this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
27 points (100.0% liked)
Memes of Production
394 readers
918 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When you say "dozens of communities exist" that operate with self-governance, what is the size threshold that separates "community" from "state"? And does the term "self-governance" not imply a set of laws at that community level?
A state is not defined by the number of people "in" it, but rather of the fact that it wields a monopoly of violence over a defined geographical area and has a people to rule over.
That is true, but there being rules don't mean that there must be a ruler.
With those definitions, a "state" existing is an inevitability.
Getting any group of humans to all agree on a single set of rules at all times is impossible, especially as the community size increases. So there has to be some form of enforcement of the rules, since some people are shit heads who will ignore the rules, and others will disagree on interpretation.
And as community size increases, it's also an increasingly bad idea to leave enforcement of the rules up to individuals/the community at large. Humans are emotional creatures and will at times respond inappropriately to others who break the rules.
And since humans are made of matter, there's going to be a defined geographical area where a given community has control.
For the no ruler part, while the internet has made direct democracy possible, there's still going to need to be a manager of some sort to go about actually implementing the decisions made.
You make implicit assumptions that are hard to grasp and thus criticise. But I'll try.
You didn't really address the definitions.
I don't know what people you hang out with, but any game of football manages to get people to agree to a single set of rules.
If the group gets too large, it can naturally split up into two neighbouring groups. I don't really see why this shouldn't work, as long as there's freedom of association (i.e.: I can/should leave if I don't agree with the terms of a group).
I never said that the rules shouldn't be enforced. Just that the mandate to enforce the rules shouldn't rely on a set group with a monopoly of violence.
So, neither individuals, nor the community. Do you want an elite unit of secret police? O.o
So, there will be agreed upon rules and protocols on how to deal with rule violations. Still no requirement for this not-individual-not-communal police force you want.
... so?
A coordinator is different than a ruler. A ruling subject (i.e. a monarch, or any other state apparatus) has sovereign power over it's subjects (i.e. it's "people). A coordinator coordinates tasks.
Does that "manager" (which is a weird coice of words, since managers don't implement - they manage people implementing) necessarily have the power of command and control over other people?
Your worldview is very hierarchy-focused.