your own social potential to build collective power to resist the archic power. I view anarchy as a fluid machine. Like a water bubble in 0g. The parts of the machine (people) can move around and bounce off of each-other which changes the shape of the machine. Every cog shapes the machine to fit them. Archy is a machine made of steel someone comes along, sets up the shape, and if a gear doesn't fit they get ground to dust. Anarchy is chaotic organisation. It doesn't do in-groups and out-groups, instead seeing the world as a single group, and empowering everyone in that group to find their place. In such conditions any harmful activity is completely pointless.
Bad people will always exist. But archy rewards bad behaviour by allowing them to get to the top. Anarchy is nothing more than saying "people are imperfect, so no-one should have the right to rule, as every ruler will make mistakes".
On the topic of defence. There is no need to have centralized defence. decentralized defence forces can work wonders. If someone comes and attacks your group the entire group will defend itself. Why should it fall on anyone specific. There are many ways to defend and an anarchist group would encourage everyone to defend the group in their own way.
supply and demand aren't made up things we can leave behind in a post capitalist world.
Maybe supply and demand aren't, but economics are: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionC.html#secc12. (If you didn't notice the AFAQ has different sections, The complete A4 PDF is 3077 pages)
Money is great. It's just accounting, and allows for greater personal choice
Money is one of the foundations of archy. as soon as you have a concrete number that is associated with a single person those people have power and authority over those with a smaller number. You can't have a fair society with money. And if everyone's basic needs are met then why do you even need it. how can you have an economy if people can just opt out of it.
Small freely associating groups are no longer possible we have cities of millions.
Why? Computers have allowed people to stay connected to hundreds of people. And even though it's currently used to incentivise consumerist isolationism, it doesn't have to be. Why do you think that millions of groups of millions of people can't work without some centralized oversight? I would say they would work better because they won't have the bottlenecks of centralisation. Why can't every apartment block be a commune? Why can't the chef that lives next door make the meals for all of you? Why can't the cleaner clean all of your appartments? Why can't that truck driver bring the chef fresh produce from the farmer he's known for 20 years so all of you can eat and be merry? Why can't that work in a city of millions? If an apartment block doesn't have a chef someone who wants to go to the nearby school and learn. Why does society need to be made up of people who don't know each-other, doing everything they can to screw over everyone else because that's how you get ahead in life? AND WHY SHOULD WE LIVE IN A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES IT? That's all archy is. Means for awful people to screw over others. If not everyone is good then no-one is capable of rule.
are you seriously suggesting not having a police force? Not having courts?
ABSOLUTELY! ACAB! (Originally an anarchist slogan until it's mainstream adoption during BLM) The police are professional bullies, no matter what shape they take. If the responsibility of the enforcement of rules falls on a single group, that group makes the rules. Law enforcement should be the duty of everyone. you see something doing something you think is wrong, go up to them and tell them to stop. If other people are around ask them what they think is going on. no-one else is responsible for your safety but yourself, by keeping others safe. Tit-for-tat. By protecting those around you, you're creating a culture of mutual protection so when you're in trouble that culture will help you. The courts and police were not meant to protect people. They were made to protect property and the ruling class. The only reason they protect people is because the people that threaten the ruling class often threaten normal people as well. (Also the facade of justice gives them plenty of bootlickers) For every person that got justice out of the courts there is another that got screwed over. For every woman that sent their abuser to jail there is another whose life was screwed owner by false allegations.
Justice does not come from books and laws. but from the reactions of people. in a communal justice system the shame of being outed is far more motivating for not committing crimes than fear of jail. Just look at how effective christian rule was during the medieval ages.
Anarchy is about creating a culture that opposes archy. A culture that makes the security of all the people the responsibility of all the people. A culture that ensures everyone has a place in society that they have chosen, not been pushed into. A culture that doesn't assume anyone needs to be governed.
To me anarchy is the society of kindness. Where the power consolidates among those that gain the most respect. Respect that, if abused, will be taken away.
Anarchy is society in it's most complicatedly simple, chaotically ordered, and collectively individual. It's my reason to live. So I hope you can see why these ideas matter to me.
I really appreciate this thread and I feel inspired to reply. I think a lot of why anarchism is difficult to understand is because it is hard for us to imagine anything other than the "capitalist realism" that has spread to the entire world. As they say, it is the air you breathe, the water you swim in, so it can be hard to see.
So if you want to understand how anarchism can possibly work, really what you have to do is look at places where it is, in fact, actually working. Find the edges of society where affinity groups are actually doing real work in supporting the unhoused, defending marginalized and vulnerable communities, feeding and empowering one-another without any hierarchy. Look closely at the actions of Block Cop City for instance, or the Zapatistas, or Rojava. Look at how things worked in the Spanish Civil War, or Occupy Wall Street. As an added exercise, find some other examples of non-hierarchical activities and actions in your own life (you may be surprised how many there are).
Lots of hierarchy-apologists will decry these things always fail, or are only applicable in very specific contexts, but judge for yourself. There are obviously autonomous tactics that clearly work within these examples, but can you imagine them working in other contexts? How are they organizing themselves if it isn't by way of hierarchy? How are they getting things accomplished without rules and punishments? Keep an open mind, use your imagination, and you may just find yourself thinking that anarchy is indeed possible beyond these given examples.
One of the first rules of homeschool is instilling your child with a fear and hatred of the outside world.
Or a sense of superiority. Some of the biggest narcissists I've ever met were homeschooled.
Aside from the crazy Christian homeschoolers who don't want their kids taught by the evil, woke liberals and the homeschoolers whose kids were just antisocial, you get the homeschoolers who think that their children are "gifted" and need to be taught in some special way to bring out their superior abilities.
my siblings are like this. I'm embarrassed to admit to it, but they run around telling other people that their public education was shit and being homeschooled is so superior lol. i don't understand it other than maybe they're coping. I've worked hard to overcome being homeschooled and actively try to educate myself.
Some public schools absolutely are shit. And we've got a wealth of propaganda invested in selling "education as a luxury service" rather than a public utility.
The marketing strategy of homeschool sellers is to convince people that working with your PTA is a waste of time and only you know how to adequately teach your kids.
I’ve worked hard to overcome being homeschooled and actively try to educate myself
Ideally, education isn't some singular struggle, but a group effort. I've learned more and faster in small groups with a talented TA and enthusiastic professor than in any independent study.
When I was still in school some of the smartest kids I knew were originally homeschooled.
Though their parents had the clairvoyance to realize they had to go to public school at some point.
Anyway my point is it was a flex when I was in school outside of the socializing thing but those same kids generally ended up being some of the most popular within a year or two.
Seriously. I was homeschooled K-12, but in real life I only mention it when asked, and it feels embarrassing.
IMO the only time homeschooling makes sense is if your mom is a teacher that became disabled or something and it was more practical to teach you at home.
Otherwise it's just a huge waste of time and missed opportunity to make friends and learn social interactions
They're already putting the Ten Commandments in schools, and they've been strongly encouraging "under god" for decades. It already makes sense to opt out for irreligious reasons, depending on where you live.
I've been un-teaching my kids the police propaganda they all get at school. It's less work than home schooling and helps teach them to question everything, I suppose.
that's exactly it, you're letting them get exposed to the problems and helping to correct them. That's setting them up to be more critical thinkers throughout their life. It's like a mental vaccine.
Yeah, we don't have homeschooling in my country, it's just not allowed and I feel like most people would assume you are mega weird. I'd automatically assume some brainwashed maga cultist flat earther anti vaxxer.
I'm pretty sure every country allows it under special circumstances. For example I know a girl (European) whose parents were circus artists and she got home schooling during the long periods where they were touring internationally. It's just not allowed to homeschool for no reason.
I was homeschooled and like to think I am only half a shitshow, whilst unapologetically and enthusiastically supporting Harris and Walz.
*Important context, my entire immediate and extended family is far-right, including my mother who did said homeschooling. She and my brother were at Jan 6th and, I suspect, were in the Capitol. Though I have not found them on any videos.
At this point that's probably all the people they'll charge for the 2021 January 6th. They've got to get ready for the next one in 2025.
I was homeschooled K-12 and I'm definitely a shitshow... But at least my parents were just hippies, not Christians
Just gotta know where to look. Pick up hitchhikers that look like Joaquin Phoenix. And have names like Joaquin Phoenix.
Same. Pretty worried about my niece whose parents are anti-vaxx, Christian, libertarian types.
A good friend of mine was home schooled, but they did high school in the public school system. Which probably is what made the big difference in how they're a well adjusted person.
every post war consensus policy in regards to collectivizing power from the wealthy and redistributing to everyone else
Am I reading this pretentious word salad right? Is this guy saying that communism has been the political consensus in the US since the fucking WW2?
And by god is he trying to show off he has read two or three books in his life with that vocabulary.
I think he's saying that democracy (equalizing political power) has been the political consensus in the US since WW2.
And he's obviously against it.
First, that's socialism, they're not 1:1. Second, stripping wealth & power from the top and redistributing amongst the workers is a great plan. And third, Giga Chud there being the homeschooled makes perfect sense.
We keep assuming conservatives defend the rich because they think they’ll be rich someday, and, sure, they would love to be. But it’s more nuanced than that: they defend the rich because they believe the rest of us need the rich. We’d be lost without them. There should be no shame in being beneath the rich, not if the right people are rich; no shame in being a cog in the machine so long as the machine produces something beautiful. There is a real fear that everyone filling their proscribed role is the only thing keeping us from complete and total not-the-fun-kind-of anarchy. There is honor in being in your place and doing your best with it. Most especially if your place isn’t at the very bottom.
https://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/183630833477/new-episode-of-the-alt-right-playbook-called
It's said he and elsewhere that the reason non-rich people are like this is because they hold onto some delusion (consciously or subconsciously) that they could be rich one day. Something something American Dream.
fucking seriously. and just for a fraction of a second I get my hopes up every time.
Trump: "Harris is gonna take away your private health insurance."
Me: "You son of a bitch. How dare you threaten me with a good time that is clearly never going to happen."
I'm here to kick ass and teach theory and I'm done teaching theory.
Kamala "We Must Seize The Means Of Production" Harris learned hee commie pinko ways from Comrade Joe Biden.
What are you doing instead?
Edit: the answer is "nothing"; they're just trying to sound edgy or something.
im not. if they will not compromise with the left, they will not get left votes. I remember what she did to trans prisoners in california. worked with a few of them. not forgiving that. I get that this is a stalin/hitler situation, so im not going to be talking shit or boycotting blue like I was when they were using trump as a threat to get us to put biden is, edging us on fascism for their bullshit, I think she can win, but no way in hell that specific piece of shit gets my vote.
I think action that can make real change and action you can post about are mutually exclusive, unless you're really eager to be a martyr for something, and I'm no dr. king.
‘Collectivizing power from the wealthy’ also known as… democracy? Is the anti-communist just saying the quiet part out loud here?
The rich don't like actual democracy because nothing would really stop the majority of not-rich from democratically deciding to redistribute wealth and privilege toward a more egalitarian situation. Hence, anti-democratic. He's just reaching the authoritarian goal from a different angle.
The rich can't really construct democracies. At best, they like censitary/census suffrage - where voting power is weighed (proportional to) personal wealth.
I prefer the term liberals than richs. Not all richs are assholes. Some of them are humanist a'd working to make the world better for everyone at their own expanse. They are not many, and not enough definitely. But underlying the moral superiority from the material one is an important thing imo.
Some reading for you:
Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs | The World Bank Research Observer | Oxford Academic pdf
What do we mean by 'Solidarity Over Charity'? | Thoughtworks
Some watching for you:
Why There's No Such Thing as a Good Billionaire - YouTube
The Corporotisation Of Activism - YouTube
The Problem with MrBeast - YouTube
Some listening for you:
But but I thought power was supposed to be in the hands of the elected? Not some modern Aristocracy?
What ... Uh ... What are the numbers on homeschooled kids again? Three million? A year?!?
Maybe it's time to start looking at those European immigration requirements.
