Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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.
Not at all, early stages. Just don't see any reason we couldn't do it properly. To genuinely challenge these entrenched systems of industrial Capital, systemic revolution is essential. However, such a revolution cannot be reduced to a singular event. It is a fundamental reorganization of production, exchange, and social relations. This involves moving beyond isolated ethical consumption and instead fostering systemic alternatives that redistribute power and resources while dismantling the material basis of capitalist dominance.
Agorism engages directly with the evolution of capitalism by addressing its inherent contradictions, particularly the conflict between the centralization of capital and the decentralized potential of human agency and voluntary exchange. Dialectical materialism reveals that these contradictions drive historical change, creating the conditions for resistance and alternative systems. Agorism exploits these contradictions through counter-economic activity, building decentralized systems of exchange and production that bypass and undermine state-capitalist structures. While the centralization of capital may appear dominant, it simultaneously creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for agorism to flourish. Agorism’s focus on creating alternatives outside of centralized systems reflects the dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, where counter-economic resistance develops into a stateless, cooperative society. This prefigurative model aligns with dialectical materialism’s emphasis on transformation through the resolution of contradictions, showing that agorism is not only compatible with but also a practical application of dialectical materialist principles.
This isn't historically accurate nor does it appear to be working. Building up dual power is a proven method of revolution, but it requires millitancy. We don't actually have widespread examples of cooperative production outperforming organized industry, nor a reason to predict that will happen. FOSS has the foothold it does because the Capital required to build it is relatively inexpensive, but dogmatically transfering that to other industries goes against Dialectical Materialism.
Mondragon Corporation, Spanish Civil War, Syrian Revolutionary Left, and countless mutual aid initiatives illustrate that cooperative production is not only viable but can outperform centralized systems when given the opportunity to scale. The historical limitations of cooperatives were largely due to their isolation and the hostile environments in which they emerged, often as localized responses to crises. Today, however, the situation is fundamentally different. This is no longer about isolated groups trying to set up decentralized systems in panic or under siege. Instead, we are witnessing the emergence of a global network of tools, practices, and knowledge being built, shared, and iterated upon. This network allows for unprecedented collaboration and scalability, making it a unique historical development that reflects an evolutionary leap in social organization. No widespread examples because this has never happened before, and it is only going to happen once.
FOSS demonstrates how decentralized, cooperative production can scale and compete with centralized industry in a domain traditionally dominated by capital-intensive models. While the material conditions of other industries differ, the dialectical process suggests that emerging contradictions, such as the inefficiencies of centralized production and the growing accessibility of decentralized technologies, create opportunities for cooperative systems to expand. The failure to consider these material developments and their revolutionary potential itself goes against dialectical materialism, which emphasizes historical progression through contradictions and their resolution.
Agorism, by fostering decentralized, counter-economic systems, aligns with the principles of dual power and dialectical materialism. It recognizes the importance of building alternatives while confronting and undermining the dominant structures of power. This does not negate the need for militancy but broadens its scope to include economic and social resistance as critical components of systemic transformation. The present moment is not just another iteration of past efforts but the culmination of a dialectical process where global connectivity, shared knowledge, and cooperative innovation provide the material basis for a stateless, cooperative society. Far from being at odds with dialectical materialism, agorism embodies its principles by addressing contradictions in the current mode of production and building the groundwork for an unprecedented societal (r)evolution.
Mondragon isn't outscaling large manufacturing, and the Spanish and Syrian Anarchists are violent revolutionaries, not your mythical peaceful ones.
Again, there is a case to be made of cooperative production with low barriers to entry for Capital, not for large-scale manufacturing, despite your insistence otherwise.