No seriously where are they?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

19th century idealism gave us the illusion of complete command and control rather than a dialectic between suppliers and users.

An emancipatory political practice necessarily involves making technology equally accessible to everyone. There is a set of technologies that does not deplete the ability of the earth to support humanity, and there is a set of technologies that certainly does. The vast majority of human societies today are reliant on ecocidal practices and are therefore self-destructive.

It's weird to deflect from criticism that says "your preferred ideology had some victories for 60 years but has had 0 victories in the past 50 years" by saying "you"re stuck in the past, history has moved on" while you cling to the ever-receding victories of 1917 and 1949. By the year 2033, the period of successful demcent Marxist revolutions will be surpassed in span by the period in which all subsequent demcent Marxist revolutions went belly-up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 21 hours ago* (2 children)

    That isn't what they are saying. Clearly, the dialectic has changed. However, that does not mean that the core organizational strategy and goals should be abandoned, as they are the only ones ever to produce any kind of tangible results, however fleeting. Not that I am arguing we must be in lockstep with Lenin or Mao or whomever on this. But we need to have a better understanding of how and why they were thinking what they were thinking, and when these things changed. Perhaps a more unorganized approach is required in the decaying ruins of modernity. After all, we are far more in a fight with international financial capital than the local industrial capitalists these days (though these people are becoming one in the same more and more as time goes on).

    The general issue imo is a complete lack of scientific practice and ability to learn from our mistakes. Due to our unfortunate propensity of ending up here is generally by being right and being outsiders, so the only thing we carry is our opinions and our pride. However it is these very things that must be set aside for the good of the social revolution.

    These things are never really recorded, and only become anecdotal word of mouth that are simply oral histories of liberalized personal failures rather than studied examinations of what the organization was offering, how that was communicated, what was wanting within the organization, and what the economic conditions actually were.

    The real issue though, with the pursuit of decentralization, is one that rests primarily within Marxist theory. All markets begin as decentralized networks but trend inevitably towards centralized systems. That is the nature of the market. In the same way, decentralized networks are inevitably dominated by those who have the time/money to put towards consolidating their area of the network, which then inevitably centralizes the network as competition is assimilated. Most people still post on Reddit, even though it sucks.

    Combatting this process appears to be extremely difficult. However, taking the reins of it appears to be possible, and perhaps through doing that, a better, more decentralized, way forward can be applied. Idk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    All markets begin as decentralized networks but trend inevitably towards centralized systems. That is the nature of the market. In the same way, decentralized networks are inevitably dominated by those who have the time/money to put towards consolidating their area of the network,

    This is true, and should be the number one reason for creating hierarchies so that they are transparent.

    It's worth noting that decentralization does not mean disorganization. It probably does mean that you can't predict the finer details, but that's not the goal. The primary goal is to tip the scales, and the secondary goal is to make people's lives better in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    Ah, I think, for me, this is abit of a misunderstanding between a decentralized or diffuse organization, but we are definitely talking about the same thing here.

    Agreed, hierarchies must be transparent. We can't have situations where we say 'There is no hierarchy' but there is one. That is where issues quickly accrue. The key is justified heirarchies.

  • source
  • parent