What is hexbear?
I saw a post that talked about racism towards people and when I talked about it the response I got was very heated and a person even called lemmy.world a community of 'hitlerites'
I have been around for a week or so and this is my first time seeing such explicit vulgar reaction towards another community, is this a one-off or should I block hexbear?
You're viewing part of a thread.
Revolution varies in the quantity of violence required, but requires at minimum threat of violence. You can't have a revolution by asking politiely and tying your hands behind your back.
Of course not, you do it sneakily in the shadows gradually until it's too late.
You see the beauty of my proposal is It needn’t wait on general revolution. I bid you to a one-man revolution— The only revolution that is coming.
That's a coup, not a revolution, and as such has no real historical examples of representing the interests of the Working Class. The point of revolution is that it is a mass movement of an organized working class, not some random hero commanding the masses into a better existence.
A coup is sudden, I am an agorist. No random heros but bottom-up & decentralised / voluntary.
So you want a bottom-up, loosely organized revolution but don't think it requires any threat of violence to pull off? Has that ever happened anywhere and lasted more than a year or two? Even Anarchists, who espouse decentralization, recognize the necessity of violence in revolution.
Not yet. We haven't all been connected for very long.
Say we fast forward. How do you pull off a non-violent revolution?
Say we fast forward. How do you pull off a non-violent revolution?
build the new world in the shell of the old
By fostering parallel institutions such as community run markets, local production systems, and peer to peer financial services, people can begin meeting daily needs outside the state's control. Engaging in counter economics, including black and grey market, mutual aid networks, decentralized governance tools, and local methods of conflict resolution. Things like local exchange trading systems, local currencies, and more exotic monetary/post-monetary ideas could fundamentally shift how we exchange and interact with each other. Robust tools to aid in resistance, communication networks, seamless ways to effectively organise and resist that can't be stopped, mutual aid networks,etc. As modern technology continues to empowers communities to self organize and fund projects that was previously impossible, they gain resilience and independence from official channels. If enough people see that decentralised solutions genuinely improve their lives, they will choose to opt out of the state's apparatus and voluntarily support these alternative systems. Over time the state loses both moral and practical support, culminating in a peaceful transition rather than a violent upheaval.
Sure, and you think the Bourgeois state will sit back and watch it happen? And that workers won't have to defend themselves? You're not even taking an Anarchist position, Anarchists believe that violence is necessary in prefiguration.
They'll be powerless to stop it. No point of attack.
Plenty of anarchists believe in non-violent revolution, including ya know, Proudhon.
Even in prefiguration, Proudhon emphasized nonviolent methods as the foundation of societal transformation. He advocated for workers to establish cooperatives, mutual credit systems, and other self-managed institutions as a way to model and embody a future society based on reciprocity and equality. These institutions would exist alongside the state and capitalism, gradually eroding their necessity without requiring violent overthrow. He proposed the creation of federations of autonomous communities and associations, emphasizing voluntary cooperation and self-management.
He believed in economic transformation via mutualist exchanges rather than seizing power through violence. He saw the expansion of non-exploitative economic practices as a way to delegitimize and outgrow the capitalist and state systems. He was critical of revolutionary violence and abrupt insurrections, arguing they often resulted in authoritarian regimes or chaos. Instead, he focused on evolutionary change that mirrored anarchist principles, allowing society to "prefigure" a stateless future without upheaval.
He did recognise the reality of entrenched power dynamics and systemic oppression could lead to conflict or resistance from those in power. However, he consistently argued that violence should not be the primary tool for change, as it risks undermining the very principles anarchists aim to achieve. In 1840, I would have agreed with him entirely. But technology will give us the upper hand in the modern world.