Also, this but unironically:
https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/ce835121-48ac-46ef-9bfb-22f31d049b57.png
cacheson
joined 2 years ago
That entire thread summed up:
I'm an evil stalinist and it says I'm a hardcore anarchist
And they are genuinely upset about it.
Death to landlords
Aside from the tryhard edginess of it, is this supposed to be controversial?
Sooooo you're both right. According to MLs, there must be a "transitional socialist state" to guide society to communism, which is supposed to be a stateless society with a gift economy instead of market economy.
Of course in practice they never get past the transitional phase. Anarchists often criticize these countries as being "state capitalist", in the sense that the state takes the place of the previous capitalist class, and continues the business of exploitation as usual.
yandere_irl
The goal of the copyleft movement (which overlaps heavily with the free software movement) is to carve out an intellectual commons that can't be re-enclosed. This commons is important for a number of reasons, including that it tends to be better for end-users of software in the sense that anti-features can't really gain a foothold. It does not automatically solve UX issues, nor does it stop people from using the knowledge of the commons to do bad things.
Much of the strength of the intellectual commons is that it builds on itself, instead of having to re-invent the same things in a dozen or more different proprietary endeavors. If we were to start a "peace software" movement, it would be incompatible with the commons, due to the restrictions it imposes. Peace software can't build on copyleft software, and none of the commons can build on peace software. These sorts of things were considered, and compatibility was deemed more important than pushing more specific values. This isn't a matter of the FSF or OSI standing in the way, it's just that "peace software" would have to go it alone.
Due to this dynamic, those that want to build "anticapitalist software" would be better served by using the GNU AGPL, rather than a license that restricts commercial use. The AGPL fixes the loophole that the GPL leaves open for network services, and should allow us to carve out a new noncommercial online ecosystem. It should even be used for non-network code, as that code may be repurposed or built upon by network services. I'm glad to see lemmy, kbin, and mastodon using it.
As others have mentioned, hexbear hasn't added us to their list of allowed instances yet. They block everyone by default. I'm definitely in favor of following lemmy.world's lead on this and preemptively defederating them, though.
Kbin does already block lemmygrad, and hexbear is basically just lemmygrad with a vaporwave theme and an even more annoying culture. I imagine this is just a question of when @ernest gets around to blocking them. That could potentially be a while though, so it's probably worth pestering him a bit on this particular issue.
Pretty sure we're already defederated from grad. We don't have an instances page yet where we could check, but that's been merged into kbin's code and should be available next time the site gets a version update.
To be fair, they do have the one token anarchist that shows up whenever they brigade a community. Any anarchist that would willingly hang out with MLs seems pretty sus to me, though.
Was too scary, I couldn't watch
I'm with Andrewism on the whole "left unity" thing. The left never was, never will be, and doesn't need to be unified. We can just collaborate (or not) with those of other political persuasions on a per-project basis.
The reason tankies push "left unity" is because they plan to be in charge of the unified left. Fuck that noise, we don't need it.
Conservativism, in the sense of being cautious about change, is an important perspective to have. The problem is that a lot of people that call themselves conservatives are actually reactionaries.