this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that's also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if "democracy" literally means "rulership of the people" then who are the people?

sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ^>⩊<^ฅ

::: spoiler and now: me rambling about anarchy :3 if you are wondering now "anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?"

then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3

anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.

basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it's ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things

important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.

ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many

if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don't be mean :::

Personally I am more into sortition as a form of democracy.

Everybody up in here all having serious conversations and, I'm just like obsessed with the fact the fourth panel is artistically so much different than the first three lol

There exist different kinds of democracy, with the anarchist direct democracy by a community deciding together being the best form of it :3

Does this direct democracy include majority rule?

  • If not then why keep calling it democracy? Is anarchy not enough? What does the term democracy give that anarchy doesn't?
  • If it does then I don't know how anarchic I would call it. My tolerance for anarchy is quite large so I can see it working but I also would definitely understand people who don't consider it such.

And as a final note: by going back to the roots of the word "an-archy" loosely means "no-rule" and "demo-cracy" loosely means "people rule". So taking purely by their roots they are contradictory. One wishes for the abolishment of "rule" while the other wishes for people to "rule".

All this is meant as just fun discussion about words and ideas. In the grand scheme none of this matters as I think that the reality will be too messy to fit into any neat definition and at the end of the day if people are free it doesn't matter.

Yes it would be a majority rule, I believe there should still be a unified direction to avoid pulling in two opposite directions. But nothing should be set in stone, issues need to be debated to get people to agree together, not just "This is better!!" and "That is better!!". No elected politicians either, decisions made by the people, everyone matters equal. I don't know if it match perfectly with anarchism, but tbh I'm just confused as fuck in my daily life and it seemed to be the closest thing to what I want, which is why I'm identifying as such

As someone who identifies as a Social Anarchist, this is my dream. No Capitalism, no big evil government; just the community coming together to make sure everyone has their needs met. But that will never happen so long as we have psychopaths and recommendation algorithms.

An anarcho-syndicated commune, you say?

We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

Eh, if by syndicated you mean that trade unions are the main driving factor, it could mean that some people might be left behind because they are unable to work (due to physical or mental disabilities). Nobody should be left behind in my opinion

I've been enjoying the writing of Zoe Baker recently. Specifically Means and Ends about the historical origins of anarchism. While looking for that, I also saw an essay on Anarchism and Democracy that references more recent thinkers. Might check that out too.

Anyway, one of the takeaways for me was this: the fundamental opposition to parlamentary democracy entered the (european) anarchist canon in a time, when firstly parliaments were typically created as concessions by monarchs to stave off revolution, and by design ineffectual. And secondly violent revolution was still very much on the table. In this context participation in state democracy was opposed categorily as a strategic error.

If you live in a country where these two facts are no longer accurate (okay #1 is debatable, but #2 generally no), the strategic conclusions should also be different. Even if you have a post-state vision of democracy, some level of involvement in state democracy (or at least not torpedoing those efforts on principle) is non-optional in my opinion. Not least because fascists are trying to capture those systems to suppress all of our movements even harder.

She also has a pretty great YouTube channel if you're into video essay-style content.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3FD64RRsrCLpiZNkq7ZkSg

thanky for ur comment :3
zoe baker is great!

i think you are right that the state can't and shouldn't be ignored and we should try to get the state to improve conditions, but i also believe that we have to be careful about it.

there is the big rist of getting coopted or corrupte by the state, its logic, and it's burocracy.

and then of course there is also a limit on what is achievable using state power. we can't use it to prefigure a statless society, at best we can use it to create a fertile conditions for a statless society to grow. but that growing has to be done outside of it and is what i think requires the main focus.

You don't know how ready I was to receive the most toxic reply ever conceived by man.

I declare your takes to be extremely good and correct and, frankly, you're incredibly cool and attractive for having them.

i wrote a whole paragraph but then fat-fingered and deleted it :(

i guess i will literally go touch grass then

Anarachy is democracy without coercion. Specifically you should never be subject to violence for exercising your rights in contradiction to a plurality (or even majority) vote.

Or, it can be. There's really no restrictions on how a group of anarchists reach (or fail to reach) a consensus.

(I am NOT an expert in anarchy, but this is my impression from my sometimes visits to the Anarchist FAQ.)

I don’t know what device you are on but you can ushally shake you phone to undo that.

A sentiment I don't necessarily agree with but do understand, is that anyone can imagine anything as democracy, but for a discussion/criticism of the current system one should use democracy as in the currently actually existing democracies to stop people from letting their idealized version of democracy be seen as equivalent or close to currently existing democracies

Thanks for your ramble on anarchism, it's a good read, but there are some things that always puzzle me with this ideal:

that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3

How does a society prevent, or at least reduce the chance of, tipping into "everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over"?

I can see how this works when the society is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, and can get together to self-correct. Once you get past that size limit though, which is around 150 from the studies I've seen IIRC, you're going to tend to get cliques and factions forming, who may well work against each other, especially if some resource is constrained.

Capitalism and, what I shall generously call, "representative" democracy as systems seem less at risk as they sort of rely on that behaviour to function. I'm not saying that's good, but it's resilient up to a very high level of inequality.

we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things

Absolutely! I see so many people talking about other systems, but comparatively few actually making them happen. In most places there is enough space in the current system to build small examples of different approaches and show how they work better.

The society is at a much higher chance of "everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over" when there's an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism. Global superpowers and billionaires are in fact doing just that.

In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.

how would any anarchist society handle the existence of all the non anarchist societies around it?

The society is at a much higher chance of “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over” when there’s an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism.

The thing is that is the current system, that's how it's designed to work, rather than being a risk to the system. Obviously there's a limit to that imbalance somewhere, and we may well be banging up against it, but so far the system is functioning as intended.

In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.

What happens when someone is persuasive enough get others to follow them? That allows them to consolodate both influence and potentially resources. Again, in democracy we'd probably call tgat the start of either a cult or political party, and that's how it's supposed to work, whereas in an anarchist system you want to avoid it.

Every governent structure could fall under someone who is persuasive enough it being a revolution or a cult emassing power or whatever there are ofc many things we can do to midigate this risk and things that would make this harder are weaved into most anarchist theorys

Absolutely, you're right that it can subvert any government system, but I'm mostly curious as to how an anarchist system would protect itself without that working directly against the desire for minimal hierarchy.

Ideally, no single person should be able to make decisions on behalf of other people, ever. There should be a consensus required and reached so that everyone has a say in how they live. Of course, that requires that everyone has a basic minimum level of education and quality of life, that simply wasn't possible in the societies of the past.

Sorry, I know this is probably digging into the guts of the system, but I am curious about it. I have seen the concept of "consensus" suggested as a solution to this before, but what happens when complete consensus is not possible?

Take, as a rather extreme but hopefully illustrative example, a situation where two people desperately need a replacement heart, each will certainly die soon without it, both have the same requirements, and organs that match are rare. A suitable heart arrives at the hospital both are at. Who decides which patient lives? I am certain that each patient, and their families, will insist it is them that does, and will not consent to the other receiving it in their stead. This situation could be replaced with any allocation of an important, but scarce, resource.

How is such a decision made when consensus will not occur? Should it be the medical staff who make the choice? If it is, it must eventually fall to an individual to choose unless the staff can somehow reach consensus, but in either case it is a life-or-death decision over someone else.

I realise that's a rather extreme example, but I'm not trying to set up some "gottcha", just trying to understand how this sort of system is expected to work. Every description I've read tends to just gloss over the edge cases.

Asking questions and doubting any system is right, and is the core of any anarchist movement. I don't have a ready answer for your hypothetical, unfortunately. All we can do is to push our society forward to reduce scarcity and thus reduce the chances of such grim situations occurring. And there likely won't be a one size fits all solution for such cases.

If there is truly no way to choose via consensus, perhaps a random chance can help ensure that at least one person survives. I realize that deciding life or death based on something like a coin toss is grim, but that would be one way to resolve the situation without escalating to blame and conflict.

Maybe the anarchist FAQ linked in the OP has a more in-depth answer to your question, though. I recommend you check that out of you're interested.

In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close tl that much power/money/influencd

One of the things in hear from.Anarchists is that anarchy is perhaps the most common, most "natural" form of governance. That we are all born anarchists. But historically e see this same problem over and over again.

In a society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes, those who are the best at violence are able to accumulate resources and power. Combine this with biological trends and you get patriarchy. Eventually you get people who are good at organizing, so factions or tribes form. Eventually a class structure emerges with the organizers at the top, those.who commit violence below them, and those who are good at neither at the bottom.

I have yet to see an anarchist system with a leveling mechanism that I think could actually work scale.

I wouldn't consider anarchy a "society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes". But, I can see how you might make that assumption.

I agree that the "most natural" form of governance is actually warlord-ism, the best people at violence raid from the worst people at violence, and often amass some level of power just a little beyond what a isolated community can wield. At least recent history seems to have this happen a lot when existing governments fall.

The the descriptions of anarchy I have seen, violence is only permissive in defense of the rights of self or others, in particular but not limited to bodily autonomy and is not used to resolve disputes.

Still, I'm uneasy about the leveling mechanisms I've seen proposed to counter the hoarding behaviors that seems to be not uncommon among humans, particularly those steeped in Capitalism like myself. I also probably have trust issues.

The hoarding behaviours likely can be greatly alleviated by providing every human with basic societal safety nets. If you know that you'll have food, water, shelter and other basic amenities even if you lose your job (or get sick, or get old, or take a maternal/paternal leave etc), how likely are you to want to hoard money or other items just for the sake of it?

Of course, the small percentage of people would still do that, which is how we have the billionaires.

One of the things in hear from.Anarchists is that anarchy is perhaps the most common, most "natural" form of governance. That we are all born anarchists. But historically e see this same problem over and over again.

Not what I said at all. Please take that argument to those that actually use it and spare me the strawman.

I see anarchist society not as past, but as future. Where technology allows everyone to have some guaranteed basic level of life and nobody is forced to do something they don't want to do in fear of death or violence.

Of course, for that we need to start with getting rid of already existing people who amassed disproportionate amount of power.

It all really depends on how you structure stuff some anarchist comunetys are non violent othersdo use violence but in a "controlled" manner governt by a council or other democratic organ

On the part of organizing its harder to take power where structures already use that power organizational organs wont freely give away power or infuance to warlords

The fact that existing democracies (like all human endeavours) are flawed doesn't mean that democracy is a bad idea.

i'd argue it all depends on how one defines democracy. is it an ideal or a state governed by a minoriry of parlament or representatives? depending on that the flaw is either build in or something that can be overcome. either way i believe the solution is anarchy. the question is wherher anarchy is democracy or not...

You know what's even more flawed? Dictatorship.

i think you missed the point.

the question is whether anarchy

  • is the true democracy, getting closest to the democratic ideal, while most systems that call themselves democratic are far away from that ideal
  • is a seperate system to democracy, in which case it would be a preferrable system and democracy inherently flawed

dictatorship was never on the table but arguable representative democracy is exactly that. an elected oligarchy

Representative democracy is the best social system we have managed to practically implement yet. If your entirely hypothetical anarchy isn't democratic, I want nothing to do with it, because if it isn't democratic it's by definition dictatorial.

Anarchy is democratic, but that doesn't only mean representative democracy. Other democratic forms exist.

I wasn't in any way denying that.

That I haven't managed to fly yet is merely evidence that I just need to flap a bit harder

Read the sidebar my little chud

The alternative systems aggregate all political power in singular offices, which hasn't always been the best thing for we, the peasantry. It worked out pretty well for the Soviet Union, until Stalin started being a dick. Worked out pretty well for Yugoslavia as well, until Tito died and then there was a genocide immediately took place. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the system with the most backsies

i mean, the system i strife for is anarchy, which spreads power even wider than democracy which really just aggregates it in a few more people than a dictatorship.

whether it is an alternative to democracy or just it's truest form is the question of the meme. i think it is definitely an better alternative to our current systems though and the main one we should be measuring them against when criticising.

we can't improve by only comparing to those we deem worse and saying "at least we have it better"

Pretty sure the US also had something to do with it. Read: Michael Parenti - To kill a nation (well he kinda also denies the genocide, but otherwise it's pretty accurate).

What's everyone's opinion on gradual reform vs sudden revolution and how to accomplish that, probability of success, costs/risks/consequences etc?

I prefer Kaizen (continuous improvement) but I'm also in a pretty damn comfortable position in the existing system. I can fully understand the desire for Kaikaku (radical change) and will mostly excuse (if empaneled to a jury, refuse to punish) behavior that rejects the status quo in favor of something better as long as "crimes against persons" are defensive and reasonably restrained.

Well, I’ve always been a Suzaku guy, but I get where Lelouch is coming from!

Sorry for my naivety, but that's way over my head. Never heard of either.

It’s a reference to the 2007 anime Code Geass, considered one of the greats. They’re the main characters that are childhood friends living in a subjugated Japan under a large authoritarian superpower. Lelouch spends the show scheming to burn the current order down to then build a new world from the ashes while Suzaku works to carve out better living conditions for the oppressed Japanese and improve the world from within the system. Who is right? Within the show it’s debatable.

It’s got a lot of anime tropes, but it’s pretty good.

Thank you! You two are reminding me of what makes the Fediverse so good.

Well, both have their issues. Gradual reform will be the work of generations, and good luck keeping everyone pointed in the same direction for that long. Sudden revolution overcomes that issue, but it's basically a dice roll on what you are going to get on the other side of it. The idealized version of the outcome that the initial revolutionaries present is very rarely what you actually get.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. What do you think we should do?

Personally, I'd work on option A. Sudden revolution is going to result in a whole lot of people dead, and there's a strong chance that it just makes everything worse. Quick fixes rarely work long term anyway.

That depends on how you see gradual reform we need to build split power(power lose from the goverment such as local farming arming the working class) and change cultural stuff in that way gradual reform is needed for a revolution to start but if you mean it in the voting way its not gonna change much the whole voting system everywhere is to wraped up in big capital to bring actual changes best we can do is fight off collapse by voting left On revolutionary action and if it would work i think it would the system is not too stable right now everything is slowly crashing down it just needs a lil push(not saying it would be easy at all)

i believe that social change is necessarily a gradual project, because we need to build the new systems and learn to act self empowered and build new relations to each other and all of that takes time and room for experimentation.

people can show great initiative during power vacuums or sudden breaks, but if they never experienced anything else, i think they are likely to just reproduce what they already know.

the important thing is that states and private companies can not bring those gradual changes. they can make things easier, encourage things, and open doors, but at the end of the day it's against their own interest to completely subvert their own power and we need to learn to be indepentent from them and reclaim our power. we have to be the change. we can't wait for or rely on reforms.

Thanks to you too for the thoughtful response. What's one specific thing a person can do that would make the most change?

thank you for ur kind words <3

i believe the best way is to form connections to the people around you, your neigbourhood, workplace, place of study,... , get to know each other, help each other find the issues and needs that you share and ways to solve them together. when you build social structures, build them horizontally, where everyone can meet as equals and with power rooting back to the base and being delegated from there, not the other way around. when possible cooperate with other groups to combine your strength and resources.

i often ask myself "how might this be solved in a better society?" and then try to do that

it might be useful to find people who are ideologically aligned with u so u can talk about this stuff, learn new things, and kick things off together

Huh. Yeah, on the surface those sound like contradictory views, but they really aren't. They're each focusing on different parts of the word, but they would agree that it's the "cracy" part of democracy that anarchists have a problem with, while being all about the "demos" part.

Under an anarchist state, how do utilities and infrastructure work?

well oki to answer ur question with a potential solution: when people realise a need for certain infrastructure, they

  • communicate it, inform those affected
  • deliberate with those who care, make a plan which attempts to accomadate for everyone as best as possible
  • find people to (help) create it, probably a mixture of those also interested in the creation of it, experts in the field and those who just wanna help improve things
  • they request resources from where they are produced or existing supplylines, or if very abundant, just take them. if there aren't enough resources they deliberate with the producers of the resources if more could be produced and with everyone else who consumes the resources if maybe the new project can be prioritized.
  • if they get the resources and the work is not needed more somewhere else they get to work
  • if they don't have the capacities at the moment, it will have to wait

regarding maintanance, same thing, less steps. those affected by infrustructure will have an intrinsic interest in it's maintance. other might just help cause it's a good thing. people will have an eye on enough people being available to work on it, and if there arent anymore, they can ask around and inform everyon of the consequences of the infrastructure going unmaintained. i doubt anything would go unmaintained unless no one needs it, or there simply is not enough capacity to maintain everything due to crisis, so things have to be triaged, which can be deliberated on with those affected.

this is just one potential answer. the real answer is that people will figure it out as they go. honestly people already figured it out, as there are already anarchist infrastructure projects today.

you brought up the example situation of who would clear the roads during a snowstorm and well if clear roads during snowstorms are generally deemed important and people can be convinced to do it. hell i would do it if i received the necessary training and a decent explanation for why it's important. why should it go unmaintained if people need it? it's like asking who will wash my dishes. well i will cause yknow i need clean dishes. threat of homelessness and starvation should not be needed to motivate people to do basic necessities. i think the ideas that it would is a result of the extreme alienation we experience under capitalism, where the reason to do anything that is not pure pleasure has become coercion.

fuck you if you now just go and make some snarky remarks and shit on my answer

regarding maintanance, same thing, less steps. those affected by infrustructure will have an intrinsic interest in it's maintance. other might just help cause it's a good thing. people will have an eye on enough people being available to work on it, and if there arent anymore, they can ask around and inform everyon of the consequences of the infrastructure going unmaintained. i doubt anything would go unmaintained unless no one needs it, or there simply is not enough capacity to maintain everything due to crisis, so things have to be triaged, which can be deliberated on with those affected.

This answer only makes sense if you are completely detached from reality.

Maintaining any kind of infrastructure long-term is a high-skill task that requires lifetimes of study and experience (e.g. healthcare, waste disposal, railways, electrical service, etc). People can't just decide to help out with it one day and then fuck off next week. The overwhelming majority of people who depend on the infrastructure won't have the slightest knowledge about how it works, how to keep it working, or how to fix it when it breaks, and they won't have 20 years to get a degree and a professional certification in the field.

Long-term projects require long-term planning and long-term investement, which means management (e.g. authority figures) and public funding (taxes). There is no way around this requirement.

Now how do you convince people to go along with that?

lol "anarchist state"

That's the point as to why anarchy is at best a pipe dream of children with no life experience.

i'm mostly impressed with someone being so clueless on the topic as to put those words together, and then you doubled down and called it childish so it was a real double whammy

Could have been the state in the marxist way :) /j

Notice how you didn't inform me on the subject or refute what I said?

you come in here, behave like an asshole, ask bad faith questions, and then pretend like people not wanting to explain things to u in good faith proves them wrong

go troll somwhere else

I didn't ask a bad faith question, I genuinely want to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

yeah because it's not my job to educate you and i wouldn't get anything out of a discussion

Because,. just like every other anarchist I've met,. you can't. Because you can't answer questions like "how does the infrastructure work?" or "Who clears the road in a snowstorm?" are questions that can't be answered by anarchy.

Check out "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderloos, available for free here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works

i'm not an anarchist. i'm just surprised that you are so willing to ask questions but so unwilling to learn.

If you are genuinely curious, here is one of many places you can start: https://crimethinc.com/2016/09/28/feature-the-secret-is-to-begin-getting-started-further-resources-frequently-asked-questions#faq

Nothing here really touches on utilities or infrastructure. I am actually currious, so I'll rephrase the question;

How does an anarchist polity handle utilities and infrastructure?

"In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives — based on one member, one vote — which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly" -- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full

I know I can't speak for every professional, but a lot of them are more than willing to mentor the next generation of infrastructure maintainers, and many of them got involved in their profession because they enjoy the work, and would do it for the good of the community without pay, if only themselves and their family could live comfortably.

People that are currently doing what they are doing to maximize their income will likely not find a position like that in any anarchist society, but they also might find freed from the positional goods of Capitalism they might enjoy doing other productive things at least some of the time.

Syndicates would replace standardization organizations like IEEE and NIST and infrastructure that would benefit from intra-community compatibility will naturally benefit by alignment with those standards.

I could give you an answer. I have a couple prepared: "The same way it does right now except without the state or capitalism", "Councils set up that co-ordinate efforts between different local groups and, for lack of a better word, contractors that actually do the work".

But a better answer is I don't know. I can't know because I don't have any experience with infrastructure construction or maintenance. I can only guess. But I do know that an anarchist who does have the experience will be able to answer these questions and I will help them any way I can. Anarchism isn't about listening to a single persons answers. It's about collecting the knowledge and experience of everyone involved and have them come up with solutions together. Any answer from a single person is flawed, by combining our ideas together we could make something least flawed. That's what anarchy is about.

Every one of those answers assumes that people magically become better. Like I said, a pipe dream of people with no life experience.

Or maybe you just lack faith in people due to only being exposed to the worst of them. As my (yes, very short) life experience as only proven that people are more than capable of living anarchicly. Have you ever been to an anarchist bookfair? Sat in an anarchist cafe and listen to a passionate presentation about pigeons? Or sit in that same cafe playing cards into the night? I feel like I have more than enough experience to know that people are capable of organising and acting anarchicly.

we live in a horrible society which pushes ppl to be horrible to each other. assuming that people would be as horrible in a better sociaty is unrealistically pessimistic. i don't blame you too much for the assumption, cause its kinda what we are taught but, it is defo bs

It's been the rule for the entirety of human history.

no i dont think it is a "rule for the entirety of human existance" there have been plenty of rulerless societys and there have been plenty of better ppl its js that the folks willing to murder ant impirialize are gonna grow quicker and push there views onto other folks

"plenty of rulerless societies"

Such as?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stateless_societies

  • Freetown Christiania
  • Longo Maï
  • Puerto Real
  • Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities
  • Rojava
  • Spezzano Albanese
  • Baja California in 1911
  • free Territory of Ukraine
  • Guangzhou City Commune
  • Revolutionary Spain
  • Shinmin Autonomous Zone
  • Strandzha Commune

Real quick googeling so it might not be the best information but something to get you started :)

You sound historically illiterate. That certainly has not been the case.

Name some successful anarchistic societies then.

First you need to have a solid measure of both "success" and "anarchistic". Does the CNT/FAI count? Rojava/DAANES? Paris commune? Tribal societies basically anywhere pre-civilisation?

There are reasons to discard every anarchist experiment or society because you do not deem them "successful". Especially if you measure success in an archic way.

midwest.social

Rules

  1. No porn.
  2. No bigotry, hate speech.
  3. No ads / spamming.
  4. No conspiracies / QAnon / antivaxx sentiment
  5. No zionists
  6. No fascists

Chat Room

Matrix chat room: https://matrix.to/#/#midwestsociallemmy:matrix.org

Communities

Communities from our friends:

Donations

LiberaPay link: https://liberapay.com/seahorse