It reminds me a little of the old internet. I like how relatively small it feels, and that people post content for the sake of the content, not to promote themselves. I haven’t found my usual corners yet, the ones I used to hang out in on older platforms, but I figure that’s just a matter of time. I’m not super nostalgic for the old internet or anything, but it’s nice to find at least a hint of something human-centered somewhere.
I hope it doesn’t fall apart and that it keeps growing.
I was skeptical when I switched to Linux, but then I ditched Windows on my dual boot for good. It was a hugely positive experience, and it really felt like freedom. I’m hoping this will be the same.
And don’t be mad at me if I act totally clueless here sometimes 'cause all that is new to me.
Yep, but replacing rightauts with leftauths doesn’t accomplish anything - in the end you are under the heel of the boot.
Is an “auth” anyone that supports having a state? Is it not better for the working class to have a state than the capitalist class? These kinds of zingers are common, but they don’t actually say much.
Wouldn’t they become the new dictators, elites, dictating what others should do? The cycle would just go on changing from one master to another with same bullshit. You underestimate how power changes people when they reach it.
Why would it be a problem for the working class to control society? The working class is the mass of the people that creates new value, democratically deciding how to run society and planning production for our own needs is a good thing. I don’t see how “working class controls society” as the same as “elites.”
What I’m talking about is human nature. Those democratically elected would eventually accumulate wealth and pass things such as laws that benefit them. I am sorry to say that but the working class can sometimes become gullible that any cheap slogans and promises might dupe them into supporting a charlatan or group of them which in turn those people become the new elite of that society. And the other thing is that even if that happened, the new authoritarian would be the society itself and in this case which would dictate what the individual should do, what to wear,buy, how to behave etc…
Humans are generally self-interest, and please don’t misunderstand this word because it has many different shades. Most people assume that self-interest is being selfish which is only half-true. For example, I like nature and forests, and it’s in my interest that i protect them from trash and pollution and thus i might become invested into protecting it and become an activist. People would think i am being altruistic but in truth it’s serving my interest.
I’m sorry but this is pretty detatched from history and how human psychology works. Human nature isn’t a fixed, static thing, but is shaped by our environment and how we live. Socialist society, where humans collectively own production, cannot be dictated by a single or small group. It requires mass participation. Your view of society is simplistic and incorrect. People do act in their self-interest, correct, but contrary to how you view working people we are fully capable of understanding our own conditions.
Do you really think this could work in a city for example where many people live together, not knowing each other? What you say could be possible in a small village where only a hundred people live together but when it exceeds more than 500, it’d impossible IMO and it would always turn into what we have right now.
To the contrary, socialism can only work at scale. I’m not arguing for full horizontalism, I’m arguing for a collectivized and planned economy run by cells of people laddering upwards.