Why do anarchists stay on reddit or other corporate-run platforms?
Why do anarchists stay on reddit or other corporate-run platforms?
I know these federated communities exist as well as raddle, but it still seems like most people will stay on toxic and corporate-run platforms like reddit or Twitter. I'm far from perfect myself and I still use reddit sometimes, especially for more niche communities, but when it comes to ideologically strong communities like the anarchist ones, it just feels wrong that the majority still hang out on reddit. Or you know, moving to something like Bsky when Twitter became too toxic but which is still run by a large, for-profit corporation (if they moved in the first place). What are your thoughts? Is there any justification for this?
You're viewing a single thread.
Most online anarchists aren't anarchists at all. They neither read anarchist theory, do anything IRL, nor adhere to basic anarchist principals - because they don't know what they are, they just know memes and a skimming of Kropotkin. They also define themselves through a liberal-filtered understanding if what they are not, rather than who they are and what they are working towards.
If you do organizing work IRL you will meet actual anarchists and they are much cooler as they are not just LARPing liberals that happened upon an aesthetic that lets them pretend to be radical while acting virtually perfectly in line with the status quo.
Funny enough, the highest concentration of actual anarchists I've seen is on hexbear, a place another commenter said would be offputting to anarchists. Perhaps they are thinking of the "anarchists" that just watch YouTube videos to get angry at "the tankies" based on a misunderstanding of history in the 1920s and never saw a NATO putsch they couldn't defend.
Hexbear can indeed be very offputting to anarchists, especially those who learned from history that "left unity" isn't. It's why slrpnk.net has outright blocked hexbear and they also managed to alienate all the admins of dbzer0. Likewise they get very little respect from anarchists in places like kolektiva.social.
In fact, the only people I've seen who keep insisting there's totally a lot of anarchists in hexbear is MLs in lemmy.ml and hexbear.
Hexbear can indeed be very offputting to anarchists
You should ask the anarchists on the hexbear anarchism comm. I'm sure they will share some reasonable criticisms but also explain something similar to my general sentiment.
especially those who learned from history that “left unity” isn’t.
Which decades or so?
It’s why slrpnk.net has outright blocked hexbear
slrpnk.net preemptively blocked hexbear by fiat of admins and without any kind of vote. A very, very funny thing for an "anarchist" instance to do, don't you think?
and they also managed to alienate all the admins of dbzer0
So you mean yourself when you were acting like this? https://hexbear.net/post/2489084/4892908
You should ask the anarchists on the hexbear anarchism comm. I’m sure they will share some reasonable criticisms but also explain something similar to my general sentiment.
They're free to venture out and tell us. Or do you also claim they don't come out of hexbear because the rest of us don't accept "AES" and haven't read enough Lenin?
Which decades or so?
Plenty of learning experiences throughout the last century.
slrpnk.net preemptively blocked hexbear by fiat of admins and without any kind of vote. A very, very funny thing for an “anarchist” instance to do, don’t you think?
Sure if you don't understand anarchism and think one always have to make an affinity group instance. It's also a very hypocritical argument when coming from MLs who routinely talk about giving "critical support". I.e. they understand not everything can be perfect all the time, but when anarchists are not perfect, it's a gotcha.
So you mean yourself when you were acting like this? https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/19918886
Like what? Use your own words, don't just link to a thread full of bad faith takes. Cmon, you didn't even link to the first de-federation thread.
They're free to venture out and tell us. Or do you also claim they don't come out of hexbear because the rest of us don't accept "AES" and haven't read enough Lenin?
I made that recommendation before I realized you had been banned for harassing people. So I would recommend that anyone else follow my advice.
Plenty of learning experiences throughout the last century.
So the whole last 100 years? Or are there certain decades?
Sure if you don't understand anarchism and think one always have to make an affinity group instance.
Voting on site-wide decisions does not require modeling an affinity group, it is not unique to an affinity group. Anarchists create collectives with participatory decision making of many kinds. What they rarely do is have a couple people make the major decisions on everyone's behalf without others having a say.
It's also a very hypocritical argument when coming from MLs who routinely talk about giving "critical support". I.e. they understand not everything can be perfect all the time, but when anarchists are not perfect, it's a gotcall mere
It's a complete absurdity, not imperfection.
Like what? Use your own words, don't just link to a thread full of bad faith takes. Cmon, you didn't even link to the first de-federation thread.
You want me to repost screenshots of you harassing people? I'd rather not.
So the whole last 100 years? Or are there certain decades?
The whole but of course a ton of hard lessons learned in the 20s and 30s
Voting on site-wide decisions does not require modeling an affinity group, it is not unique to an affinity group. Anarchists create collectives with participatory decision making of many kinds. What they rarely do is have a couple people make the major decisions on everyone's behalf without others having a say.
Surprising concept I know but did it ever occur to you that slkpnk and dbzer0 is not just for anarchists? Maybe mull on that concept and what it means for instance-wide voting.
there's plenty of decisions that don't need voting, even between anarchists. You don't vote on each ban your> admins and mods take either. This is all just hypocritical gotchas again
The whole but of course a ton of hard lessons learned in the 20s and 30s
So the period I initially noted.
Surprising concept I know but did it ever occur to you that slkpnk and dbzer0 is not just for anarchists?
Describing those instances as anarchist was your doing from two of your comments ago: "Hexbear can indeed be very offputting to anarchists, especially those who learned from history that "left unity" isn't. It's why slrpnk.net has outright blocked hexbear and they also managed to alienate all the admins of dbzer0. Likewise they get very little respect from anarchists in places like kolektiva.social."
Now you're just being inconsistent.
there's plenty of decisions that don't need voting, even between anarchists. You don't vote on each ban your> admins and mods take either. This is all just hypocritical gotchas again
You probably should, given the above examples. Naturalistic fallacies don't justify top-down fiats on major decisions.
So the period I initially noted.
Did you miss me saying "the whole" just before that?
Now you’re just being inconsistent.
OMG you are really deliberately obtuse. There's anarchists on these instances but it's not just anarchists. Cheezus crust!
You probably should, given the above examples. Naturalistic fallacies don’t justify top-down fiats on major decisions.
Sorry I'm too dumb, can please explain where I did a naturalistic fallacy?
Anyway, it's not a major decision to define what kind of instance one federates on init. I did as well when I defed lemmygrad and exploding heads. If done on start, people know what they're joining. Again, a vote is not needed on everything and not everything is a "major decision" just because you claim it is.
Did you miss me saying "the whole" just before that?
No, I am just pointing out that I had already correctly described this initially and we have now come full circle. You entered this conversation with a sense of correcting what I had said.
OMG you are really deliberately obtuse. There's anarchists on these instances but it's not just anarchists. Cheezus crust!
I am not being obtuse, you are being inconsistent. When it suits your criticism of what I said, you call those instances anarchist. When I say it is funny an anarchist instance has such an undemocratic process, suddenly you say it is wrong to call them anarchist.
Sorry I'm too dumb, can please explain where I did a naturalistic fallacy?
By arguing that existing practice justifies it as not going against basic anarchist principles. It is all very confused given the apparent superposition status of these instances as anarchist and not anarchist, of course.
Anyway, it's not a major decision to define what kind of instance one federates on init.
It is, of course, a major decision. It is censorship.
I did as well when I defed lemmygrad and exploding heads. If done on start, people know what they're joining.
Yes, that is true. If you establish bylaws of a collective first and then people join they consent to them, initially. But of course we aren't talking about that at all.
Again, a vote is not needed on everything and not everything is a "major decision" just because you claim it is.
Of course nobody said everything needs a vote. This is just very silly straw manning.
No, I am just pointing out that I had already correctly described this initially and we have now come full circle. You entered this conversation with a sense of correcting what I had said.
I did correct what you said. The whole past 100 years have showed us lessons. Not just these dates. This is not hard to understand.
I am not being obtuse, you are being inconsistent. When it suits your criticism of what I said, you call those instances anarchist. When I say it is funny an anarchist instance has such an undemocratic process, suddenly you say it is wrong to call them anarchist.
The instances are anarchist because anarchists run them. They are not full of anarchists. An instance that is run by anarchists but open to others doesn't always have to always require a voting by non-anarchists. There can be an internal affinity group handling this. There can be plenty of approaches to this, depending on the time and effort one can afford. Sure in a perfect world, everything would be done much more perfectly, but we do what we can with the time we have. If only you would request the same level of purity from the authoritarian regimes you support...
By arguing that existing practice justifies it as not going against basic anarchist principles. It is all very confused given the apparent superposition status of these instances as anarchist and not anarchist, of course.
How is that a naturalistic fallacy? Did I prescribe something as "good" or whatever because of we're doing it already? No, I said that the current practice is consistent with anarchist principles. To argue the opposite you have to argue 2 things. 1 that setting some rules as soon as the instance opens (including defederated instances) is anti-anarchistic. And that 2. Anarchist running an instance deciding that some instances are too toxic to federate with is a "major decision" that always requires voting.
Yes, that is true. If you establish bylaws of a collective first and then people join they consent to them, initially. But of course we aren’t talking about that at all.
That's exactly what we're talking about! Just because we don't do it in your approved manner doesn't mean this isn't exactly what we did.
Of course nobody said everything needs a vote. This is just very silly straw manning.
"And not everything is a major decision", just ignore half of what I said, whydontcha.
I did correct what you said. The whole past 100 years have showed us lessons. Not just these dates. This is not hard to understand.
What I said initially: "Perhaps they are thinking of the “anarchists” that just watch YouTube videos to get angry at “the tankies” based on a misunderstanding of history in the 1920s"
I am of course not saying "the only things are from the 1920s", but that this is a primary focus. And when asked about the time periods you think of as primary, they popped up. Full circle, lol.
The instances are anarchist because anarchists run them. They are not full of anarchists. An instance that is run by anarchists but open to others doesn’t always have to always require a voting by non-anarchists. There can be an internal affinity group handling this. There can be plenty of approaches to this, depending on the time and effort one can afford.
Right so they are anarchist instances. And they make important decisions about federation by fiat of a couple admins. And that is very funny for anarchists to do. Inventing scenarios that didn't happen to say how they are reasonable is... not relevant. In many ways you implicitly acknowledge how silly it is, because none of your examples are, "a couple admins just decide it", instead you talk about affinity group subsets. Or is that meant to be euphemistic cover for "a couple admins"?
Sure in a perfect world, everything would be done much more perfectly, but we do what we can with the time we have.
Personally, I don't think "two people make the important decisions" is complaining about imperfection when it comes to an anarchist instance. It's really just unexamined centralization that is otherwise an implicit part of the process of hosting software. And it's very funny.
If only you would request the same level of purity from the authoritarian regimes you support…
The "purity" is "basic correspondence to the core principals of what you claim to be". I'm not a big stickler, really. But please do tell me about the regimes I support and how I am inconsistent on this. I expect you to be able to explain this without my input, as you are so certain, right?
How is that a naturalistic fallacy?
A short version of the naturalistic fallacy is, "what is, is what should be". That you justify what should be simply because it is how things are done. That is the logic you presented! "You don’t vote on each ban your> admins and mods take either."
Did I prescribe something as “good” or whatever because of we’re doing it already? No, I said that the current practice is consistent with anarchist principles.
You did not say the latter, actually. But you did say that you don't vote on each ban, as if this justifies the practice. It sounds kind of like these instances should!
To argue the opposite you have to argue 2 things. 1 that setting some rules as soon as the instance opens (including defederated instances) is anti-anarchistic. And that 2. Anarchist running an instance deciding that some instances are too toxic to federate with is a “major decision” that always requires voting.
-
No I don't and I already responded to that. This situation is not one of what people joined, it was a censorship decision, it required a change. Gotta flip that 'block' button and all that.
-
Yes of course it is, at least if you want to say you are anarchist. That's a major decision and it is something that even "authoritarian" instances can accomplish. I know that anarchists could do it even better!
That’s exactly what we’re talking about! Just because we don’t do it in your approved manner doesn’t mean this isn’t exactly what we did.
No, it is not what we are talking about.
“And not everything is a major decision”, just ignore half of what I said, whydontcha.
It's funny because while I didn't ignore that, because I've already directly said in no uncertain terms that I disagree 3-4 times, you ignored my response to what you said: it's a silly straw man.
-
I Didn't harass anyone, but I know that's what hexbears love to claim. Do feel free to post any evidence of me "harassing people". We've been over this before. Calling a power tripping mod a pos isn't "harassment" and y'all are cheapening the word to win internet arguments.
As I mentioned, I would rather not. But if you request or demand it, I will.
I don't demand or request. I am just stating, as I've done many times before, that I didn't harass anyone and there's no "evidence" out there proving otherwise. All there is, as usual, is hexbears diluting the meaning of the word "harassment" to character assassinate those they collectively dislike.
You did, of course, repeatedly throw abuse, and it was entirely in line with the instance rules to then ban you.
No I didn't "repeatedly throw abuse". I don't care about being banned. But I do care about the disinfo you're spreading. I called them PoS once after being constantly goaded by them and their communities and banned based on a hypocritical reason which is one of my triggers, and them simply replied to the insults and goading thrown at me further in PMs.
the kolektiva.social that gave all its user and direct message info to the fbi? I'm sure hexbear anarchists are really missing a honeypot mastodon instance
A kolektiva.social admin is raided and their hardware and data seized at which point they immediately announce that to everyone
@DaBai@lemmy.one with the galaxy brain take: "Hurr durr, they gave their data away to the FBI. They're a honeypot."
Always bad faith with these sockpuppets...
Funny enough, the highest concentration of actual anarchists I've seen is on hexbear
Good joke, comrade.
It's true, you should go ask on their anarchism comm. You will find delightful and well-read people.
I don't really engage that much in anarchist debates on the net but I feel that it's nice to have an internet community surrounded by like-minded as well. There are spaces near me, but there aren't really that many anarchists around. Most are state socialists in one form or another. I don't mind hanging out with them, but at the same time I'm not a big believer in "left unity". If it matters I'm not based in the US where the scene might be a lot different.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having a group of more like-minded people to have as a home base. Well I said nothing wrong, but I think it is actually very good to have such a space. While we have more power in unity, it is important to develop identity and improve positions through comparison to what we are not, or at least through critique, and that is easier to do if you get together with your closest-minded comrades. This begins to define who you are vs. who everyone else is and you can begin to experiment through the improved capacity for unity in action via consensus, whereas you may be pretty limited in action in coalitions or similar spaces.
Left unity is very important, though. It does not need to be complete, but we are much stronger together. Coalition building is essential to achieving anything when the left is as small as it is in most places. To disregard it is to massively limit the scale at which an action can be realized, sometimes the difference between mobilizing hundreds of people vs. 5 and the difference between having full cover for a very legal direct action wink wink and being completely exposed to police surveillance.
I'm sure where you are is both different and similar to the US in various ways. Capitalism is global and the police state with it.
"Left unity" has all my alarms blaring ⚠️ 🚨
Most online anarchists aren't anarchists at all.
what year are you in? Are people still offline irl when you are?
"Most online anarchists aren't anarchists at all" 🤣
I think it's absolutely hilarious this person is excommunicating people from his Church of Real Anarchy, like, get the fuck outta here with your bullshit
i'm guessing they're young and being an anarchist is a fundamental piece of their identity. 🤷
what year are you in? Are people still offline irl when you are?
The self-described anarchists who engage in actual work tend to be better informed and know what anarchism is and organize accordingly. Most people who self-label as anarchkst on the internet do nothing at all outside of comment and post. They also don't read, not even about anarchism. They are not anarchists, they are left liberals that confuse each other and the wider public online.
Occasionally they do pop up in organizing spaces, usually as new members. They are the ones wasting time trying to make an anarchist org "more horizontal" by which they mean "I get to be on every committee and speak for 20 minutes at every meeting". I cannot tell you how many times my anarchist comrades have had to explain the difference between (situationally) just and unjust hierarchy to such folks.
that's some really dedicated gatekeeping for anarchism...
Apparently we need Leninists to tell us how to be anarchists. It's a good thing TheOubliette is here to show us the light and encourage us to enlighten ourselves by reading theory that Marx, Lenin, and other comrades have so generously blessed us with. /s
The gatekeeping of knowing the basics of anarchism and doing real-life organizing work? Is that not the bare minimum?
yes. and no, it's not the bare minimum. You perceive a very specific definition of anarchism, and act like anything that's not exactly what you know/do is just not anarchism anymore and is just wannabe edgy liberals.
How can you even fence so hard a term such as anarchism? just let people be and believe what they want.
you're now just this conservative guy screaming in fear because the world is not what is used to be when you were at your 20s.
cool down. It's okay to be an anarchist just online, and it's okay to take "irl actions", as you call it, and not see yourself above everyone else.
yes. and no, it’s not the bare minimum. You perceive a very specific definition of anarchism
I don't, actually. I accept a wide variety of how people approach what it means to be anarchist. But a person does need to actually know what it is in order to self-label as such. Otherwise you will find yourself surrounded by status quo-reinforcing liberals, even capitalists, using the term and confusing everybody.
and act like anything that’s not exactly what you know/do is just not anarchism anymore and is just wannabe edgy liberals.
If there is no threshold then the term means nothing. Trump could not call himself an anarchist and be correct.
How can you even fence so hard a term such as anarchism? just let people be and believe what they want.
I don't think I'm being a very big stickler to say that to call yourself of an anticapitalist political tradition you need to know the basics of what it is. Of course anyone can believe and say what they want, and anyone can be wrong, and anyone can be counterproductive. It is better to become a critical participant that understands their claimed political tradition, at least at a basic level. And it can be harmful to claim to be of a political tradition and then act in full opposition to it, which is easy to do when you don't know what it is.
you’re now just this conservative guy screaming in fear because the world is not what is used to be when you were at your 20s.
I'm screaming in fear?
cool down. It’s okay to be an anarchist just online, and it’s okay to take “irl actions”, as you call it, and not see yourself above everyone else.
It is cool to be an anarchist just online, but you will find it very difficult to become one unless you know the basics of anarchism and have done practice.
This is why online "anarchists" are often counterproductive. Getting hyped for NATO. Saying that someone is a cop because they asked another person to not pick a fight with someone right this second. Going all-in on capitalist electoralism for the greatest empire on the planet. Being a billionaire grifter that sells electric cars.
Rather than assign those reactionary things to anarchist, it is more correct to understand them as not anarchist at all.
lol what a mood
I'm an anarchist and I don't do much organizing and reading theory is not for me. I have a life to live and IDGAF what you think. Anarchists telling people what to do lol
Living your life is one of the most anarchist things you can do in my opinion.
Live as if you were already free
Another common trait of the "anarchist as an aesthetic" liberal is that they call everyone cops for criticizing them.
To be an anarchist you do need to actually know what one is, what the principles are, and subsequently do work. If you don't know what one is, you could never identify as one correctly. If you don't know the principles, well I'm just being redundant, that's essential to knowing what one is. If you don't do work, you are anarchism sympathizer, but have nothing to show for your beliefs. Praxis is essential to anarchism.
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Well it's definitely just not mine.
So, we perceive, there are actual, material barriers blockading the way. These must be removed. If we could hope they would melt away, or be voted or prayed into nothingness, we would be content to wait and vote and pray. But they are like great frowning rocks towering between us and a land of freedom, while the dark chasms of a hard-fought past yawn behind us. Crumbling they may be with their own weight and the decay of time, but to quietly stand under until they fall is to be buried in the crash. There is something to be done in a case like this—the rocks must be removed. Passivity while slavery is stealing over us is a crime. For the moment we must forget that we are anarchists—when the work is accomplished we may forget that we were revolutionists—hence most anarchists believe the coming change can only come through a revolution, because the possessing class will not allow a peaceful change to take place; still we are willing to work for peace at any price, except at the price of liberty.
i'm guessing that you're in U.S.
Yes