Question :
Did something change after today's protests ?

"They talked about it !"

Do you want results ?

Do you want to avoid violence ?

Power of the people doesn't lie in protests.
Time for show has ended.

Call for a #GeneralStrike
Call for #Mutiny

"But... it's illegal !..."
What a joke.
Make it legal !

A General Strike is something no government or repressive apparatus can handle, nowhere, ever, never.

When it begins it becomes instantly legal, and when it ends, you won.

Since a reply guy on bsky is insisting the NYT and WaPo finally have started covering the protests (after WaPo posted this bullshit article first)...

Mainstream press won't completely ignore the protests...once they're scooped by the other papers & so big they're unable to ignore them without looking like Fox News.

I repeat: cancel your subscriptions to papers that actively support the fascists &have to be dragged into covering the protests; note ones get there first &materially support them.

If farmers can't afford potash fertilizer, it drives them to buy fertilizers from the fossil fuel industry instead.

The fossil fuel industry paid $445 million to buy an election for the GOP.

To get policies that favor Big Oil's bottom line, even if the planet fries as a consequence.

https://www.ucs.org/resources/whats-wrong-fossil-fuel-based-fertilizer

https://www.fractracker.org/2023/11/fertilizer-production-in-the-united-states-how-big-ag-is-fossil-fueled/

https://www.bhp.com/what-we-do/products/potash

What’s the Problem with Fossil Fuel–Based Fertilizer?

Massive overapplication of nitrogen fertilizer in agriculture damages soil, causes pollution, and contributes to climate change.

^{Union of Concerned Scientists}

mckenzie wark theorizes a postcapitalist (though still capitalistic and feudalistic in crucial ways) system of *vectoralism* in which a vectoralist class like the silicon valley baasskap focuses increasingly on controlling avenues of communication and coordination rather than means or sites of production, where factories increasingly cease to be as critical as centralized ownership over platforms and networks

the vectoralist class seeks to enclose and commodify the digital commons, restrict and manipulate information flows, and rent-seek atop an intellectual property regime

https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/what-happened-here-c9f/comments

What Happened Here

It's Very Simple Dialectics

^{www.unpopularfront.news}

100% As you pointed out in the comments the founders were explicitly anti-democracy (federalist #10, Madison's comments in the 2nd Constitutional debate). They were very much about protecting their class interests from "the people".

The question I have came up in the comments but got lost in the debating. How does a community practice real democracy in a way that doesn't become 3 wolves and a goat deciding what's for dinner? (Consensus comes to mind but there are practical scaling issues) The majority oppression of queer people was brought up. Patriarchy and white supremacy also come up when I hear non-anarchist leftists I respect make a case for why the state still has a protective role to play.

now the state obviously played a part in creating and maintaining those systems of power and exploitation. Many stateless societies have honored roles for lgbtqia+ people. Some of them have gender equality. It's clearly possible but trying to imagine how to get from here to there is mind boggling especially when there is so much racism, homophobia, and misogyny living in the culture. How do you imagine the first few steps?

(It's hard to tell earnest questions here from sealioning or debate-for-sport. I have no interest in debate. Should you answer, I will commit to not responding in order to listen)

@xinniw

I would start by saying that nothing can *guarantee* good outcomes or the prevention of bad outcomes.

That said, we can minimize the risk of *any* segment of society, majority or otherwise, imposing itself tyrannically by avoiding the use of institutions that facilitate tyrannical rule. If you don’t want people being able to seize power over others, then we don’t create institutions of power. People who are able to defend themselves against aggression—because there is no state attempting to monopolize violence—are much harder to rule or abuse.

I think we’re also used to the idea of stable, permanent “majorities” seeking consistent policy outcomes, as with your examples of white supremacy or anti-queer movements. But these are more artifacts of the state and its perpetuation of classes with stable identities and interests. In the absence of some central and coercive authority, peoples’ identities, interests, and *coalitions* could be much more fluid and flexible.

This is a good question and I appreciate you asking it the way you did. I don’t mind if you respond!

Content warning: USpol, Trump, poll, sarcasm Click to open/close

Content warning: USpol, Trump, poll, sarcasm Click to open/close