Since there is no one ruling body or party
I would say so. If anarchism at its core is the removal of hierarchy, it makes sense to say decentralization is the road towards anarchism.
It’s easy to become infatuated with the freedom of the fediverse. I slowly reject centralized platforms for the federated communities because despite their smaller size, it just feels good to use.
I’m relatively new to the fediverse but I see fediverse instances as being in a horizontal relationship rather than a vertical one.
Some discussions on the topic on an anarchist newsboard: What does Raddle think about federation? , What is your opinion about bringing federation to raddle/postmill?
One could argue that, and it’s something that makes sense on the surface. But anarchism at its core is about the destruction of what’s seen as unjust hierarchies, with decentralization a part of that. Anarchism is in the end about the individual: it places individual freedom over collective freedom, as can be seen , for example, at their dismissal of every socialist project due to apparent “authoritarianism” over structures in place (i.e. “hierarchy”) to maintain collective freedom of the masses.
Each lemmy instance has a hierarchy and rules put in place by that hierarchy that limit individual freedoms. All users aren’t congregated together to jointly come up with instance or community rules, etc. Even in the most “open” forum we have, the internet, hierarchies are still in place to maintain a smoothly functioning community.
The argument to make is that libre software is more communist as every person has the means of production in hand (a computer) and strong copy-left licenses limit individual freedom (you can’t take the source code and use it for profit without making it open) for collective freedom (the code is always open source for people to use/audit).
I guess you tried your best to describe Anarchism in a positive light, but most Anarchist are not against social structures and justified leadership (for example due to experience or in emergency situations).
The problem is that since socialists usually do not understand the dangers of hierarchies, they do not put special safeguards in place (like Anarchists would) and thus all their projects seem to inevitably spiral into unjust authoritarian nightmares despite best intentions.
I think it all depends on how a Lemmy instance is managed by it’s community and how the overall federated network develops over time. It can be both more anarchist or more socialist with build in hierarchies.
In fact, anarchists put so many safe guards in place that they ensure that they will spend the rest of their lives living in an authoritarian capitalist society.
Yeah, maybe. But is it usually better to err on the side of caution and often the devil you know is better than an unknown one (as shown by history over and over again).
Having actually lived in USSR, and experienced both systems I can tell you that living under capitalism is far worse than living under Soviet style socialism. However, you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s what other people who got to enjoy both systems have to say.
All anarchists do is perpetuate the horrors of capitalism because of their fear of “authoritarianism” necessary to mount an actual effective resistance. All the suffering that’s perpetuated, and our potential extinction at the hands of capitalists is squarely on you lot.
All the suffering that’s perpetuated, and our potential extinction at the hands of capitalists is squarely on you lot.
Playing blame games is not gonna help anyone. It would be much more effective if anarchists and communists could find ways to work together. Sure there are a lot of disagreements between both groups, but also a lot in common, and its better to focus on the latter.
I’m all for anarchists and communists working together, but the idea that capitalism is preferable to any form of socialism must be challenged forcefully. Soviet style communism may have had problems, but it was a far better system than capitalism in practically every way. Millions of lives were ruined when USSR fell, and my own family suffered greatly. It is incredibly frustrating to see people from the imperial core glibly claim that they prefer the devil they know. People saying that are invariably those who are personally benefiting from capitalist system, and have comfortable lives built on the back of the exploitation inherent in it.
What I disagree with is specifically the quoted sentence.
On a side note, I dont really understand this obsession with the Soviet Union. Sure it was a good place to live, and you probably have many positive memories from there. But the USSR hasnt existed for 30 years, and it wont come back. So it would be much more useful if we thought about how to improve things in our workplaces and neighborhoods, instead of arguing about our interpretations of history. If you are trying to unionize your workplace, what difference does it make what your coworker thinks about the Soviet Union?
The “fall” of the USSR was squarely caused by themselves. I hope you don’t believe the NATO propaganda that somehow the West caused the USSR to collapse. In fact the opposite was true… for example West Germany was frenetically trying to prop up East Germany for quite some years.
What came after (the very bad Jelzin years) was in fact partially caused by the West, but for the collapse itself you can only blame yourself.
Look, I am not claiming that everything was bad about the soviet states. Those surveys are probably influenced by nostalgia and the typical rose-tinted glasses look back on your own history, but even if they aren’t… you can’t turn back time and a new authoritarian socialist state would not be the same as those found in the past.
Yeah, must be nostalgia for things like guaranteed food, housing, healthcare, education, and retirement. Old people in particular are really nostalgic for the times when they didn’t have to scavenge for food in the garbage and live under bridges. I just love how you just keep bleating about authoritarianism like a broken record. You literally live in an authoritarian capitalist state that’s destroying our planet while exploiting and murdering countless people across the globe to provide you with your quality of life. People like you are responsible for perpetuating the imperialist nightmare that’s western civilization. The blood of the world is on your hands.
You lived in the USSR? Fuck, that’s awesome.
I did, and that’s why I take a lot of offense when people slander it. People lived there just fine, and things were a hell of a lot better than they are today under capitalism.
-
most Anarchist are not against social structures and justified leadership (for example due to experience or in emergency situations).
I strongly believe leadership is not the same as authority. When a precise/urgent need arises, it’s only natural to trust more experienced people to deal with it. The anarchist way is usually to organize skill sharing so that these situations where a few people hold the keys happen less and less over time, and to ensure that having the power to deal with a certain situation does not lead to create a form of hierarchy.
It’s the old “power” vs “authority” debate :)
interesting poinnts! I’d think something like signal is more communist? Since afaik, signal is still open source, but the signal LLC CEO has defacto complete control over the app.
It’s all relative and obfuscated given we’re trying to place software development under definitions of social thought, and similar as to how Marxism isn’t about trying to place your family’s store in either the bourgeois or petit-bourgeois bucket, it makes it even harder to place specific software under definitions as well. So take this as just a fun exercise!
But I guess based off my previous examples, you could say that Signal would fall under a category of more “socialized” means of production but for the profit (in this case “profit” as Signal’s dealings are murkier, this is a good read on it) in the end for someone else, or “socialized” production under a capitalist system, which is still exploitation; the closest real-world example would be co-ops. While co-ops are those specific workers technically owning the means of production for that specific company, but it still being a company working within capitalism, it doesn’t change anything as it’s not societal.
Enlightening, thanks!
Cooperatives can also be formed with a revolutionary spirit and take part in broader social struggles. See also: LIP, 1336, Viome…
A system of groups that have their own rules is not anarchy, no. If it was, the world itself (system of countries) would be anarchy by your own definition.
Lemmy uses the AGPL license when depends on copyright laws to enforce freedom-preservation.
That’s not exactly wrong, but most copyright (including copyleft) is never enforced. We’re talking about the actual power dynamics due to the way the software operates, not narrow legalities.
I guess it depends on your definition of anarchism - there are some bad takes out there. If we’re talking about libertarian socialism, or even anarcho-communism, then they’re more reflective of anarchism rather than fringe “anarcho-capitalism” and such who put the “individual” at the expense of the “collective” - neither anarcho-communism nor libertarian socialism do that; they’re very much about collectivism and direct democracy of that collective rather than representative democracy (elected professional politicians such as members of parliament, senators, etc). Think of the workers cooperative: that’s a great example that Noam Chomsky has used to describe anarchism - rather than having state powers or capitalists in control, the workers are in control of the means of production, yet there are, as Richard Wolff points out, still individuals who manage departments or have certain roles of different responsibilities. So in short, I’d say decentralized federated services are definitely a step in the right direction: in theory, with a collectively-agreed code of conduct, where admins are assigned etc, they’re not a bad example of anarchism at all in my opinion!
deleted by creator
It’s not anarchy, it’s more like natural selection. And it happens through freedom.
Nice find, but this is definitely not an anarchist license. Considering “trespassing” as morally wrong goes against the very definition of anarchism (according to legal definitions of trespassing). Likewise, the author considers property can be victim of violence?!
This is definitely a right-wing libertarian license.
welcome to ancapistan
