since lemm.ee is slated to be gone soon, does anyone know of any other instances with similar policies regarding defederation? i’ve always loved how i can follow communities basically wherever from here. it’s why i chose here over elsewhere. i just wanna be able to curate my own feed, but most big instances seem to have all these complicated beefs that mean i’d lose access to some communities if i moved there.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    0·
    7 hours ago

    The struggle with such a standpoint is that both Marxists and Liberals have (to a varying degrees) coherent systems of values and understandings. For Marxists, as an example, Dialectical and Historical Materialism is the baseline, while liberals tend to be more idealist and deny aspects of class struggle. If you agree with either premise, then other conclusions necessarily follow.

    Plus, I don’t really think labeling Marxists as “auth” makes sense. All states are “auth,” as all states are instruments of class oppression, but the class in charge is what makes the biggest impact on how society is run. Liberalism is “auth” as the bourgeoisie rules, Marxism is “auth” as the proletariat rules. It is only by abolishing class that the state can be abolished, and class can only be abolishef by sublimating all forms of property ownership into common, public ownership.

    Either way, tangent aside, I recommend finding instances that match your interest, rather than strictly broad federation. Mander.xyz is a great example of an instance based on science, but it also has broad federation. Check Join-Lemmy.

    • Zyratoxx@lemm.ee
      0·
      5 hours ago

      I agree with the points you make. Of course both Marxism and Liberalism is auth to a degree but I think that both the council republic and the single party state are both more directly auth whilst liberal systems tend to be more indirectly auth - through influencing the media & corruption “LoBbYiSm”.

      Thanks for the mander tip, I might decide between mander and .zip since .zip has broad federation too and multiple frontends and was also recommended a lot.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        0·
        4 hours ago

        What do you mean by “directly auth?” If people have a greater degree of political freedom in one party proletarian states than in multiparty states where the bourgeoisie is in control, it seems freedom is greater for more people in the proletarian states. I think the whole “auth” concept is flawed to begin with.

        • Zyratoxx@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 hours ago

          By directly auth I mean that someone with a political interest only needs to have ties to high class party members. By indirectly auth I mean that the same person needs to have ties + smh needs to make sure that the person / person’s party actually gets reelected the way Musk has been doing it in the US and the way he has tried to do so in multiple European countries.

          And as someone born into a GDR family I could add something to freedom but yeah. We were loyal enough and had someone in the party so we had more freedom than most GDR families… And tbh, life - as long as you were loyal - was, according to my fam, pretty chill with people being nicer because of less stress to compete for shit. They even say now they want socialism back.

          The thing is I can be disloyal now, say that I vote for the communists even tho I live in a capitalist society and face no reprocussions even without having political connections. Travel wherever the fuck I want - to North Korea if I want to. So yeah. I want this system of “who tf cares” but without the greedy capitalists and the fucking corrupt opportunists but yeah. I mean the average middle class Chinese can visit capitalist nations so they fixed that problem.

          Tbh I have been writing and thinking how to explain myself for so long that my adhd ass brain lost track of what I initially wanted to say…

          Ah tldr something like: if peops have the freedom of movement and speech a communist system would be pretty chill but in the past freedom of movement was connected to having someone in the party - at least in the GDR

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            0·
            2 hours ago

            It’s important to contextualize, though. Restrictions of some speech in Socialist countries is usually a defense against outside influences, where Capitalists dominate. Capitalist systems don’t appear to restrict speech as much because the only ones that control it are wealthy Capitalists, you can speak out as much as you want but none of that has any power.