So is Lemmy (the platform) a case of anarchism at work?
Comment on Lawless society
lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
Anarchism isn’t the absence of rules but the absence of authority. Some anarchist ideas even replace the centralized authority figure with rules that apply to everyone and of cause free association so you are not forced to follow them and can move on instead
mo_lave@reddthat.com 5 days ago
match@pawb.social 5 days ago
it’s an archipelagic confederation, so yes!
lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
That’s a very good question. It’s as anarchist as modern social media gets.
The thing is the moderators. In an anarchist utopia, they would take turns, be recallable and have to justify their decisions.
The last point is true for some instances but not all (think of the vegan cat food debate on .world verses how .ml blocks voices critical of China and Russia).
The other two points – to my knowledge – barely happen. This isn’t a huge problem, as I said, it’s as anarchist as social media comes. But it contains the risk of a centralized power. Sure, you can always leave the instance (even easier than on mastodon where you lose your followers) but this resembles the Libertarian “freedom” to choose your oppressor. Internal equality is very important.
This isn’t to criticize Lemmy. It’s overall very good and as anarchist as realistically and practically possible. But to showcase the anarchist ideal of councils and to spotlight the minor flaws we should be aware of, even if there is no perfect solution.
seth@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Wait what vegan cat food debate? Cats are obligate carnivores, what insanity is this?
lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
I didn’t intend to start the discussion here. You are on lemmy.world. maybe filter “local” and you will see.
Important for this discussion is that the moderators reacted to the criticism and acted upon it.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 5 days ago
No just free association. But having no alternatives to legitimate needs, like participating in our civilization’s free speech discourse through the internet, free association doesn’t help. So before the fediverse you were “forced” to associate with reddit/facebook/twitter or have little association at all.
I’m not sure how anarchism would work for a social media platform. Everyone is a mod? Everyone can post anything and can delete anything? :D
odium@programming.dev 17 hours ago
You’re literally on the social media closest to anarchy rn.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
Or I can set up my own private server where nobody can join, then I can have anarchy, totalitarianism and socialism all at once!
GladiusB@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Most grass roots societies are like that. It’s “self” ruling so to speak. At least from what I have gathered and read. It’s been awhile since I did deep dive on it.
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 5 days ago
coercive relationships are adjudicated the oppressors
lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
That’s why it’s important to keep the rules non coercive
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Anarchism is communism but for intellectuals
lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
Well, there is a whole anti intellectual movement within anarchism which stems at least in part from a critique of intellectuals as an elite. That said, there are elitist Marxist and even ML uni professors, but also anarchist ones. I wouldn’t draw the line there.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 5 days ago
I reject your definition and substitute my own. But I won’t tell you!
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Without some kind of authority, how can those rules be enforced?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Decentralized authority
NatakuNox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Rules are enforced by the collective not by a small minority essentially. Things like direct democracy doesn’t contradict with their philosophy. Essentially middle management and above in all aspects of financial and political life would be abolished.
june@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Direct democracy doesn’t only not contradict with anarchism, it is a core tenant of anarchism. After all, how do we get rid of unjustified hierarchy without creating a hierarchy free form or rulership?
Forester@yiffit.net 4 days ago
What Monopoly on violence
Dozzi92@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Publicly shun people. You’re a rule breaker? You’ve been shunned by society and people who associate with you will be known associates of the shunned.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
And further to that we have voluntary prison. Essentially, if you’re guilty of something and want to have the benefits of this society, you need to agree to a loss of some privileges - in whatever form is necessary. If you wont, well good luck surviving when nobody will trade with you or let you live near them.
If you won’t agree to that, you can leave, but the full details of your trial and conviction are public and your decision to leave will be broadcast, so our neighbours know to look out for you.
That means trials will need to be fair, and seen to be fair, or else it will be easy to ask for asylum. Prisoners need to be fairly treated, or they will try their luck in a nearby place.
But if someone chooses to leave and is just trying to run from the consequences of their actions, well they’ll have a hard time being accepted anywhere else.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 days ago
So what do you do to deal with the situation we see in modern states with an actual centralised “monopoly” on violence: Organised criminal environments that live off exploiting the rest of society?
We’re talking about people that don’t care if you shun them, because they have their own environment, with their own hierarchy and set of rules, and they’re willing to use violence to exploit the rest of society to make a living.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
Short answer: The community.
In small contexts, a mutual understanding is sufficient. There are “Radical Therapy” groups with no central therapist who decides who talks how much but instead have rules like fixed times for each person. I don’t think people will break these rules but exclusion is always an option with very intransigent people.
In bigger contexts like the Commons, people deliberate on their own rules. Minor transgressions will have minor consequences and the worst is – again – exclusion. People are more willing to stick to the rules and watch others if they were part of the process that created the rules. If you want to dive deeper, I remember a podcast episode by SRSLY WRONG and a YouTube video by Andrewism about The Commons or The Tragedy of the Common.
jdeath@lemm.ee 5 days ago
free (dis) association
StaticFalconar@lemmy.world 5 days ago
More cancel culture over putting all the power to the military and police.
GladiusB@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Peer pressure, self awareness, probably a few others I can’t think of.