"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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I think that might be an ambitious guess regarding Riseup's intentions - they don't make any such distinction. They demonstrate a typical uninformed, knee-jerk, radical anarchist philosophy.
For reference, a definition of capitalism:
"An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
I don't agree that the US standard of living is decreasing "because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without." In fact, the US has an extraordinary high standard of living, far better than 20 years ago (just look at a grocery store, your average automobile or home, or what people do on vacation.) If it is plateauing or declining the last few years, it is for other reasons, including:
- An unrealistic increase over the last 10 years built on credit. It will take a few years before our economy catches up with that.
- A wasteful and destructive government education system rotting for lack a free enterprise and undermining our economy as a whole.
- Wasteful government spending and borrowing - trillions of dollars spent on corruption and war.
Nobody is using capital "against" anyone - I'm not even sure precisely whbat it means, yet I'm quite sure it's false.
>I think that might be an ambitious guess regarding Riseup's intentions - they don't make any such distinction.
Perhaps, although I've never met an anarchist calling for a centrally planned economy. Most anarchists have jobs and use money and some even run businesses. They're primarily against coercion and abuse perpetrated by the state and corporations rather than against people buying and selling things per se.
>the US has an extraordinary high standard of living, far better than 20 years ago
We're a few years into a global recession, with massive job losses and unemployment. It seems counter-intuitive that this leads to an increase in the standard of living.
>Nobody is using capital "against" anyone - I'm not even sure precisely what it means, yet I'm quite sure it's false.
I would say the recent economic collapse is a fairly good example of the use of capital agressively. Those who introduced derivatives into the market did so by more or less paying government representatives to remove legislative barriers.
A less dramatic example would be the stereotypical Wal-Mart using its capital to dominate local markets, wiping out existing local enterprise.
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.
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.
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.
Riseup has been doing great work for over a decade now. A lot of their security work, both linux kernal patches, and how to documents, have informed startups. I know they were very influential in Wesabe.
More recently they've been building Crabgrass, a social network tool for collaboration. https://we.riseup.net/ It's open source and has been adopted by various UN agencies.
If I were the government I would definitely operate a site such as riseup (and monitor the communication of the individuals using it). And even if it's not operated by the government, as the servers are based in the US, they are affected by things such as National Security Letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter).
Just guessing, but maybe they simply help people set up distributed systems. Eg. act as an information hub, rather than a technological platform. Don't know if that's the case, but it would make sense if.
"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?