1.6 and 4.6 million people is an extremely small population

Respectfully I have to disagree there.

As the population scales up a centralized government is inevitable because the system has too many moving parts.

I haven’t found that to be the case in my research. Decentralized modes of society appear to scale very well as long as it is combined with federation.

To make any of this happen globally, or even just a country, you have to rely on all people behaving differently than they have for the past several thousand years. Human tribalism, selfishness, and greed were a problem way before capitalism was a thing.

While hierarchical oppressive societies have been prevalent for the past 8,000 years, new evidence shows that before that, the norm for humans were egalitarian societies, so our current path is quite an aberration from that norm. If you’d like to delve into that research yourself, you can read it for free here.

1930’s Catalonia and Rojava are very solid evidence that with the right societal structure, we can actually bring out that latent egalitarian ability of humans. People who lived through what happened in Catalonia described there being a period of acclimation to the concept of things being free, yet only taking what you need, but that once people understood that there would be more waiting for them later, they quickly adapted to living in a post-scarcity fashion. There’s a good documentary on that topic here, if you’re interested.

Are you involved in Anarchist movements to know that to be true? Because it sounds like FUD to me.

An extreme minority, perhaps, but it hasn’t been a mainstream anarchist position for a century. And accepted Anarchist theory has never in all of its history advocated for lawless chaos.

Out of curiosity, what is your own personal political worldview?

There were roughly 1.6 million participants in Anarchist Catalonia. More recently, Rojava (Kurdish Syria) has successfully operated on a decentralized/federated system heavily inspired by Anarchist theory, and that had a population of 4.6 million, with no major internal issues or strife.

Anarchist theory is, in my opinion, one of the best defenses against Cluster B people getting in positions of power. Under a centralized government, a bad actor has tremendous power, and there is often limited options for a population to counter that corruption, since it is often self-reinforcing by the system itself. As an example, to corrupt the US, corporations need only bribe a few hundred senators, and then can effectively implement self-serving laws that reinforce monopolies of power.

In a system with decentralized power where the community itself is the bedrock of power, how does an outside force effectively corrupt it? They can bribe a community’s delegates, but those can be immediately removed if corruption is perceived by the community. To make any headway, they would effectively need to bribe an entire community, which could be thousands of people, and those people would have no incentive to take those bribes if the bribe was to prop-up something detrimental to that community.

Because every position of power has so little power in a decentralized community, a Cluster B personality would have very little ability to cause damage compared to a centralized system.

Also, bear in mind that according to studies, only about 1.6% of the population has a Cluster B personality. The reason they are able to wreak so much havoc is pretty much entirely due to having centralized governments, as well as an economic system that rewards and empowers cluster B behavior, both of which work synergistically to result in the worst possible outcome for the majority.

For an Anarchist society to flurish long-term, it would also need to eliminate capitalism almost immediately, and instead replace it with universal basic rights to food, housing, healthcare, and public transportation, alongside a library and gift economy, reinforcing a society built on mutual aid.

If you’d like to see how that sort of world would look like for an average person, I’d highly suggest reading The Dispossessed.

Anarchist theory ensures power comes from the bottom up, instead from the top down. If a community wants to participate in a wider federation of other communities, they may elect delegates to perform duties on their behalf, but critically, they can be recalled at any time if they are unsatisfactory in their duties to the community. There’s also a strong emphasis on delegation, not representation. This ensures that if corruption does begin to occur, it can be eliminated quickly, and ultimately the power to do that lies with the people who would be most effected by it.

This can even be implemented militarily, as it was done during the Spanish Civil War to good effect.

That is the entire purpose of Anarchism; to remove hierarchies and instead implement a truly horizontal and egalitarian society. This was put into practice in Catalonia in the 1930’s, and from all historical accounts we have of that period, it was extremely successful. There’s also some great books on that period that goes into detail of how it operated, such as this one.

It did exist, it’s just that in the past, the real socialist revolutions were crushed by the authoritarians.

Feel free to! :D

Might wanna take this one down, OP. The Devtoolkit_api user is just an AI bot spamming bitcoin scams along with this random stuff.

Anarchists have never been for lawless chaos, that’s been put on them in a decades long smear campaign.

There was a time 100 years ago when ‘Propaganda of the deed’ was seen as a viable method toward waking up the masses, but it was quickly found to actually do the opposite of what they intended, and Anarchists today generally do not endorse such methods. I’m not ashamed of it, I’m just trying to avoid knee-jerk reactions from decades of anti-anarchist propaganda.

Anarchism+Communism is basically extreme democracy on steroids, since power is then concentrated at the bottom at a community level instead of at the top, and local decisions can be decided via consensus, and then delegated out to a wider federated society :D

Not to minimize your plight there, but that sounds like a fairly uncommon situation. The last version of OpenGL 3 was released in 2010, which was 16 years ago, so if you have a recent card that’s unable to use a version newer than that, then your driver is strictly to blame, not Blender (If Blender supports OpenGL 4.0, which was also released in 2010, that would mean it still supports 16 year old cards, such as a Geforce GTX 460, which would be pretty spectacular support and backwards compatibility. IMHO, the opposite if expecting users to constantly upgrade).

May I ask what card you have that suffers from this issue?

Either you’re describing anarchism with new words or you’ve got some really weird views.

It’s not new, I assure you. Libertarian Socialist is label that goes back to 1872. It’s often synonymous with Anarchism, which I do consider myself to be, but I sometimes use Libertarian-Socialist since it doesn’t immediately bring to mind the concept of chaos or bomb throwing that people unfamiliar with Anarchism may attribute to it.

Libertarian alone also used to refer to left-wing anarchist types, but the term was co-opted by right-wing free-market ancap type folks a while back. I’m just doing my part to reclaim it :)

I think how good of a GPU you need is almost entirely dependent on the complexity of the scene itself.

Some banks in Europe are already adopting it, and credit unions would be much more likely to as well.

Legend! If more of us chip in like that, we’ll finally have a real alternative to an increasingly locked-down and FLOSS hostile Android, and completely side step Google’s control of it.

I disagree with his assessment that we could keep capitalism if we just did some FDR stuff (it kicks the can down the road and doesn’t prevent the same circumstances we’re in now from happening again, when the planet would not be able to bear it), and it doesn’t really offer any solutions, such as solarpunk methodologies and tactics to combat these problems.

You could use the GPU to help host a peertube instance.

If a bank or preferably credit union adopts GNU Taler, they can’t realistically expect the receiver of the tokens to know who sent the tokens due go their anonymous nature. A receiver could put an info form before the GNU Taler part, but the sender could just put john doe info there.

It is truly like cash. I know in the US many banks would get weirded out if you try to deposit a large amount if cash and may report it to the IRS, but as long as its reflected in your taxes, then it should be okay.

GNU Taler, which is an anonymous (for the sender, not receiver) digital cash.

If the FSFE were to use a bank utilizing that system, the bank would not be able to request the sender’s information from them, as any person sending the donation is completely anonymous by design.

You can learn more about it over at !money@slrpnk.net