We must abolish oppressive bedtimes!!!
Wrong at every step?
- Socialism doesn’t require class abolition, though it’s a goal in transition to communism.
- Class abolition doesn’t require work abolition, only that everybody belongs to a single class which is based on ownership of MoP, simplified, if everyone works and nobody extracts rent, there is no class distinction.
- Work abolition doesn’t require bedtime abolition, there’s just straight up no causal relationship, it’s possible to have bedtimes with any regular schedule that’s not necessarily work.
- Bedtime abolition only requires school reformation so that it is less rigid — I would welcome that but it’s an area that needs to be threaded very carefully and experimentations there raise ethical questions I don’t have answers to.
Well said. inb4 “it was just a joke bro, why you so serious about everything”
Anarchists are only serious if enough of them are awake so they can like each other’s posts, otherwise they get ratioed, and it’s a joke in that case.
Anarkiddie there abolished his brain, apparently.
Had an anarchist tell me one time that having a pet is oppressive.
If you take animal liberation to its extreme, then yes
Not anarchist or vegan but i kind of agree with that. Animals are supposed to be either in the wild or fulfilling a practical function like providing food, security, pest control, transportation or labor. Not being kept as property purely for selfish entertainment and gratification. I also think zoos should not exist now that we have technology with which we can observe animals from a distance and they are no longer necessary for educational purposes.
deleted by creator
Exactly. Obviously animal welfare needs to be at the forefront of any human-nonhuman relationship (and aesthetic breeding should have been made illegal by now), but having a pet dog/cat/rodent/etc. that benefits from being fed and loved by a human is not some 1984 terror relationship.
Dogs evolved (or rather more accurately, they were selectively bred) alongside humans to fulfil specific purposes like protection from attackers and predators, or aid with pulling things or help with hunting. Same for cats whose purpose was to keep your home and your granary free of rodents. Most pets don’t do those things anymore, with some notable exceptions like sheep dogs, rescue/service dogs, etc. Those are worthwhile purposes to keep them around for. But cats surely have become redundant, no?
deleted by creator
Zoos can help with preservation of species that are at the risk of extinction by giving them extra care and medical attention, so they have some function. But yeah probably shouldn’t just imprison random animals just for the purpose of entertainment.
That would be a legitimate use, but i wouldn’t call them zoos then, i would call them “animal conservatories” or something like that.
I would like to think the compromise is just improving the conditions for animals that are pets or in zoos to a golden standard.
Zoos should be as open air, integrated and, most importantly, natural and large as possible. I think it can be a invaluably positive experience for humans to see exotic animals and interact with them where possible, and if zoo conditions were excellent I don’t think the animals would mind too too much. Most zoo conditions presently, though, I would agree are insufficient at best.
As far as pets, I mostly follow Italian Messiah. I would even be good with measures some would see as extreme, such as requiring a pet license and making a social service to ensure the quality treatment of pets (when resources for such a thing are easy to spare, of course). When pets are treated well they are often indistinguishable from family and lead very happy lives. I know our cats love us and my only treatment of them that I hate is that we don’t let them go outside (coyotes, lots of traffic, petnappers; they would be gone very fast here), and I would definitely also want a world where pets have more autonomy where possible–transitioning from cars to trains/other public transport would make a huge difference in this regard. I already think, as an example, indoor-outdoor cats are essentially free individuals who stay in houses of their own free will, to whatever extent they possess it. What you call “entertainment” or “gratification” I would call love on par with having a child, which many people also certainly have for very poor, selfish reasons–many, not all. I have seen pets (and children, but I digress) all across my life who are treated in a way that greatly disturbs me. I would like to think the goal should be ensuring proper treatment, though, not abolition, just like I would want parents to teach their kids right, not to sterilize them (minus when I’m making raunchy jokes).
I do respect your perspective and I have even been there myself at some times. But it’s a tough call to make. Which is worse, being trapped in a confined area or dying of disease and swallowing a bone? Which is better, complete freedom or human love? How exactly emotional and intelligent are animals (I’m definitely not saying zero)? The ethics of either can be argued for.
I am uncomfortable with the concept of loving a living being that you consider property. Regardless how comfortably a slave lives, they are still a slave, no? Plenty of slave owners said they “loved” their slaves. Some maybe genuinely thought they did.
That’s why for me it is important to draw a distinction between humans and animals and why i find the comparison with children disturbing. I do not own my child, they are not my property. If animals are to be property then they are not “family”.
I know it’s clichee but don’t you think the expression “if you love them, set them free” applies?
I can respect that perspective. For me it’s different because most animals are not very smart. We certainly don’t give a 4 year old child the same freedom as a 17 year old child, for example. That being said, I do agree that I think animals should be given as much autonomy as they can. But it’s hard when, in many parts and places, that essentially just means instant death.
Horizontalism is when there are no longer any top or bottom bunks anymore. The oppression of younger siblings by older ones who call dibs on the top bunk must stop!
Horizontalism is when there are no longer any tops or bottoms, which requires the abolition of sex. Anarchists seem to be succeeding so far.
Bruh no way there are anarchists who say this unironically
they have to be trolling us
We need to abolish bed time and become sleep deprived. Now you sleep during school and work so much that class magically disappeared. Yes guys, we have reached socialism. We did it guys, follow my lead. Dream about class abolition, we just need a critical mass of people to believe it.
A bunch of irritable, sleep-deprived people wandering around, doing all the necessary tasks which keep society functioning. What could possibly go wrong?
Socialism is when you abolish class and communism is when you abolish spacetime
and marxism is when you abolish meta-physics
Bedtimes are anti authoritarian because they allow parents to not be oppressed by evil communist children, change my mind!
socialism is when no sleep
Socialists don’t sleep. America will fall.
This is true, I can attest to it
Capitalism keeps us awake at night. After the revolution, we’ll all sleep like babies. 🥺
Utopia is when I wake up at 5pm to watch Spunchbob
its gotta be a joke right
deleted by creator
That made sense until “work abolition requires bedtime abolition???” how? Anarchists will politicize everything and label it another “abolition” movement. In the case of larpy kids who go to bed at 8 pm:
Could have said something about having classes in school and went straight to the final line.
