Free market communist
@leftisthyak.bsky.social
Political commentary from a liberal
What do we do when we have power so that we win in the long term?
February 7, 2026 at 4:52 AM
What do we do when we have power so that we win in the long term?
Use empiricism and pragmatism to achieve consensus among competing subfactions by demonstrating that policy decisions are not being driven by the interests of one faction against the others. The coalition always benefits as a whole.
February 7, 2026 at 4:37 AM
Use empiricism and pragmatism to achieve consensus among competing subfactions by demonstrating that policy decisions are not being driven by the interests of one faction against the others. The coalition always benefits as a whole.
Like I think instead of defunding or abolishing the police you use the power you have to become the police and change the institution by changing its rules and workforce. In hindsight, we should have done the work to coerce the police to be better in radical ways starting back in 2014 in BLM 1.0.
February 7, 2026 at 4:33 AM
Like I think instead of defunding or abolishing the police you use the power you have to become the police and change the institution by changing its rules and workforce. In hindsight, we should have done the work to coerce the police to be better in radical ways starting back in 2014 in BLM 1.0.
But if you don't seek to design power structures to be both constraining and constrained you have to settle for symbolic and cultural victories, which are great because they are natural constrained, but your culture will not constrain your enemies or protect your from them.
February 7, 2026 at 4:00 AM
But if you don't seek to design power structures to be both constraining and constrained you have to settle for symbolic and cultural victories, which are great because they are natural constrained, but your culture will not constrain your enemies or protect your from them.
I admire your serious attitude about power and view of liberalism as a radical movement, which it surely is on a historical timescale.
My hot take is that liberals are closet anarchists, too suspicious of power to tightly grasp it, unless power is obscured by culture (morality or aesthetics).
My hot take is that liberals are closet anarchists, too suspicious of power to tightly grasp it, unless power is obscured by culture (morality or aesthetics).
February 7, 2026 at 4:00 AM
I admire your serious attitude about power and view of liberalism as a radical movement, which it surely is on a historical timescale.
My hot take is that liberals are closet anarchists, too suspicious of power to tightly grasp it, unless power is obscured by culture (morality or aesthetics).
My hot take is that liberals are closet anarchists, too suspicious of power to tightly grasp it, unless power is obscured by culture (morality or aesthetics).
In common, they both value diverse bodies in their aesthetics, but anarchists are more willing to play with shock value, typically aiming to challenge liberals' in their comfort.
February 6, 2026 at 3:42 AM
In common, they both value diverse bodies in their aesthetics, but anarchists are more willing to play with shock value, typically aiming to challenge liberals' in their comfort.
I think, liberals and anarchists have fundamentally similar preferences for autonomy, freedom from domination, social structures that empower them and don't oppress others. Liberal aesthetics are conventional, clean, & middle class. Anarchist aesthetics involve queerness, violence, crust, etc.
February 6, 2026 at 3:40 AM
I think, liberals and anarchists have fundamentally similar preferences for autonomy, freedom from domination, social structures that empower them and don't oppress others. Liberal aesthetics are conventional, clean, & middle class. Anarchist aesthetics involve queerness, violence, crust, etc.
But power / hierarchy happen without formalizing them. Actually, formalizing a power structure is a necessary step in limiting it.
February 6, 2026 at 3:35 AM
But power / hierarchy happen without formalizing them. Actually, formalizing a power structure is a necessary step in limiting it.
To clarify. I don't mean networks are hierarchical in essence, just that networks aren't a meaningful opposite of hierarchy. I think anarchists have simplistic ideas about how hierarchy or power happen, often reducing them to formal roles and structures.
February 6, 2026 at 3:35 AM
To clarify. I don't mean networks are hierarchical in essence, just that networks aren't a meaningful opposite of hierarchy. I think anarchists have simplistic ideas about how hierarchy or power happen, often reducing them to formal roles and structures.
Crime is a pretty cool function though!
February 5, 2026 at 11:48 PM
Crime is a pretty cool function though!
Why look to networks if they are hierarchies? The differences are superficial things like aesthetics and whether have office jobs or not. Not sure what makes my concept of liberalism 'American'.
February 5, 2026 at 11:20 PM
Why look to networks if they are hierarchies? The differences are superficial things like aesthetics and whether have office jobs or not. Not sure what makes my concept of liberalism 'American'.
Reposted by Free market communist
Mentioned above, Jo Freeman's Tyranny of Structurelessness shows how easily status hierarchies emerge among anti-hierarchy activists. Earlier, onetime-anarchist Robert Michels argued for an "Iron Law of Oligarchy" where such subtle inequalities build on themselves into authoritarianism.
February 5, 2026 at 4:01 AM
Mentioned above, Jo Freeman's Tyranny of Structurelessness shows how easily status hierarchies emerge among anti-hierarchy activists. Earlier, onetime-anarchist Robert Michels argued for an "Iron Law of Oligarchy" where such subtle inequalities build on themselves into authoritarianism.
I agree except for the no hierarchy part. Hierarchy is inevitable and okay, and important to be intentional about. Tyranny of Structurelessness is real.
February 5, 2026 at 4:50 AM
I agree except for the no hierarchy part. Hierarchy is inevitable and okay, and important to be intentional about. Tyranny of Structurelessness is real.
What actually existing worker cooperative is non-hierarchical?
February 5, 2026 at 4:48 AM
What actually existing worker cooperative is non-hierarchical?
Networks can easily be hierarchical. See the Chacoan culture. Hierarchy is not the enemy. The enemy is concentrated and undemocratic power. Anarchists are just extremist liberals.
February 5, 2026 at 4:47 AM
Networks can easily be hierarchical. See the Chacoan culture. Hierarchy is not the enemy. The enemy is concentrated and undemocratic power. Anarchists are just extremist liberals.
alternet is a joke. ridiculously sensationalistic.
February 5, 2026 at 4:43 AM
alternet is a joke. ridiculously sensationalistic.
I think that's technically 6 citations and a few uncited facts.
February 5, 2026 at 4:06 AM
I think that's technically 6 citations and a few uncited facts.
Final example: Early Wikipedia was seen as structureless, and attracted libertarians and anarchists. Making it work required a complex regulatory apparatus with many levels of soft power and some of authority. Still relatively anarchic, for a complex project, but lots of status hierarchy in play.
February 5, 2026 at 4:01 AM
Final example: Early Wikipedia was seen as structureless, and attracted libertarians and anarchists. Making it work required a complex regulatory apparatus with many levels of soft power and some of authority. Still relatively anarchic, for a complex project, but lots of status hierarchy in play.
This bundling is what makes the state so total and coercive, and the persistent bundling was possible when states controlled so much land that people couldn't move away from their oppressors. Tainter makes a similar argument, with weaker evidence in the earlier "Collapse of Complex Societies."
February 5, 2026 at 4:01 AM
This bundling is what makes the state so total and coercive, and the persistent bundling was possible when states controlled so much land that people couldn't move away from their oppressors. Tainter makes a similar argument, with weaker evidence in the earlier "Collapse of Complex Societies."
My interpretation of the "Dawn of Everything"'s thesis is that total structurelessness / an-hierarchy is most likely an ahistorical concept. The modern nation-state bundles together forms of power (charisma, spirituality, knowledge) that most societies have unbundled.
February 5, 2026 at 4:01 AM
My interpretation of the "Dawn of Everything"'s thesis is that total structurelessness / an-hierarchy is most likely an ahistorical concept. The modern nation-state bundles together forms of power (charisma, spirituality, knowledge) that most societies have unbundled.