Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance! To make this easy you can do an instance block at Settings > Block Tab > Scroll to bottom > Input “lemmy.ml” and apply
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
opinions aside, there is no diversity of thought there. They all just agree on the same things. If not, they remove that person.
“As a communist, I prefer when the rich control the means of production instead of the state”
The lead developer of Lemmy everybody -_-
Somehow, I don’t think anarchist groups ever instituted a “don’t compare our leader to Winnie the Pooh” rule.
Uh… real anarchists don’t have leaders…
Wrong. Leaders can still be chosen by the group. Anarchy wants a very flat hierarchy, but leaders of the community can and will emerge on their own.
Leaders of various communities will, but there should be no central leadership. If you have an anarchist movement led by a central leader, congratulations, you’re getting a dictator should your movement succeed. Anarchist groups should have no central leadership, they should be decentralized enough that, if successful, there’s no possibility of a power struggle.
Not how it works.
Consider a factory with a machine shop. There’s this one machinist, Kat, who everyone looks up to. Management doesn’t give Kat a title higher than anyone else; in fact, a few of the bosses are jealous of the de facto power that Kat seems to have. They might even undermine Kat, but they have to do it quietly or they’ll stir up trouble among the rest of the workers. Everyone knows that Kat is the most competent machinist in the shop. You can ignore Kat’s advice if you want, but everyone will laugh when it goes wrong.
Kat is a leader because the consensus of their peers respects them as a leader. This sort of thing will happen in any community. Competent people will come to be seen as leaders without anyone directly saying so. That consensus can be rescinded at any time if they start breaking community taboos.
For more, see Andrewism’s video on leaders in anarchy:
Sure, leadership will always happen at a local level. My point is that if you have a strong leader in an anarchist movement, you run the very real risk of that leader establishing “temporary” powers that end up being persistent. The allure of power is too strong that most people who rise through the ranks as leaders are going to abuse that position and take power for themselves.
If an anarchist system is to be created, it needs to be fought for by several different groups, so that no single group can get into a position of power. Sustaining the system would likewise require enough powerful groups that no group can effectively form a coalition to take power for themselves.
People are tribalist, so they’re going to rally behind powerful leaders, and that’s one of the reasons I oppose anarchism (I believe it will devolve into autocracy of one form or another), while believing in the ideals of anarchism.
So… a republic.
Sure, but a republic w/o a central government. Leadership will happen at a local level, anarchy is about having a lot of separate communities without a legally binding connection between them.
Here’s the offending content:
“Go back to your safe space,” he says with derision, while pruning people from his safe space amongst hilarious redefining of words.
“Tank commander”.
Beautiful.
“Historical anarchist experiments” more like those that either aligned themselves with Bolsheviks or got stabbed in the back by them. Or both at the same time!
That’s some wild word salad, even by the low standards of tankies that are literally defined by spewing gibberish.
It was funny how they all rushed to turn on the firehose at once.
Lord.
What a bunch of idiots. I blocked that one at the bottom of the screenshot today actually. Felt nice!
