dantescanline

anarchists don't have elections. anarchists have consensus and divide up or directly oppose each other if there's unresolvable differences.

It's very 'we have a plan' kind of thinking. The economic reality is far more complex and interwoven in real societies without government. I think people like david graeber are worth reading to kind of jump out of this intro-anarchist way of seeing the world.

the simple or flavorful use of 'authority' usually just means someone is well respected on a topic "She's an authority on electrical motors" or that they posses some leadership qualities and are well liked.

the second and more dictionary definition of authority is authorization to rule. literally to dominate others because they are seen as legitimate.

your example of a club is a good test ground for these differences. it's up to you to run your club, make agreements with other members and share responsibilities even if people are happy to let you decide things or do most of the work. but your club doesn't have any claim to legitimacy, to true authority, because it doesn't seek to control ALL activities of that type. in the case of government, it very much does claim authority over the entire nation, to determine who can move where, who can work where and how, who must fight and who must be put to death.

there's no competition allowed with a structure like government. either obey or resist and face consequences. i'd much prefer a world of overlapping autonomous 'clubs' whose members decide for themselves than a world divided up by the greediest and most violent mafias.

From my perspective "necessary authority" is a meaningless phrase. Authority is always justified to those who support it, and unjustified to those suffering under it. For example, the authority of a particular country to enforce it's borders is "justified" in order to preserve those borders. The authority of a catholic priest is "necessary" to uphold the values of the church against sin and pollution of the faith. But if you don't believe in those institutions then the justification is very silly! Anarchists just take this one step further and realize there is no single true authorized power structure.

Anarchists can do away with authority and just act directly. If some of us agreed to live a certain way it's us deciding that we want to do that. We don't need to hit others over the head with a magic scroll or manifesto to prove we are justified, and we don't need to ask their permission first. Likewise, if someone wants to push us around we don't give them the benefit of the doubt through authority. They're just another person trying to push us around, whether they're a government agent or a highway bandit.

How you approach others is what makes your world the way it is. If you want to treat others as equals, directly, and engage with them without an intermediary we could say you're an anarchist. If you think you need government (an authority, legitimate justified power) to push others around, i'd say you're not.

All of their hypotheses about causation and order—where these oppressions come from, how they will change, how to change them—are worse than trash. They are either phrased in a way that is pseudo-scientific and untestable, which helps explain why Marxism has held increasing appeal among leftwing cults the more Marxist experiments proved to be real life failures (cults thrive on pseudo-sciences). Or, their affirmations about the future of capitalism and how to change it that were phrased in a falsifiable, testable way have all proven dreadfully wrong. Exactly as their anarchist contemporaries predicted.

Boom!

we really need a 'multireddit' feature that can bind all of these together!

Novatore has that hype writing style, love him

on my private tracker you get points for just always seeding, you can turn those points in for ratios boosts at a pretty good rate.

i noticed this post had a ton of downvotes at first, is it just ML bias from the main lemmy instance?

Yeah it's the issue with this 'middle ground' of federation. some ideal world would be fully p2p, identities fundamentally would rest with the user's device or backed up somewhere public and encrypted, then servers just become meeting hubs or caches of content. there's some protocols that already do this at a technical level, secure scuttlebutt and nostr are two. there's other issues that crop up, for one moderation and content discovery starts to be a lot more complicated.

so, not a solved problem by any means, but federation at least gives us a bit more freedom than a singular centralized service.

🤷

i think the point is more emotional or directional, despite the weight of centralized capital and state we have pioneered many amazing weird little projects on this internet. even thought it was heavily commercialized thousands of unique subcultures and open source movements have thrived. so you're not wrong but i just believe the piece is getting at something else