@SallyStrange @Jo uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh fighting the accumulation of social is intrinsic to anarchist practices. Cults of personality and states form that way. "Building social capitals is an instinctive survival strategy, something we all do all the time" is nonsense. There's a vast difference between building a strong, tightly knitted community and becoming an influencer with thousands of followers and audiences.

@SallyStrange @Jo Building mutual relations help encouraging social connections within a community. Building social capital will tend to break that connections.

@SallyStrange @Jo Social capital is just as dangerous, if not more in some cases, in the marketplace of ideas. The call for accumulation of social capital is also common under capitalistic system and also act as an important gear in hierarchical systems.

@SallyStrange @Jo That's why it's called "social capital."

@SallyStrange @Jo This is because the social capitalists will offer themselves as the solution for the mutual distrust within communities and encourage others to be influenced by them instead of self organizing within their communities. Social capitals thrive best in selfish and hateful communities.

@danishcookies @Jo

Although you're correct to call me on not questioning the provenance of the term "social capital," nothing in the overall tenor of your remarks leads me to believe I'm wrong to regard those who case aspersions solely on the basis of desiring it as people to be wary of.

@SallyStrange @Jo Have you literally not seen this in any leftist communities? Leftbook is one prime example. Literal social capitalists build their reputation with the assistance of hierarchical group structures. Their politics reeks of reactionaries and most of them are Tankies. They want a system where they can cash in that social capital for political power. Fuck that.

@SallyStrange @Jo Let's not forget one media platform based solely on accumulating social capitals and creating appealing aesthetics without mutual interactions: Youtube. It's a breeding ground for reactionary politics. Environments encouraging accumulation of social capitals while undermining decentralized self organization always lead to the same outcome.

@SallyStrange @Jo It all boils down to the power dynamics. Unequal distribution social capitals will lead to people abusing their platform. In the marketplace of ideas they are capitalists. Their voice will drown out others and no social capitalists have ever gotten to where they are without social engineering. They have power over others and it is as natural as capitalism itself.

@SallyStrange @Jo And they will seek out to expand their social capitals as power is addicting and is encouraged within capitalist frameworks. This is why we're anarchist. This is why we're against electoral politics. This is why we are against cults of personality. This is why we are against the State.

@SallyStrange @Jo Capitals, be it monetary or social, comes with responsibilities. And I hardly think anyone can be so politically and morally perfect to possess too much of either.

@danishcookies yup. And, people who disparage others on the sole basis that they want to build their influence are not people I'd trust right off the bat.

@danishcookies
Have I literally not seen any leftist communities. No, I have seen leftist communities. Not leftbook, but I've seen the dynamic you're talking about. Again, still not an argument against being wary of those who disparage others on the sole basis that they seek attention or influence.

@SallyStrange I already said all I could and link as many of my points to reactionary politics as possible. I don't really care if you're not convinced at this point because the painfully obvious threat of cults of personality apparently just flew over your head. I have better things to do than playing a tug of war with someone who thinks "but I still think seeking out to be an influencer isn't a problem" is somehow an argument.