Yeah because Trump will run it like musk runs Twitter. Bezos lost a huge contract last time he refused to bend the knee to Trump.

It’s more usable, less decentralised at the moment but theoretically could be as good as mastodon.

Mastodon UX sucks balls. If they want people to use it over bsky they need to fix that.

It’s not ‘full collectivisation’ in the Marxist sense. But many branches like anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are pretty explicitly collectivist in nature. And most types of anarchism rely on voluntary collectivism to work. Mutual cooperation based on a set of logical accepted principles. Individuals can’t dismantle hierarchy. So I reject the notion it’s individualism to the extreme. It simply rejects enforced collectivisation. Instead emphasising voluntary and decentralised participation.

Anarchists seek to create a fully decentralised and democratic structure devoid of classes. Centralised structures alienate individuals from decision-making and consolidate power at the top, reducing actual democratic participation. Anarchism, while focusing on immediate spheres of influence, fosters direct democracy, ensuring individuals have a meaningful voice in their communities. Federated networks allow for broader cooperation without sacrificing local autonomy. To be truly resilient we need to rebuild from the bottom-up.

So I’m an agorist because I don’t think a classless, stateless society can be achieved through coercive or centralised means. The methods of change have to reflect the desired society, ensuring that the revolution does not replicate the hierarchies it seeks to abolish.

And it seemed like the only praxis where I could make tangible contributions and help push us forward in a world growing increasingly distant from any traditional revolution of the proletariat.

For now. Most countries are realising how well this is working and following suit. The Tories in the UK used to be mostly sensible and fiscally conservative. Then last election cycle they pivoted to talking about the tofu eating wokerati and attacking trans people. Support for things like abortion or LGB is generally more established but they’re chipping away at that too.

That sounds more like the ancaps. Anarchists want to dismantle all hierarchy not just the state. With various different flavours of solutions of voluntary collectivism.

Agorism is not authoritarian because it doesn’t rely on coercion or centralized power. The goal is to undermine the state and oppressive hierarchies through voluntary counter-economics, not to seize or reverse the mechanisms of control like Soviet Democracy does. It’s about opting out of their system entirely, not “oppressing” the ruling class…any harm they face is the result of losing their ability to coerce others so I’m not sure why you think it’s authoritarian.

Marxist praxis depends on centralized authority, party structures, and coercion to achieve its goals. Historical Marxist revolutions institutionalized these mechanisms long after their revolutions, whereas anarchist praxis, even in Revolutionary Spain, aimed for decentralized power. The labor camps you mentioned were temporary measures during wartime, not inherent. But yeah it’s a spectrum not binary ‘auth or not’, some types of anarchists are more likely to resort to authoritarian measures during the transition. Agorism aims to side-step most of that by building parallel systems.

It doesn’t demand an end to hierarchy not sure what you mean.

Counter economics in the agorist sense.

Everyone. How do you keep the working class capitalist simps in line until classes are abolished?

A counter-economic revolution could be anti-authoritarian. The creation of parallel institutions that bypass and outcompete existing structures.

Marxists are ideologically liblefts the whole way, sure. But through an auth praxis

Enforcing obedience at the expense of personal liberty.

Well goal is maybe the wrong word but objectively it does get less authoritarian over time if it goes as planned.

Goal is to get less authoritarian over time though?

Anarchists have a similar critique of capitalism but see it being solved through horizontal and voluntary means so I’m not sure how it’s misleading.

On the contrary, it’s is a useful heuristic, even if it’s not perfect. While ideologies are complex and multifaceted, it provides a framework to map tendencies. It simplifies ideologies, sure- but that’s precisely its value & the social/cultural dimension and is harder to map

It’s an oversimplification and has its limitations but that’s often what’s needed to reach mass appeal and be useful in discourse.

I’m LibLeft it was a joke you blouse

Communism as the praxis (marixism, etc) it’s auth-left whereas the end goal is lib-left (stateless).

Liberalism is auth-centre-right.

They are incompatible because leftism is anti capitalist.

Liberals are auth right on the political compass.

Leftism is anti-capitalist.

There is enough variance between and within authleft and libleft.

‘Centrist’ and right wing voices belong in the gulag.

Telegram isn’t encrypted. There’s an option but nobody uses it and doesn’t work in group chats.

All these answers are wrong you want Stremio.