Look up “megasites”, these are large settlements not called cities as they lack signs of being dominated by a subset of themselves. One I’ve heard of is called “Nebelivka” but I believe there are at least a few others known and probably others either not yet found or misunderstood as cities.

Humans existed for well over 200,000 years without government. There is strong evidence of massive settlements that existed for extended periods without any sign of being ruled, just people living and cooperating.

In fact, it’s the formation of governments that could enforce exploitative economic systems that started the ecological collapse of this planet in the first place. Humans without government live in balance with the rest of the world.

The idea that humans, to survive and thrive, require the formation of an entity (government/state) that allows the subset of the population in control of the it to exploit the subset not in control of it is a dangerous fallacy.

Without ambition and drive people would still be living in caves.

And we’d have a planet to live on indefinitely rather than letting a few thousand rich people destroy our world causing massive suffering. But really, there’s a world between living in caves with zero progress and letting capitalists destroy our world while we praise them, I’m not suggesting we live in caves, I’m suggesting we don’t let ambitious assholes kill us all while blaming us for the problems they create.

I don’t need some jabbering moron with an agenda to tell me how I should feel about things I can observe with my own eyes.

And you don’t have an agenda of driving civilization in the direction you want? Are you that blind to your own behavior? You’re engaging in a conversation about it and pushing a point, that’s an agenda.

It’s always a situation where the few are carrying the many

That’s very likely due to different people having different tolerance for exploitation. Just because you don’t mind being exploited try to be a good boot licker doesn’t mean others are bad because they don’t want to be exploited. Maybe in a different situation you’d be viewed as the lazy one. It’s not selfish to not work harder for another’s gain.

I say ambition, drive, greed, etc are personality issues that cause harm to others and the environment.

While I’m sure there are a few individuals that would rather sit and die than go get some food, this is not something to actually be concerned with. You watch too much right wing TV telling you there’s a whole class of people that just want to take from you, but what’s actually happening is that this group is being stolen from and what you see as laziness is often just an unwillingness to facilitate being stolen from.

Good thing people like me exist that will not only feed the “freeloaders”, but take care of you too when you break your leg.

Our society already produces far more than we need, it’s just sucked up by the owner class. If we removed the owner class and their hoarding, we could all work less and still have more than enough to provide for those unwilling or unable to completely provide for themselves.

I personally would be happy to do a bit of work to help ensure people aren’t starving or freezing to death because they’re going through a depressive episode or even if they’re just “lazy fucks”. Pretty sure every one I’d consider a friend thinks the same.

You know, it’s people with an attitude like yours, unwilling to help out without direct benefit, who I consider lazy, not the person with low ambition.

My thoughts about this

Anarcho-communism (and similar ideologies) isn’t really about everyone being equal, that’s a silly goal that would take enforcement and calculations, it’s not practical. Instead, anarcho-communism is a different way of living based on cooperation rather than exploitation and doing what is needed for people rather than what a few rich owners want.

You and a “lazy” person won’t necessarily have the same outcome. A person unwilling to even pick up after themselves or contribute would still be guaranteed housing, food, and health care, but that’s about it. You on the other hand could work to have a nicer place or acquire things, so long as you aren’t getting them exploiting others or common resources. If you build a nice chair the anarcho-fuzz isn’t gonna come and take it to split it amongst the community.

The thinking around “laziness” needs to change. A person unwilling to do even the absolute minimum might be called lazy, but A person unwilling to trade their time for money isn’t a bad thing. It’s not the “lazy” people that wipe out species, start wars, and cause climate change.

No no no, that’s “cellulose”, it’s fine, nothing to see here.

What is a potus?

It stands for something, like Piece Of Titanic Unethical Shit I can’t remember.

Ah, it may have been unneeded. What I meant by that is that every living being is compelled to work on some level to survive and I wanted to be clear that I wasn’t including that. Like, a lion must hunt for food, a lion is biologically compelled to do this work to survive but this isn’t slavery.

To continue with that silly analogy, if some lions coerced other lions to hunt extra and took their extra food, that would be a form of slavery.

Not the same person but the answer is non-biological coercion of labor even if that’s not the way it’s often defined. If one lives in a system where they are compelled to sell their labor to survive so that someone can skim value from their labor this is a form of slavery.

Ya, so to punish Biden lets allow an actual fascist to take power and live under that for the rest of our lives. Genius.

Nice, I’d say the first two of those terms apply mostly to the dumb ones.

The disingenuous ones take advantage of the stupidity of the others to induce fear to facilitate manipulation.

No, most non-progressive dems would qualify as being disingenuous. The progressive ones that still call themselves dems aren’t right wing, they’re naive.

Tankies and their ilk don’t understand the concept of “worse”. They are only intelligent enough to understand “Biden means genocide, can’t vote for him”, anything outside that thought is beyond their capacity.

I mean, what do you expect from people who think that strategies that failed 100 years ago are somehow going to work now in a totally different world?

I hear this every single election.

1. Because as we move into the future with a larger population and worse environmental destruction, the stakes become greater.

2. Because we’ve been on the verge of losing our democracy for a couple decades now. I’m almost 50, we’ve been on the verge since the presidency was taken from Al Gore. It was not this way before that in my lifetime.

You think one election is going to take a nation on the brink to being in safe harbors? This is a battle for democracy that occurs over multiple elections, why is that so hard to understand? You can only repeat what your friends say?

There’s 2 types of right wingers, dumb ones and disingenuous ones.

Another way is to add urine to compost and use the compost.

I suppose, these words are so nebulous. I understand socialism as needing a state and (real, not authoritarian) communism as being incompatible with a state.

I guess we have a different definition of failure, at least when it comes to “socialist” states like China, Russia, and N. Korea.

Anarcho-syndicalism has some good things going for it, it could be part of a solution. I don’t know why everyone assumes I am naive to all these ideas, I just don’t fit in the little leftist boxes people made for us last century that the right already has formulas to defeat.