I’m very afraid another alternative is being conisidered here, and it’s worse than any of these.

It’s fascism.

And there’s sadly precedent for it, economic crisis leads to political and social instability that can be cleverly exploited by appealing to peoples’ emotions and putting them against an imagined enemy in other people, when the real enemy is hovering above us and cheering it on.

Full agree. I don’t see a viable alternative right now, but I’m sure one will evolve naturally once everything around us is in ashes.

(For the record, that actually was the cause, I’m not trying and don’t want to spread tankie propaganda like Lemmy’s devs are. We need libertarianism.)

For the record, libertarianism till 50s-60s. when US anti-communism spread like a disease, is, was, and will be, a specific part of anarchism/anarcho-communism, a proposal on how people/workers can organize according to libertarian principles. Libertarian principles are such that seek to protect and maintain all forms of equality in decision making among the members of the body that is making the decision. Emma Goldman, Luigi and Luce Fabri, Errico Malatesta, are among the most essential writers where libertarian principles are described.

This other monstrosity of an ideology associated as libertarianism is pure propaganda for the masses to diffuse interest from the original, to the extent that it is diametrically opposed to true libertarianism. It only appeals to the uneducated and to those who lack any form of critical ability. Capitalism, unleashed from the constrains of the superstructure of state (dialectically formed between the upper class and working class struggle for better conditions) is a short lived dead end situation and the quickest way to ultimate fascism, where the wealthiest can control every aspect of the lives of the lower class. In other words, under such proposals or this other form of anti-communism called anarcho-capitalism (yet another manufactured ideology from the depths of US state agencies), capitalism implodes to its final state, fascism and totalitarianism. The true essence of fascism is anti-communism, it is why fascism was created, to control and suppress communism. An earlier form of a manufactured propaganda to counter what is a threat to capitalism.

The support for what I am talking about is simple logic. It takes enormous political power or brutal force to maintain inequality for a long time (state) and this is all the capitalist state is; the maintainer and enforcer of inequality. A powerful state knows well enough what it takes to prolong its own existence, how far to take things, when to take a step back, to maintain social integrity and prevent uprising and revolt. Without a state, or with a lesser state, capitalists as individualistic as they are, they will suck it all in, and leave everyone else hungry and miserable. Then they have nobody to sell to but it is too late to realize it. It happened in the US in the 30s and spread across the industrialized western world like a fire. Since then they decided social democracy was necessary “to the capitalists” to maintain this great inequality, where 2% have/control 98% of land and resources. Private property can only be maintained by a state (laws, judicial system, police/army) otherwise it is just an immaterial idea.

Outside the US, and its puppets of English speaking world where propaganda spreads the most, people only laugh at US libertarianism as a silly joke. It is also the US that gave birth to distinguishing labels such as libertarian-left or libertarian-socialist etc. True libertarians are true anti-capitalists to the core.

There are 2 proposals against capitalism, the so called (in the US tankie) m-l authoritarian proposal, and the libertarian proposal. The one is pro-vanguard revolutionary the other is anti-vanguard social-revolution oriented. The one mandates economic only equality while building an enormous political inequality (similar or worse than the one in capitalism), the other builds on political equality where economic equality is the obvious logical result (we can’t collectively agree on our own economic inequality). Some will also argue that a powerful modern state can not help but reproduce capitalist relations in society, as the modern state itself is a fabrication of capitalists. Pre-capitalist states have significant differences and organization.

Both proposals (m-l and libertarian) though differ on values and principles, not on content or logical explanation, although there has been enormous debate on whether that is or not. The synthesis of the two can only be found on the necessity of a vanguard organization but not to rule and govern but to serve, protect, and obey those who choose to exit capitalism (zapatistas). It therefore promotes collective/communal autonomy organized by a communal assembly as the highest form of authority, which serves the members and not the other way around. The vanguard protected the uprising and the process of autonomy construction, does not intervene and does not act without the decisions of the communities. The antithesis of lib/m-l can not survive too long (1.5 centuries) without a possible synthesis.

To take it a step further, the most vicious and dangerous defenders of capitalism are reformist liberals and pseudo-socialists, who project some fake liveable-sustainable capitalism that is easy on the “losers” of their gambling game. They will always be the best friends to capitalists who feel threatened by the class they exploit and suppress. A large part of the state apparatus is there not due to necessity but due to class insecurity (the ruling class).

Religion, sports, entertainment, ethnicity, are all aspects of the state as a mechanism to prevent uprising and revolution. It pre-occupies people with non-problems so they don’t seek a collective solution to their true problems.

All this just for the record :)

Oooh boy, for sure it will and I’m really not looking forward to it. I still think a big bada boom is required in order to restore a society where people are not getting fucked over anymore.

Many Lemmy communities are currently at an acceptable point for a decent amount of user interaction. This is what has made me switch, and even though I knew federated socials for an option for years I didn’t really feel like it was worth switching until now. Clearly, thousands of other people agree with me, and I think this trend will continue for the more techy and aware people in these communities. I’m definitely good with just having those people in these communities, but at the same time I really don’t want the internet to get even worse for your average Joe, which currently… it still is.

@drwho @Syudagye If by “take off” you mean “ruin it”, sure.