|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Generally a anarchists believe in arming yourself. You go far enough left, and you get your guns back. Quoted for truth. A lot of early unionist created their own militias, which probably didn't do their image a lot of good, but did achieve to protect their class. OwlFancier posted:Well, yes, that's my point, what is more democratic than organizing together to pursue a goal beneficial to all? Oh, allright  Well, the counterpoint is the same as always: Capitalist institutions have reproduced themselves so efficiently in both civil and political life that anyone defending it usually isn't self-aware.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
To quote Marx on the subject:quote:To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising. Emphasis mine. I'm not sure it holds true nowadays necessarily but there's definitely historical precedent for angry communist gun nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
Anarchists don't have an issue with expertise or other people running things. For example, "in the case of boots, I submit to the expertise of a bootmaker". The main difference, the way I see it at least (and 4 other anarchists will give you 4 other answers as was said earlier), is that these 'military experts' have full knowledge that if their soldiers think they've crossed a line, they're gonna get Jim'd. The same goes for the representatives that represent your community in the democratic confederation or whatever. They probably won't get Jim'd, but it's not a representative democracy thing where you vote every 5 years and are stuck with that person. If the power goes to their head and they start doing poo poo that isn't in the community's best interest they are out on their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To quote Marx on the subject: Yeah, but aside from the fact that Marx was no Anarchist, the question wasn't weather workers should be armed in a capitalist society, the question was how an anarchist would justify having an armed police force in an anarchist society. Because when the survival of communities, no matter how decentralized they are, relies on having bigger guns, the result looks much more like feudalism than anarchism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Well I think the justification is identical, the use of armed force can be justified in the face of existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Called my (R) congressman today to complain about provisions of the Spending Bill that undercut Dodd Frank. Got put on hold for a while when I asked where Gus stood on this one and basically got back my first "gently caress if we know but we'll try to find out". Funny how off the radar important poo poo like this is just due to the sheer volume of insane things going down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
[quote="SomeMathGuy" post="474414890"] The thinking is that democratically organized communes would coordinate in a confederation of equals (sort of like in Rojava) and that truly wasteful/resource intensive practices are a consequence of capitalism rather than what would occur under communist material conditions. Municipal functions and responsibilities, like all necessary functions and responsibilities, could be hashed out democratically." Since large scale anarchism has never a had a real chanche to be tried in real life ( well not for long anyway) i can`t say you are wrong. If we can go to the moon maybe we can mange this as well. It would be interesting to see if what you describe could ever happen spontaneusly and be sustained. I just know that it is easier to see the needs of your own people very clearly and forget how it connects to everything else . And even if everyone is on the same side acting in good faith people in different areas will have wildly different beleifs about what works and what should be prioritized. You certainly have to assume there will a incredible willingness to compromise and sacrifice in the name of the greater good. (the power plant has to be in someone`s backyard,/not every borough can have a big library etc). Personally i am not convinced it would go down quite as smoothly as you describe. I am too much of cynical misantrophic be a anarchist but i wont stand in your way either. I mean if it all goes mad max then at least our grandchildren will know that it can`t work, and if does work then i have no complaints. Timidness never got anyone anywhere .
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Personally I can't buy into whole-hog anarchism because I think hierarchies involving power and access to resources tend to form in human societies and without systems in place to protect the most vulnerable people and ensure they receive resources they will inevitably end up either exploited or oppressed in the long term. And I haven't seen a convincing proposal for how to deal with that under an anarchist system. Just saying "hash it out democratically" doesn't work for me. I respect the philosophical underpinnings of anarchism and I consider anarchists my comrades but I definitely don't think it's the best way to run a society, though it is definitely better than capitalism (not that that's a high bar).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Called my (R) congressman today to complain about provisions of the Spending Bill that undercut Dodd Frank. Got put on hold for a while when I asked where Gus stood on this one and basically got back my first "gently caress if we know but we'll try to find out". Funny how off the radar important poo poo like this is just due to the sheer volume of insane things going down. Just point out how it stops terrorist financing lol ol' bilirakis will eat it right up because that district (and basically everything else from Pinellas to the Panhandle) is full of people who freaked out about 9/11 even harder than people in the NYC area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Reene posted:Personally I can't buy into whole-hog anarchism because I think hierarchies involving power and access to resources tend to form in human societies and without systems in place to protect the most vulnerable people and ensure they receive resources they will inevitably end up either exploited or oppressed in the long term. And I haven't seen a convincing proposal for how to deal with that under an anarchist system. Just saying "hash it out democratically" doesn't work for me. Yeah I think this articulates my sentiments on the subject better than I've been able to so far
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
As an anarchist turned communist, leftcom might be something that anarchists can agree on. No nations, just worker councils all the way to the top.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:As an anarchist turned communist, leftcom might be something that anarchists can agree on. No nations, just worker councils all the way to the top. Yeah, that's probably a not unreasonable approach to the task. Anarchism seems like a first step towards something without the something being particularly fleshed out, and to be more compelling I think that the end goal needs the same scrutiny and development as other systems' goals receive. I think that there would have to be serious efforts to rebuild societal expectations so that there's much greater involvement and a greater expectation of power and reward being decoupled, if that's even possible, otherwise hierarchies will form.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
The real obstacle in my view regardless of which direction you go is that you would essentially need a generation or three to raise people with dramatically different values from what you find in common American society. The core American values of individualism and exceptionalism are anathema to a functioning anarchist or even socialist society. Unfortunately there is no good way of replacing those on a wide enough scale short of "raise people from childhood to value different things" and I have not seen much from any of the bigger movements about how to do that. Add onto that that a lot of far leftists are young broke people who don't want children for various reasons myself included.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Dictatorship of the proletariat looking better each day
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:As an anarchist turned communist, leftcom might be something that anarchists can agree on. No nations, just worker councils all the way to the top. I've got no serious beefs with leftcoms outside of being more of a couch fan than an armchair enthusiast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Dictatorship of the proletariat looking better each day Dictatorship? That won't fly nowadays. Gotta speak the language. Emergency financial management of the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/07/18/congress-mysteriously-stalls-on-a-resolution-to-honor-the-victims-of-portlands-max-stabbings/ No thoughts or prayers for the victims of a crazed white supremacist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
The problem is the Congress and the Senate. It has always been the Congress and the Senate, and there hasn't been a better time to expose the vipers' nest before now. Seriously, I've been making great strides just condemning the poo poo out of the Congress and the Senate, and I have old Tea Party voters wanting a democrat or an independent if it means someone will stop big pharma or actually address the prescription drug addiction that is basically sending entire communities back to the stone ages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Has anyone been paying attention to the current DSA kerfluffle over Danny Fetonte? I understand why people want him to step down but the way the organization has handled it has been pretty lovely. It seems like they're just trying to justify their initial outrage over a (now known to be fake) Fetonte LinkedIn account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Check out the last idk ten or so pages of this thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3808020
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Check out the last idk ten or so pages of this thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3808020 I'm sure they're all over it, I was more curious about anyone reading this subforum/thread as we've discussed DSA stuff in here before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Has anyone been paying attention to the current DSA kerfluffle over Danny Fetonte? I understand why people want him to step down but the way the organization has handled it has been pretty lovely. It seems like they're just trying to justify their initial outrage over a (now known to be fake) Fetonte LinkedIn account. A little bit. I think it's just growing pains. It is a test of how influential the DSA can hope to be. If they demand perfect purity, then they're kind of hamstrung, but if they can accept some problems as part of life, then maybe there's some long term potential.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Most chapters that have come out against it have come out against it because he withheld information that would have been material to the vote and glossed over his involvement with police unions, rather than explicitly wanting to ban anyone who has ever been involved in law enforcement. Twitter and Facebook got pretty acrimonious but the view from the inside has been much more measured.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Reene posted:Personally I can't buy into whole-hog anarchism because I think hierarchies involving power and access to resources tend to form in human societies and without systems in place to protect the most vulnerable people and ensure they receive resources they will inevitably end up either exploited or oppressed in the long term. And I haven't seen a convincing proposal for how to deal with that under an anarchist system. Just saying "hash it out democratically" doesn't work for me. This. Also complex societies automatically engender natural hierarchies (please note that even Feudalist societies, with their focus on hierarchy, really only went a few levels deep: King, lord/clergy, tradesmen/crafters and peasants). Any time you have division/specialization of labor or co-ordination of mass/specialized labor, you will have deep and complex natural hierarchies. In the first case, hierarchies form because some will simply be more knowledgable/experienced in a task and should have precedence over those who are less so (i.e. experts and people aren't interchangeable). In the second case, co-ordinating the labor of even 6-8 people requires someone else (studies show that one co-ordinator/manager per 6-8 people is the best). Co-ordinating the specialized and often disparate labor of millions of people will require even larger structures. It's difficult to imagine these structures functioning completely by direct democracy and they can't be flattened without basically reducing society to subsistence levels. Systems like this need far deeper participatory process, but they will exist if you'd like to continue building and doing complex things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
What's a good resource to learn about the distinctions between a capitalist, a socialist, and a communist? I'm not sure which I am and I don't want to be a capitalist in the DSA. Thanks! (thanks to this thread I just got on the email list for the South Carolina Democrats)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I feel like the Communist Manifesto is probably the most fun and appropriate introduction, as it basically defines those things and is both short and often reflective of the general spirit of most openly socialist organizations, even if they aren't revolutionaries. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
wuggles posted:What's a good resource to learn about the distinctions between a capitalist, a socialist, and a communist? I'm not sure which I am and I don't want to be a capitalist in the DSA. Thanks! The simplest explanation is basically: Socialism = workers control means of production, you get paid according to your work; Communism = workers control means of production, you get paid according to your need Also keep in mind that democratic socialism is basically "socialism lite," in that free markets and private property are still allowed to exist, just not in certain sectors (healthcare, for example) and with generally heavier regulations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:The simplest explanation is basically: Socialism = workers control means of production, you get paid according to your work; Communism = workers control means of production, you get paid according to your need Over here in socialist NHS-land  (and healthcare wise we are more socialist than anywhere other than like Cuba) private health insurance is still legal and exists, it's just not necessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:The simplest explanation is basically: Socialism = workers control means of production, you get paid according to your work; Communism = workers control means of production, you get paid according to your need No, that's social democracy, a subset of capitalism. Democratic Socialism is just socialism with democratic involvement, as opposed to the more authoritarian flavours of Socialism. Where it can get confusing is that plenty of Democratic Socialist parties operate as social democratic orgs, either because they've abandoned their socialist roots or because they see stronger social democratic systems as stepping stones toward worker control of the means of production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:No, that's social democracy, a subset of capitalism. Democratic Socialism is just socialism with democratic involvement, as opposed to the more authoritarian flavours of Socialism. This is an accurate distinction. As a Democratic Socialist, I'm strongly interested in making sure that there is both wide-scale buy-in into the system, and that some democratic mechanism exists for conflict resolution and resolving/compromising on political disagreement. Previous experiments have shown that just having a bunch of soviets isn't enough to assure workers of actual freedom. Social Democrats are more of a strong welfare-state type of leftists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I've never seen the Xbox Live servers so quiet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I've never seen the Xbox Live servers so quiet. Are they normally very vocal about Socialism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
wuggles posted:What's a good resource to learn about the distinctions between a capitalist, a socialist, and a communist? I'm not sure which I am and I don't want to be a capitalist in the DSA. Thanks! Something important to note if you read socialist/communist lit at all: when most socialists refer to "capitalists," they do not mean "people who are in favor of capitalism." A capitalist in this sense (and in very non jargony language) refers to someone who owns things for a living rather than doing things for a living. So people who own companies or banks, or make their money from stocks, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are they normally very vocal about Socialism? Call of Duty players really hate Affirmative Action presidents like Hitlery and Obama. Probably 1 in 4 of the random folks i friended online were vocally about this at least twice - whereupon i removed them. I got rid of my Xbox and largely dont miss it largely because of online chat
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Something important to note if you read socialist/communist lit at all: when most socialists refer to "capitalists," they do not mean "people who are in favor of capitalism." A capitalist in this sense (and in very non jargony language) refers to someone who owns things for a living rather than doing things for a living. So people who own companies or banks, or make their money from stocks, etc. Yes important for people new to it, capitalist can mean either the capitalist class, i.e the rich buggers who own everything, or it can mean people who advocate for it, but generally the older lit especially will mean the former. coyo7e posted:Call of Duty players really hate Affirmative Action presidents like Hitlery and Obama. Probably 1 in 4 of the random folks i friended online were vocally about this at least twice - whereupon i removed them. I don't really play multiplayer games but I didn't realise it was that bad with the codders. Urgh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really play multiplayer games but I didn't realise it was that bad with the codders. Urgh. I used to play TF2 because they had the one of the chillest FPS communities. Then they got invaded by Trump supporters and other alt right trash and I couldn't really report them fast enough. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Went to see the chairman of our state Democratic Committee speak tonight. He focused heavily on his fund raising ability, and not taking a salary. His newly appointed president was with him and addressed some operational concerns. Overall things were really positive and there were a ton of candidates and attendees there. Q: What about "litmus tests" A: that's what primaries are for, they're not going to enforce positions. If you don't like the candidate's views, run someone against them. Q What are you doing to help make sure all local and state elections have a qualified Dem candidate: A: ran a workshop at the tailend of some gathering this that had better than expected turnout and there are materials that can be sent out. Q How can we help with that? A: send money Definitely didn't seem as committed to making sure we had candidates for dogcatcher etc as I'd have liked but I'm hoping they were just doing a crappy job of answering the question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I used to play TF2 because they had the one of the chillest FPS communities. Then they got invaded by Trump supporters and other alt right trash and I couldn't really report them fast enough. You want a shooter without the screamers, play Splatoon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:You want a shooter without the screamers, play Splatoon. Yeah, I figured it would be better... but requires non-PC hardware. Thanks for the suggestion. I may go back to TF2 and turn off chat altogether.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
wuggles posted:What's a good resource to learn about the distinctions between a capitalist, a socialist, and a communist? I'm not sure which I am and I don't want to be a capitalist in the DSA. Thanks! Other posters have provided good and covering answers, I'm going to offer some nuance. Note that my positions are anarchist communist, and so not necessarily something everyone here or anyone in the DSA agrees on. Since Marx, other thinkers have started talking about a 'ruling class' that also makes sense to distinguish, as they usually have more in common with( old type) capitalists than a worker. Say, the president of a country is paid a wage, and so by a strictly labour value analysis should be called a proletarian. But he/she is usually someone who eats dinners with the heads of industry and lobbying corporate sectors, sends their children to the same private schools, and has generally internalized a set of values that make them consider themselves something placed above a worker. Often this process is unconscious, like when one of the leaders of the socialist party in my country was asked how much a part of the elite she was from one to ten and said 'one', in spite of being the daughter of a lawyer, married into wealth and makes five times as much as a skilled labourer! The same can be said for CEOs, who are definitely much more a part of the ruling class through sheer influence and money, in spite of taking a salary. The people who propagate and reinforce capitalist ideology, like journos, 'debaters' and radio hosts, are in fact working against their own class interests and could be argued to belong to a ruling class rather than a working one. I like to think of a ruling class position as a set of poles, where the well-connected capitalist with a lot of cultural capital and bought political influence would at one end, and the rent-slave, wage-slave working poor soundly ignored by society and politicians would at the other, people can fall in between in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 06:16
|
|