I saw a post that talked about racism towards people and when I talked about it the response I got was very heated and a person even called lemmy.world a community of ‘hitlerites’
I have been around for a week or so and this is my first time seeing such explicit vulgar reaction towards another community, is this a one-off or should I block hexbear?
Sure, and you think the Bourgeois state will sit back and watch it happen? And that workers won’t have to defend themselves? You’re not even taking an Anarchist position, Anarchists believe that violence is necessary in prefiguration.
They’ll be powerless to stop it. No point of attack.
Plenty of anarchists believe in non-violent revolution, including ya know, Proudhon.
Even in prefiguration, Proudhon emphasized nonviolent methods as the foundation of societal transformation. He advocated for workers to establish cooperatives, mutual credit systems, and other self-managed institutions as a way to model and embody a future society based on reciprocity and equality. These institutions would exist alongside the state and capitalism, gradually eroding their necessity without requiring violent overthrow. He proposed the creation of federations of autonomous communities and associations, emphasizing voluntary cooperation and self-management.
He believed in economic transformation via mutualist exchanges rather than seizing power through violence. He saw the expansion of non-exploitative economic practices as a way to delegitimize and outgrow the capitalist and state systems. He was critical of revolutionary violence and abrupt insurrections, arguing they often resulted in authoritarian regimes or chaos. Instead, he focused on evolutionary change that mirrored anarchist principles, allowing society to “prefigure” a stateless future without upheaval.
He did recognise the reality of entrenched power dynamics and systemic oppression could lead to conflict or resistance from those in power. However, he consistently argued that violence should not be the primary tool for change, as it risks undermining the very principles anarchists aim to achieve. In 1840, I would have agreed with him entirely. But technology will give us the upper hand in the modern world.
In what manner has a bourgeois state ever been powerless to try and stop usurping its power? Revolution has always garnered hostility. Again, you aren’t taking an Anarchist stance, you’re taking a Utopian stance like the Owenites.
In the P2P world where everyone has a phone in their hand and we can iterate and codify better systems however we like.
There’ll be resistance, they’ll try and block things, points that become too centralised will be targetted, but eventually, there will be no stopping it. Just like they were powerless to stop torrents and the failure on their war of drugs with darknets.
I’m not too fussed about what kinda label my stance is, but seems pretty aligned with Proudhon who I’d think would have some authority on the matter?
Coding is only one aspect of Capital, the overwhelming majority of necessities runs on industrial Capital. You can’t P2P that, just like you can’t torrent food or a brand new phone.
As for Utopianism, it refers to “model building,” ie trying to think of a perfect society and trying to convince everyone to adopt it, rather than analyzing existing society and its trajectories to predict what can come next. It’s like trying to completely reinvent computers, rather than looking at how they exist and trying to use that knowledge to make a better system. I suggest reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific for why Utopianism is largely looked down upon by practicing Leftists, Marxist and Anarchist alike.
Why not? We can and we must to reverse the damage we’ve done to the planet or not much will matter.
The critique assumes that envisioning better systems and working toward them are mutually exclusive, but they’re not. Both are needed. Without imagining and striving for what could be, we risk being confined to the boundaries of what’s already been normalized, even when those boundaries are actively destructive or unsustainable.
How do you P2P a smartphone factory? Are you trying to suggest we revert to less developed production methods and reject manufacturing?
Secondly, you’re not understanding the critique of Utopianism at all, Utopianism is specifically when your model building becomes the focus and thus you separate it from sociological analysis. You should read the essay I linked, you’d benefit from it greatly.
P2P crowdfunding where contributors have a stake, built like https://www.fairphone.com/nl, what part of the production process do you foresee as being a blocker here that wouldn’t lead to a better solution anyway?
I’m not misunderstanding the critique I’m saying it’s not Utopianism just because it doesn’t align with your preferred sociological analysis. Agorism is a pragmatic application of dialectical materialism. It recognizes the inherent contradictions within capitalism and the state, and utilizes those contradictions to create a pathway towards a stateless, free market society. To label agorism as utopian is to disregard its inherent dynamism and its grounding in a materialist analysis of societal structures, a misunderstanding that undermines the very essence of Engels’ argument.
Do you think the entire production process of Fairphone is cooperative? Further, Fairphone is nowhere near on track to destabilize the larger firms like Samsung and Apple that wield immense power as owners of hundreds of billions of dollars of industrial Capital, who can always outcompete. To overthrow Capital, you need revolution.
As for Engels, I think if you’re trying to twist him into somehow being in favor of a cooperative-based economy without revolution and that you’ve successfully applied Dialectical Materialism, I encourage you to read Anti-Dühring, where Engels applies Dialectical and Historical Materialism to take down such a system as Utopian. You don’t have to agree with Engels, but to twist him into being in favor of Agorism is odd.
As for me applying Dialectical Materialism, such a system has no roots in popular trajectory of the evolution of Capitalism, which has proven the dominance of the centralizing nature of Capitalism. Better to sieze and democratize so we can produce along a common plan for the common good.