Nola

I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.

And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.

And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.

I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.

And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.

I mean this is sort of backdooring itself into the trove of arguments and theory around why a communist revolution has to be an international liberation movement, and why you need a revolutionary vanguard cause you can’t hope to achieve communism while capitalist imperialism is still around.

Which is precisely why the question of socialism/communism or Anarchism and how to achieve it goes beyond just seizing control of the state or reorganizing production and the relationship with the state within national borders. It’s also became heavily about surviving and overcoming an international system of capitalist power that has both the material incentive and institutional capacity to prevent those alternatives from succeeding.

I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.

And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.

Cause you said they all devolved into dictatorships and that is factually inaccurate.

Every example in the OP is from a revolution that occurred in response to an existing non-democratic, capitalist, authoritarian state.

So the revolutions took over states that were in fact not democratic. This is not a moral judgement but a clarification of fact.

Another clarification is the notion of “Have Always”

Do you think those listed are the only examples?

Care to explain the Paris Commune? Allende in Chile? The socialist republic in Spain? Arbenz in Guatemala? Lumumba and the pan african movement in Congo? Nicaragua? The PKI and Sukarmo in Indonesia? And then in East Timor? Just to name a few

It is not a whataboutism to challenge your assertions of factual ignorance.

Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?

This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.

And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.

So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.

It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.

I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.

I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer

It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.

People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.

Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.

Devolved?

Which of the listed nations on the bottom were revolutions that overthrew functioning free and fair democratic systems?

Most people also don’t know that the entire tankman saga happened as Chinese forces were LEAVING Tiananmen Square and he wasn’t run over. The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people. And this all happened outside the foreign press hotel in an area that had been largely blockaded during that time.

Where western reports were going out speaking of tons of violence in areas near the square.

Which tankman has always been a peculiar moment in history cause in context it very much comes off like it was possibly staged by the CCP, or at least the CCP thought it might work in their favor PR wise, but ends up getting used in a way that is suggestive of that moment being a moment of CCP violence against the innocent.

And of course the even larger context of what was being protested was never and still is not really contextualized.

The system disciplines everyone is the fuller answer.

And AOC is actually a very good case study in how this happens even if you aren’t explicitly bought and sold

Cause in fact she is not deeply rooted in corporate super pacs or propped up heavily by conditioned billionaire money. The popular narrative that seems to dominate.

Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.

So replacing her is not going to be the core fix for this problem. The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.

If the DSA had 100 members in congress things would be different, but even then certain mechanisms of discipline will never fully go away until a more fundamental change in the relationship of the state and who it serves and how it is controlled changes.

If you think this stops with Nvidia you are missing the forest for the trees…AI companies want to put a militarized moat around their techno fiefdoms. In the words of Altman “if only all these people didn’t have DRAM at home”

“did you see the latest model break containment OMGOMG!!!” I guess the government should step in and serve as gatekeeper for who can have this “dangerous national security threatening” tech…I mean we just can’t risk some open weight chinese model or some incel with a local LLM hacking into the pentagon with a rogue AI, guess Antrhopic, Microsoft, X, and Google need to be allowed to form a cartel to control this dangerous tech and we should put strict restrictions on who can buy certain AI components…for national security of course.

That all swallows AMD too. Who is partnered with Anthropic.

The problem to me is the demand for feature parity and availability on both Microsoft specs. Same issue they forced on developers and consumers with the Xbox 360 with no HDD.

It does legitimately force an entire generation to design for the lowest common denominator and everyone pays for that opportunity cost.

If Microsoft just allowed companies the freedom to skip the Series S, or reduce more settings/features, then it wouldn’t be a problem.

But of course if Microsoft allowed that then consumers would be upset they can’t play every game and it would reduce the value proposition.

And from a consumer perspective, I hate that. So yeah, I dont want more Series S type consoles either.

Especially cause enough games for years continue to be cross platform so if money is an issue just stick to the cheaper last gen consoles and wait for the price drops

I admit I am not as into gaming as I once was, but I wouldn’t have a problem with a digital push if it was coupled with laws/regulations that guaranteed some sort of actual ownership, not simply a glorified rental.

Frankly I haven’t bought a physical game in probably a decade in large part cause all I do game on now is PC.

TBH I also think that feature can become it’s own problem too.

The Fediverse may be good at combating certain forms of enshittification(it’s too small right now to know for sure), but what qualifies as such can easily drift into ideological balkanization, purity testing, and arbitrary in-group/out-group policing…Which I already see happening here during my short stay.

And social networks thrive and grow on cross-community connectivity, discovery, and engagement, excessive ideological sorting and fragmentation then undermines that. That is a core contradiction in the Fediverse that I am not sure is easily reconciled.

Where the incentivizes toward that balkanizing also increases the risk of creating a network even more unfriendly or overwhelming to newcomers to navigate(ideological boundaries they didn’t create, didn’t consent to, and may not even understand), while risks decreasing broader political dialogue, coalition-building, and productive disagreement that makes town square social media what it is and not just a more convoluted Discord for messageboards.

And how many accounts are just dormant for a decade or at least until some bot farm hacked it and repurposed it to do some Hasbara on your local community sub?

Honestly? Cause much of the entirety of the US tech capitalist model is just digital feudalism.

Create a compelling reason to join your digital kingdom then when enough people move there you put up the enclosures and start profiting off exploiting your subjects and charging tolls to people wanting to access them.

And ideally enough of that peasantry remain dependent on your digital commons that realistically they can’t leave.

The upside is that this process naturally lends itself toward enshitification over time. The downside is that unlike messageboards of old, social media deploys incredibly addictive algorithms to keep a core type of user engaged. And then those habits harden and leaving feels impossible.

I think the question comes down to who are the states not on board that can now come on board and would it benefit them?

And unfortunately, the states that could sign on that now have trifectas according to the article are all benefitting from the current system: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. Since they are swing states.

And several of them have presidential hopefuls that I am sure are trying to fundraise on the fact they can deliver those states. 2 of which are governors. So I think this is all a long way of getting to what the OP said…

TLDR: Most likely no, they will not sign on.