this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2021
15 points (85.7% liked)

Open Source

32665 readers
1155 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
15
Aren't decentralized federated services like lemmy anarchism? (midwest.social)
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Since there is no one ruling body or party

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 years ago (2 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

The problem is that misinformation about USSR and China is used to propagandize people against effective methods for combating capitalism. The idea isn't to bring USSR back, but to convince people that the methods advocated by communists are valid and that a state modeled on USSR results in a tangible improvement over the current state of things.

Doing things like unionizing your workplace or building community aid networks are coping mechanisms for existing within the capitalist system. Doing such things is necessary, and this does lead to tangible immediate benefits. However, we also need a real vision for a post capitalist world and how to achieve it.

So far, Marxist-Leninist approach has been pretty much the only effective formula for overthrowing capitalism and establishing a socialist society. We're literally running out of time as the climate crisis continues to escalate. We have a few decades left to turn things around, and we simply don't have the luxury to fuck around anymore. We need to use methods that have been proven to be effective while there is still time to act.

People who talk about authoritarianism to scare people away from communism by saying that they'd rather stick with the devil they know are actively working against change that we desperately need.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago (1 children)

The Soviet Union was formed in 1917, over a century ago. Sure we need to learn from their successes and mistakes, but its not possible to simply repeat their methods, because society today works completely differently.

Marxism-Leninism has been successful in some places, but in the west it has been a complete failure so far. Blaming others for that failure is not going to help, again we need to learn from the successes and mistakes. Panicking because of climate change isnt helpful.

And people talk about authoritarianism because thats what they have been told all their live, and they worry about it. Its important to take such concerns seriously. Talking down to them and dismissing their concerns means that they will definitely ignore what you have to say.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I completely agree that we live in a very different world today, and the methods used need to be rooted in the current conditions. This is basically the whole premise of the dialectical approach. We must look at the material conditions and adapt our methods based on these conditions as opposed to acting dogmatically.

I understand where you're coming from. Ideally, we should all be focusing on finding common ground and working together while putting our differences aside. This is basically the idea of left unity, and unfortunately we haven't seen this work well in practice. There's also a bigger picture here to consider as well. The reality of the situation is that both communists and anarchists are niche groups in the west right now. My view is that the focus needs to be on the people who aren't politically active currently, but are starting to realize that the current system isn't working in their interest. This is a far larger demographic than all the western anarchists and communists combined, and it would be far more productive to focus on steering such people towards effective methods of resistance.

Hence my view is that it's important to challenge critiques of communism and to provide good answers to people who have reservations but haven't yet formed strong opinions. Combating dishonest portrayals of USSR is important precisely because the negative image of USSR is used to scare people away from communism. The typical argument that we see is that capitalism is bad but USSR was worse and therefore doing nothing would be preferable to building a communist state. This is precisely the line of argument @[email protected] is taking.

My view is that anarchist approach is fundamentally flawed and it's been proven to be ineffective at combating capitalism. However, I'm perfectly fine working with anarchists when there is common ground to be found. On the other hand, I don't think there is much to be gained trying to change minds of anarchists who are firmly set in their ideology. My experience is that people who've already formed strong views aren't going to be swayed because they've already seen the arguments you present and found their own rationalizations for them. So, the focus needs to be on presenting a better argument to those who haven't yet formed such strong opinions. That's the real audience for such discussions.

I'm also not suggesting panicking over climate change, but rather noting that it is a huge immediate problem facing all of us. I don't think people fully appreciate the scope of this disaster or its urgency. For example, Antarctic ice shelf the size of Britain could collapse within 5 years leading to significant sea level rise. This would obviously be devastating for coastal communities, but it would also have an incredible impact on global supply chains as all the ports would become inoperable. Countries that rely on shipping for their economies to function would be plunged into chaos overnight. Climate change will be an increasingly destabilizing factor in the world, and as it progresses it will also impact our ability to deal with it in any sort of organized fashion. The severity of the problem cannot be overstated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

The typical argument that we see is that capitalism is bad but USSR was worse and therefore doing nothing would be preferable to building a communist state. This is precisely the line of argument @[email protected] is taking.

I feel a bit mis-represented here :) My argument is that both suck (for different reasons) and it would be wise not to rush into something and repeat all the same mistakes again that the people of the USSR did. Especially when it is evident that the people promoting it like @[email protected] exhibit a fundamentally flawed understanding why the USSR as a socialist project failed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how you can say you're being misrepresented when you say:

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).

You're literally saying that it's better to stick with capitalism than to move to a Soviet style system that would result from ML approach.

Meanwhile, the only one here with a fundamentally flawed understanding of why USSR failed is you as clearly evidenced by your nonsensical claims in prior comments. The fact that you lack basic intellectual honesty to acknowledge that USSR existed under duress discredits any arguments you make against it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (1 children)

My reading of the original quote was that we are already fighting the beast, so why take a dangerous detour with provably-failed methods to do so? So it's not that capitalism is exactly better, but why trade a wrong for a different kind of wrong?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Failed is an interesting word to use when describing liberation of billions of people from the yoke of capitalism and colonialism. Only somebody who've never had to personally experience capitalist exploitation would make the sort of false equivalence you're making between communist and capitalist states.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Millions of people "liberated" so they can work in the people's factories and labor camps, spend time in the people's prisons for political activities, be executed for being gay or muslim, and starve while those in power feast in abundance. Please tell me more about how that's different from capitalism?!

(i'll ignore the ad-hominem which really doesn't serve your point :))

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

I implore you to learn a modicum of history.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Are you saying the queer/muslim massacres of Stalin are just a dream? That Trotsky's political police was in fact throwing parties with the people they disappeared? Or that the labor camps were just a day spa for exhausted workers? I implore you to learn a modicum of history.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

This is not a terribly intelligent argument. Nobody claimed USSR was some perfect society, and I'm frankly not aware of any human societies where atrocities don't happen. Humans do bad things regardless of what system they create. Thinking that anarchist society would be all ponies and rainbows if the height of idiocy.

What USSR should actually be judged on is whether the system overall was an improvement on how people lived previously. This is a fact that only a person who lacks any intellectual integrity would deny.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what "left unity" is, other than a slogan which i've never seen clearly defined. What i am talking about are tactical alliances. In my previous example, communists and anarchists could work together to create a union in a specific workplace. For that its not necessary to agree on ideology or long-term goals (which would be a strategic alliance). Exactly because anarchists and communists are such small groups would it be useful to work together where possible (and do things seperately where it is not).

Combating dishonest portrayals of USSR is important precisely because the negative image of USSR is used to scare people away from communism.

It would probably be more effective to explain that USSR and communism are not synonyms. Again, the USSR is in the past, and any future communist state would be quite different. People are probably also discouraged when they when they notice that others see discussions as a "combat", instead of a way to understand each other better. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and thinking that your opinion is the only "correct" one which others have to follow will get you nowhere.

Climate change might be a problem, but i think its also used to distract from a much bigger event on the horizon, which is the collapse of the US empire. The country is close to going bankrupt, and is trying to solve that by picking wars with China and Russia (which it would most definitely lose). When the US collapses, the changes will be at least as big as those after World War 2. So yes, the severity of climate change is overstated.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, I completely support tactical alliances. It just makes sense to work with people if you can find common ground. My experience is that it's typically anarchists who tend to be more hostile to working with MLs as opposed to the other way around. At the same time I don't think these online debates translate into the real world either. If you're in a workplace setting and you want to unionize, then you're not going to squabble over finer points of ideology that your coworkers have.

The problem with saying that USSR is in the past and new communist states will be different is that you have to explain why they would be different. Anarchists believe that having a central authority, such as a vanguard party, creates an unacceptable level of centralization. This is what they refer to as authoritarianism.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion of course, however it's important to discuss whether opinions are based on historical facts. Many critiques of USSR that I encounter are utterly divorced from reality of the USSR that I actually lived in. Frankly, I find such caricature portrayals of my country offensive. This is a personal issue for me because these people are basically saying that my way of life was wrong.

Climate change is actually playing a big role in the collapse of the US empire is already. I would go as far as to argue that it's one of the primary driving factors in the collapse. A river in Colorado that around 40 million people rely on is drying up while California is running out of fresh water as well. Heatwaves resulted in massive crop loss this year. Then there were megafires, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events like Texas cold snap. All of this is putting stress on the failing infrastructure and straining supply chains to the breaking point. As a result there are already shortages of essential goods.

We'll see more extreme weather events and of greater intensity each and every year going forward, and it's clear that US lacks the capacity to react to these problems in a coordinated fashion. All it will take is a single extreme weather event, such as a heat dome that lasts a few weeks, to cause a famine. And historically that tends to be the breaking point. People can put up with a lot, but there's really nothing left to lose when you're literally starving to death.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Yes there are definitely people who are not capable of collaborating. In my experience its best to ignore them, and leave them to their ignorance. Much better to focus on those who are actually interested in learning something. But of course thats your decision.

The problems you attribute to climate change, I would say are caused by underinvestment in infrastructure over the last decades, and an overcentralization on few critical points, which leaves no room to deal with unexpected problems. Like just in time manufactoring caused trouble for car makers, as they didnt have enough chips in storage to keep production going. Another factor is the overexploitation and exhaustion of natural resources, which will need time to recover. Plus a government thats unable or unwilling to deal with these problems.

Its pretty telling that all of these things are happening in the richest country in the world, while nothing similar is really happening in poorer countries. Of course there are natural disasters here and there, but they get overexaggerated by media to distract westerners from the collapse thats happening near them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Historic lack of investment in infrastructure and other necessities obviously sets the stage, but climate change acts as a catalyst. You're absolutely right that the underlying problem is lack of resilience, and inability to deal with unexpected problems. The reason I highlight climate change is because it ensures that there will be a constant crisis going forward. Every megafire, tornado, or a flood translates into billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, and thousands or even millions of displaced people. At this point, it's not even clear how US will be able to recover from the effects of the pandemic.

It's also worth noting that the effects of the collapse are not evenly distributed. While many working class people experience significant effects personally, nothing has really changed for the policy makers. This creates a lag between problems occurring and the leadership becoming aware of them. Thus things have to degrade significantly before people in power become aware of the severity of the problem and the need to act.

The further along collapse of the empire progresses the more difficult it becomes to arrest it. Halting and reversing current trends requires honestly acknowledging root causes of the problems in order to take corrective action. However, existing political climate precludes this from happening.

So, I definitely think that US collapse is locked in at this point, and there is nothing that can be done to reverse it. The real question is how things will play out. US could descend into civil unrest, there could be a civil war, states could secede, and so on. It's an incredibly volatile situation, and it's hard to predict how it will play out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

Yes fully agree. Its gonna be interesting to watch, I will stock up on popcorn.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 years ago

Indeed, although being in Canada I'm somewhat concerned how things will turn out here when the inevitable happens. On the bright side, I did start learning Chinese this year, so hopefully can immigrate to China at some point before everything falls apart here. :)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

You're an incredibly ignorant individual. USSR was never allowed to develop peacefully. It was invaded by western powers in 1918 right after its formation, then it was plunged into WW2, and after that the Cold War. Saying that the fall of USSR was squarely caused by themselves is the height of idiocy. The west forced USSR into spending incredible amounts of productive power in order to simply to be allowed to exist. It's also worth noting that the collapse was in no way inevitable, and largely a result of Gorbachev's privatization and liberalization policies. The west was also directly involved in propping up Yeltsin and suppressing communism after Russia opened up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (1 children)

and largely a result of Gorbachev’s privatization and liberalization policies

And Lenin's and Stalin's policies of State capitalism and abolition of communism as practiced by the soviets since early 1917. Lenin and his fellow psychopath Trotsky are the ones who truly ruined any hope of communism in Russia by producing a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in which a new class of rulers watched over workers for whom life conditions barely changed, which is arguably not a "stateless, classless society" (what communism is about).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

This comment is so incoherent, I don't even really know where to begin addressing it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (1 children)

You lived in the USSR? Fuck, that's awesome.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago

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 :)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Lemmy uses the AGPL license when depends on copyright laws to enforce freedom-preservation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 years ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 years ago

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!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago

It's not anarchy, it's more like natural selection. And it happens through freedom.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago

No