8 ms·

Quoting from https://help.riseup.net/policy/social-contract/ https://help.riseup.net/policy/social-contract/ : "We ask that you do not use riseup.net services

by gst 16y ago

Quoting from https://help.riseup.net/policy/social-contract/ https://help.riseup.net/policy/social-contract/ : "We ask that you do not use riseup.net services to advocate any of the following: Support for capitalism [...]" So why should I use such a provider that restricts my freedom of speech?

aneth 16y ago
As much as I admire the effort to provide tools to oppressed people, I would strongly oppose this group. Capitalism and market economics are the single greatest tool for raising living standards, liberating people from oppression, and unleashing human creativity for the common good. Destruction of capitalism would bring the worst forms of oppression, from ignorance, to disease, to fascism.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jhancock 16y ago
  I'm with you if you simply take the 'ism' off capital. The ism part implies or at least condones extremism. Capital is a fine tool; one which can and is being abused. A little moderation goes a long way.
- Qz 16y ago
  The single greatest tool for raising living standards is human ingenuity, which has been around for thousands upon thousands of years longer than capitalism has been around. Capitalism has its pros, but it also has substantial cons, and it's dangerous to go around blindly proclaiming capitalism as the solution to the world's woes.
  - aneth 16y ago
    At it's core, capitalism is an incentive system to innovate and distribute innovation. Human ingenuity is not sufficient in-and-of itself. Without being rewarded for giving your innovations to others, inventions are less likely to arise or be widely adopted.
- jscn 16y ago
  "Free people create free markets. Free markets do not necessarily create free people.” - Gupta’s Libertarian Observation
- mcantelon 16y ago
  I think it depends on what kind of capitalism you're talking about. Capitalism in a truly free market, in which all players are equal, is one thing, but crony capitalism, in which oligarchs use the state to keep the game rigged in their favor, is not conducive to innovation. Capitalism without oligarchy seems to me as much of a fantasy as communism without an oppressive state.
  - aneth 16y ago
    That's corruption, not capitalism. And corruption is far worse in non-capitalist states, although the spoils are much smaller in magnitude. And I'm not opposed to regulation or in favor of pure laissez faire markets. I would add an important point though. In China, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in 30 years, a modern miracle, simply by introducing well regulated capitalism to the economy. This despite the fact that billions are siphoned off through corruption and "crony capitalism." Many will look at this and rightly point out how unfair and unjust this is, however most Chinese would rather have a few, even many, rich corrupt official than the old state run distribution system, because now is overwhelmingly better for most Chinese than then. The overall effect is enormously positive, and nitpicking corruption that falls through the cracks is misguided. Corruption unjustly gives some more wealth than they deserve in every country - capitalism just means the pie is bigger.
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      True... and as China is lifted out of poverty, the US standard of living is decreasing because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without (enabled by a lack of regulation which is, in turn, a result of corruption). It seems that in speaking of "capitalism", some are speaking of capitalism as a distribution system (which is entirely sensible) and some are speaking of Capitalism as a philosophy (which, more or less, idealizes the law of the jungle). My guess is that Riseup is speaking of "capitalism" in the latter sense (and, if so, adding "unregulated" to their wording would clarify their position).
      - aneth 16y ago
- Confusion 16y ago
  Free reigning capitalism ends in a single party monopolizing essential supplies. Be the first to monopolize drinking water or oil production and most will do your bidding, lest their living standard plummets. You can leverage the power you have gained and obtain more monopolies. It will mean slavery and eugenic programs; the worst of all dystopias combined. Capitalism is amoral and must be kept in check by a government that looks after its people and upholds their moral standards. Otherwise, it ends in what is essentially a monarchy, but worse, because driven only to acquire more capital, with no regards for any morals at all.
  - aneth 16y ago
    Yes, regulation and anti-monopoly laws are essential to capitalism. However being in favor of sensible regulation is utterly different from advocating the abolition of capitalism.
fwdbureau 16y ago
Great point. Let's imagine a group of right-wing survivalists starts using the service: they probably don't support capitalism, but they're all for "self determination, local autonomy, ecology, and communal economics", in their own way. How long before they get booted? It's funny and highly illogical how the term 'activist' these days means solely left-wing militants (i don't specificaly condone right-wing survivalism here, this is just an observation)
phaer 16y ago
You should not. In fact they page you have quoted says it quite clear. They want users who don't like capitalism and if you like capitalism you may express your freedom of speech on one of the thousands of pro-capitalist providers. That's the great thing about a market: You don't have to use services you don't like.
- aneth 16y ago
  Yes, that's the great thing about a market.... Oh wait. Markets must be destroyed. Argh, inconsistency hurts my brain.
IsaacL 16y ago
From their policies page (https://help.riseup.net/about-us/political-principles/ https://help.riseup.net/about-us/political-principles/), the Riseup Collective makes it clear that they are a radical left-wing organisation. "We ... [provide] ... communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression." I personally don't agree with their viewpoint. However, I also don't understand the belief that they should be a platform for contrary viewpoints. They're not Wikipedia.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mcantelon 16y ago
Riseup is an anarchist organization providing services under the anarchist principle of "mutual aid" (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). They are offering services not to the general public, but to those who share their values and will contribute to a shared vision of a world free of dominance by oligarchies. TLDR: They're not Hotmail.
Confusion 16y ago
So why should I use such a provider that restricts my freedom of speech? If you feel their limitations restrict your freedom of speech: you shouldn't. That's exactly what they are telling you: don't use us for certain forms of speech. Is there a point to your question?

by gst 16y ago

aneth 16y ago

As much as I admire the effort to provide tools to oppressed people, I would strongly oppose this group. Capitalism and market economics are the single greatest tool for raising living standards, liberating people from oppression, and unleashing human creativity for the common good. Destruction of capitalism would bring the worst forms of oppression, from ignorance, to disease, to fascism.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jhancock 16y ago
I'm with you if you simply take the 'ism' off capital. The ism part implies or at least condones extremism. Capital is a fine tool; one which can and is being abused. A little moderation goes a long way.
Qz 16y ago
The single greatest tool for raising living standards is human ingenuity, which has been around for thousands upon thousands of years longer than capitalism has been around. Capitalism has its pros, but it also has substantial cons, and it's dangerous to go around blindly proclaiming capitalism as the solution to the world's woes.
- aneth 16y ago
  At it's core, capitalism is an incentive system to innovate and distribute innovation. Human ingenuity is not sufficient in-and-of itself. Without being rewarded for giving your innovations to others, inventions are less likely to arise or be widely adopted.
jscn 16y ago
"Free people create free markets. Free markets do not necessarily create free people.” - Gupta’s Libertarian Observation
mcantelon 16y ago
I think it depends on what kind of capitalism you're talking about. Capitalism in a truly free market, in which all players are equal, is one thing, but crony capitalism, in which oligarchs use the state to keep the game rigged in their favor, is not conducive to innovation. Capitalism without oligarchy seems to me as much of a fantasy as communism without an oppressive state.
- aneth 16y ago
  That's corruption, not capitalism. And corruption is far worse in non-capitalist states, although the spoils are much smaller in magnitude. And I'm not opposed to regulation or in favor of pure laissez faire markets. I would add an important point though. In China, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in 30 years, a modern miracle, simply by introducing well regulated capitalism to the economy. This despite the fact that billions are siphoned off through corruption and "crony capitalism." Many will look at this and rightly point out how unfair and unjust this is, however most Chinese would rather have a few, even many, rich corrupt official than the old state run distribution system, because now is overwhelmingly better for most Chinese than then. The overall effect is enormously positive, and nitpicking corruption that falls through the cracks is misguided. Corruption unjustly gives some more wealth than they deserve in every country - capitalism just means the pie is bigger.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    True... and as China is lifted out of poverty, the US standard of living is decreasing because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without (enabled by a lack of regulation which is, in turn, a result of corruption). It seems that in speaking of "capitalism", some are speaking of capitalism as a distribution system (which is entirely sensible) and some are speaking of Capitalism as a philosophy (which, more or less, idealizes the law of the jungle). My guess is that Riseup is speaking of "capitalism" in the latter sense (and, if so, adding "unregulated" to their wording would clarify their position).
    - aneth 16y ago
Confusion 16y ago
Free reigning capitalism ends in a single party monopolizing essential supplies. Be the first to monopolize drinking water or oil production and most will do your bidding, lest their living standard plummets. You can leverage the power you have gained and obtain more monopolies. It will mean slavery and eugenic programs; the worst of all dystopias combined. Capitalism is amoral and must be kept in check by a government that looks after its people and upholds their moral standards. Otherwise, it ends in what is essentially a monarchy, but worse, because driven only to acquire more capital, with no regards for any morals at all.
- aneth 16y ago
  Yes, regulation and anti-monopoly laws are essential to capitalism. However being in favor of sensible regulation is utterly different from advocating the abolition of capitalism.

fwdbureau 16y ago

Great point. Let's imagine a group of right-wing survivalists starts using the service: they probably don't support capitalism, but they're all for "self determination, local autonomy, ecology, and communal economics", in their own way. How long before they get booted? It's funny and highly illogical how the term 'activist' these days means solely left-wing militants (i don't specificaly condone right-wing survivalism here, this is just an observation)

phaer 16y ago

You should not. In fact they page you have quoted says it quite clear. They want users who don't like capitalism and if you like capitalism you may express your freedom of speech on one of the thousands of pro-capitalist providers. That's the great thing about a market: You don't have to use services you don't like.

aneth 16y ago
Yes, that's the great thing about a market.... Oh wait. Markets must be destroyed. Argh, inconsistency hurts my brain.

IsaacL 16y ago

From their policies page (https://help.riseup.net/about-us/political-principles/ https://help.riseup.net/about-us/political-principles/), the Riseup Collective makes it clear that they are a radical left-wing organisation. "We ... [provide] ... communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression." I personally don't agree with their viewpoint. However, I also don't understand the belief that they should be a platform for contrary viewpoints. They're not Wikipedia.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mcantelon 16y ago

Riseup is an anarchist organization providing services under the anarchist principle of "mutual aid" (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). They are offering services not to the general public, but to those who share their values and will contribute to a shared vision of a world free of dominance by oligarchies. TLDR: They're not Hotmail.

Confusion 16y ago

So why should I use such a provider that restricts my freedom of speech? If you feel their limitations restrict your freedom of speech: you shouldn't. That's exactly what they are telling you: don't use us for certain forms of speech. Is there a point to your question?