What went wrong with the Soviet Union?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2P

I2P and Tor both aim to provide anonymous internet browsing but differ in their architectures and methods. Tor (short for The Onion Router) uses a system of layered encryption to route internet traffic through a network of volunteer-operated servers. This creates a series of encrypted layers (hence the onion analogy) that mask the user's IP address and data content from any would-be observers.

In contrast, I2P uses a garlic routing technique, where multiple messages are bundled together into a single encrypted packet. This method enhances privacy by making it more difficult for anyone to analyze the traffic and link the data back to specific users.

Also, Tor supports access to the open internet (clearnet), while I2P only allows access to websites and services (known as eepsites) within its own networks. Outproxies, which are similar to Tor exit nodes, can be used to access the clearnet with I2P. However, this reduces privacy as your data leaves the network and is a less common use case.

I don't agree that company towns were authoritarian. Can you find a real example that wasn't just a newspaper political cartoon or a song? What did it mean to live in those towns? Think about it rationally. Let's argue that a company was able to completely set up a new town with no previously existing infrastructure. Perhaps a mining company in remote Alaska. How do they get workers? They offer low rent or free housing, good schools, and reasonably priced shops, in addition to attractive salaries. This creates a real-life "company town" we've all heard of. What would happen if the company ever slacked off or attempted to exploit its "monopoly"? Of course, workers would begin to leave and look for work elsewhere! Who could possibly stop them from doing so, other than the state?

That's the major difference between a state authority and a private "authority". Private organizations are subject to market forces and competition. They can't just simply be elected and do as they will for 2,4, 10 years, or life, without concern. The worse job private institutions do, the more unfair their pricing, the more attractive it becomes for competitive forces to come in and take their place. All the examples you can find of how terrible privatization is (e.g. healthcare) is actually because they are completely backed by the full might of the state, creating true monopolies and anti-competitive environment. These often come about as corruption and authoritarianism, private companies give money to key stakeholders in the state, who then use their power to craft regulation to protect their friends at the private companies, in return for more money. This will always happen, regardless of how many rules or safeguards you craft. If you don't like that happening, the only solution is to stop giving the state the power to do that.

I hate that argument though. "You shouldn't enjoy things because you should pay more than the advertised, because that's just how things are". Change doesn't happen unless change happens. Basically, if you want tipping culture to change, you actually have to start changing tipping culture.

Thanks for the long and thoughtful response, but I think there is some misunderstandings about how Eco's framework applies here. Ur-Fascism identifies things that may tend to lead to fascist thinking, rather than giving a definitive checklist of all actions that are fascist. Traits alone are not fascism; fascism arises when the state pushes to unify under a regime that enforces conformity, suppresses opposition, and uses centralized power to control people's lives.

Remember, we're discussing cutting government programs here, which is an economic decision, not inherently an authoritarian one. Fascism means expanding government power into private lives, enforcing a singular national identity, and controlling all discourse and industries. Cutting state programs, even if you personally disagree with the decision, limits government reach, which contradicts the key central tendency of fascism.

I think Eco's framework is important for recognizing creeping authoritarianism, but when you carelessly apply it too broadly, you risk watering down the concept of fascism. Mislabeling every policy decision you disagree with as "fascist" can make it harder to identify actual authoritarian threats when they arise, and is inherently divisive, attempting to shut down meaningful discussion rather than welcome it. Instead of carelessly jumping straight to labels, I think it's important to have more nuanced discussions about the reasons and implications of government policy.

Cutting agencies isn't a fascist policy. It's a move toward decentralization. Rather than expanding the government and corporate power, cuts to state agencies seek to limit their control over individual lives. It's a move toward necessary fiscal responsibility. The US federal government's current level of spending is not sustainable, and will inevitably lead to the shutdown of all of these agencies and more, crippling taxes (of course always on the middle and lower class), hyperinflation, or an unpleasant mixture of all three.

In fact, I will argue that excessive debt is a powerful driver of authoritarian policies, as the state is forced to prioritize revenue collection, even it it means infringing on the well-being of the people. Fiscal restraint, in contrast, reduces the risk state power will expand through financial necessity, making it anti-authoritarian. I think that's a good thing.

The problem with any media heavy content is storage. Fediverse is diy, mom's basement servers. Who's going to pay for all the storage?

Without a strong fundamental truth to base your beliefs on, how can the left ever expect to unify?

You're the one who brought up fascism. I said I can't think of an example of fascism working. Cutting government scope is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterized by a strong centralized authority, which cutting is the opposite of.

What axiom is the left ideology built on that allows it to be ideologically pure? For example, the right has property rights to build on, which itself is derived from the ownership of your own person. What fundamental truth does the left build their views on?

I guess because it can federate with other servers and protocols?

Fascism? No. Argentina seems to rapidly be improving with thier ultra-extreme cuts.