139
so r/anarchism does not endorse lemmy (feddit.de)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/anarchism@lemmy.ml
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

apparently r/anarchism has been in lockdown for quite some time now and they link to their own reddit alternative called raddle.me, which is not fediverse integrated, sadly. they also have a long list of alternatives, but lemmy isn't one of them

That seems to be the case because lemmy's main dev is a ml. (edit: meaning 'marxist leninist, apologies for not being clear on that)

It's somewhat sad for me because the whole philosophy of the fediverse is anarchistic in its core, it is how it should be, it is how the internet should work. So I wondered - what are the biggest anarchistic communities in the fediverse so far?

edit: here some context I found on raddle: 1 2 3

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

How is it not authoritarianism? Basically every dictator in modern history has made some version of the exact same argument. We also have like 100 years of ML in practice now, so we know pretty well that there is not path beyond their "necessary dictatorship" phase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think that's a really good point!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Is it? You were completely right before, both in your assessment of the ML understanding of the necessity of a revolutionary state and in concluding that equating it with autoritarianism is not fair.

    Authoritarianism is understood by most people in a similar fashion to "wishing a benevolent dictator would rise and clean up". Although some MLs might share that notion, an authoritatian revolutionary state doesn't need to be led by a dictator, as you pointed out yourself.

    An "ism"s believes are defined by its scripture, famously Lenin devised what he called "democratic centralism" as decision making process. Ofc both in M and L it is concluded that authority is necessary but its still explicitly different from a dictator.

    With a different understanding of authoritarianism one could call the attribution to MLs somewhat correct albeit still defamatory (since people understand it differently). However socsa made his definition explicit by talking about dictators.

    So AFAIC his point "every dictator deemed his actions necessary" is not applicable to the conversation at hand especially when it is about how to correctly referr to MLs when it is at best a subset of authoritarianism.

    As far as his second point goes: Having doubts that ML will get past the dictatorship phase is legitimate, however employing history as an argument isn't truthful. First and foremost: failed attempts of history are used by people to attest systemic failure to anarchism too, its just not a good argument. The 100 years too aren't honest as no ML government has ever gotten that old (btw how long did it take for lib-dem systems to establish the truths they hold "self-evident"?)

    Then ofc there is a discussion to be had about how long an MLs countries dictatorship phase would need to be given attempts of foreign led coups and invasions and necessity to participate in global markets while protecting it from corruption by capital.

    All in all I find their attribution of the word "authoritarianism" for ML more fueled by contempt, less by reason.

    Nicht ganz unwichtig!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent