|
Corbyn wont survive the next election
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
^^^ just like he would never be elected leader, and he'd never survive the blairite coup, and he'd never survive every other time pundits have said this. Also it's not different this time, before you try that. I can't find a specific post to quote, but in reply to 'socialism isn't realistic' posting, I think that's why there's a huge difference between 'next step' and 'end goal.' Like yes the end goal of luxury space communism doesn't work if the rest of the world is running on current levels of capitalistic excess. So you make the next step 'pull down the 1% and redistribute their wealth.' Then the next 1%, then the next 1%, until there are no more oligarchs to pour insane wealth into poisoning the debate. It's fine to point out problems with the end goal that are going to need to be fixed before we get there, but pretending that true socialism can never be achieved is missing the point - socialism currently exists as a movement to get rid of capitalism because the existence of unrestrained capitalism is a huge roadblock to the end goals of socialism. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Anarchism isn't good at fighting psychotic murder societies, no. But the anarchist would say that's a problem of psychotic murder societies, not anarchism. This is literally the political equivalent of telling kids never to fight back against bullies because it makes them just as bad (i.e. really stupid) fridge corn posted:Corbyn wont survive the next election I'd give 3/1 that he does
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Gort posted:when were politics fun When this grey guy was in charge  Seriously, was this whole Trump-Brexit-Boris thing engineered by John Major and GW Bush to make the libs love them? Cause it's working disappointingly well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:This is literally the political equivalent of telling kids never to fight back against bullies because it makes them just as bad (i.e. really stupid) No it's acknowledging that hierarchical power structures create murderous nation states, and so abolishing yours will make you less good at murder, which may be dangerous if you haven't gotten rid of everyone else's institutional proclivity towards murder first. Conversely, maintaining yours is going to make your society more murderous, this is a chicken/egg problem but it's one that traps people in the cycle of war and violence, and one that demands to be broken out of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
I'm not trying to say that socialism is doomed to fail, but anarchism is a few steps beyond other kinds of socialism, no? I mean I guess there are degrees of anarchism. E: Also yeah what Owl said^^
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Like I don't know of a guaranteed anarchist solution, but I find it incredibly hard to discount the hierarchical analysis, I think it very clearly describes the problem even if it can't present a solution, but its descriptions of the problem can at least be applied to other prospective solutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
I'm not actually convinced that a state monopoly on violence is inherently a bad thing assuming the state is run properly (dictatorship of the proletariat). However well intentioned, anarchism always falls down for me as soon as it assumes people won't gently caress each other over in the absence of a state. Where it does acknowledge that, and that a degree of implicit (and explicit) force is required to dissuade and respond, it starts talking about the creation of more 'democratic' power structures that are to all intents and purposes a state, so it just collapses philosophically.OwlFancier posted:No it's acknowledging that hierarchical power structures create murderous nation states, and so abolishing yours will make you less good at murder, which may be dangerous if you haven't gotten rid of everyone else's institutional proclivity towards murder first. Notwithstanding a staggeringly improbable world revolution this puts the anarchist in an unresolvable dilemma, though. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
It argues that the structure of the state itself lends itself towards mismanagement, that you can't maintain a monopoly of force without using it wrong, because the structure of the force monopolizing organization will always push its participants towards misuse of that power. It is essentially the argument that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator but applied to more structures than just a single dictator. ThomasPaine posted:Notwithstanding a staggeringly improbable world revolution this puts the anarchist in an unresolvable dilemma, though. It puts everyone in an unresolvable dilemma, which isn't fixed by just ignoring the anarchist critique.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:So if you have the power to enforce others not to have any power influence, then you are a power structure yourself of one. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:See I feel good about anarchism, I need to do more reading on theory but like instinctively it seems that resisting power structures is the way to go... but doesn't that also leave you massively open to ratfucking by a larger neoliberal country/organisation? I really recommend reading Demanding The Impossible. If you're fine with reading PDFs then I know LibCom has it. (Or just DM on Twitter if you want a mobi) You could just skip right to the first chapter on an actual anarchist (Chapter 15 on Godwin) though I think there's interesting stuff on the previous ones covering the developments that lead to anarchism, from Taoism all the way on that justify reading the entire book. Because it's more of a history of the intellectual & practical movements I feel like it breaks down a lot of the theory in ways that are very approachable, and it absolutely changed my politics from statist leftism to much more libertarian left. forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Echoing the academia being poo poo chat, academic twitter is a strange mixture of bland and stressful for people who are in it: constant reminders that people are working constantly with seemingly nothing going on in their lives except very boring preoccupations like cupcakes and donuts. It's either that or they get into FBPE twitter: one prominent person in my field is very active on twitter and is constantly sharing that stuff. Then occasionally the odd blast of racism, and outright denial that racism is a thing in academia because everyone's such nice liberals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'm not actually convinced that a state monopoly on violence is inherently a bad thing assuming the state is run properly (dictatorship of the proletariat).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Echoing the academia being poo poo chat, academic twitter is a strange mixture of bland and stressful for people who are in it: constant reminders that people are working constantly with seemingly nothing going on in their lives except very boring preoccupations like cupcakes and donuts. It's either that or they get into FBPE twitter: one prominent person in my field is very active on twitter and is constantly sharing that stuff. Then occasionally the odd blast of racism, and outright denial that racism is a thing in academia because everyone's such nice liberals. i would never connect my shitpost twitter to academic twitter cause i dont think the dean wants to see pigpoopballs would lvoe to be wrong tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It argues that the structure of the state itself lends itself towards mismanagement, that you can't maintain a monopoly of force without using it wrong, because the structure of the force monopolizing organization will always push its participants towards misuse of that power. I don't ignore the analysis, I just think it's overly pessimistic (ha) and also encourages pragmatic nihilism because it is totally unresolvable. I'd always take an oppressive socialist state over an equally oppressive capitalist one, so even though the structure of the state itself might be by definition open to abuse it's still worth trying to make sure the people in charge are nominally socialists because they'll likely enact marginally better policies. forkboy84 posted:Show me an example of the state being run properly OP. If you say USSR I'll throw Yezhov & Beria's skulls at you. I'm not getting into the USSR minefield but it's silly to see that as one single constant entity. Stalin's USSR was very different to Gorbachev's was very different to early Lenin. Actual answer: yes they are often flawed but probably on balance better than their contemporary capitalist equivalents. Cuba has done some very cool stuff and I blame the US embargo for most of its problems. Burkina Faso under Sankara had a ton of potential until he got shot by the French. I hear socialist Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, and Yugoslavia had their moments too, but I'm no expert. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'd give 3/1 that he does That's about the odds I'd give on him surviving the next election, assuming we're talking literal survival and not political survival.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
heres another helpful diagram
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:See I feel good about anarchism, I need to do more reading on theory but like instinctively it seems that resisting power structures is the way to go... but doesn't that also leave you massively open to ratfucking by a larger neoliberal country/organisation? OwlFancier posted:It argues that the structure of the state itself lends itself towards mismanagement, that you can't maintain a monopoly of force without using it wrong, because the structure of the force monopolizing organization will always push its participants towards misuse of that power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I don't ignore the analysis, I just think it's overly pessimistic (ha) and also encourages pragmatic nihilism because it is totally unresolvable. I'd always take an oppressive socialist state over an equally oppressive capitalist one, so even though the structure of the state itself might be by definition open to abuse it's still worth trying to make sure the people in charge are nominally socialists because they'll likely enact marginally better policies. That sounds far more pessimistic to me than the idea that if we encourage antihierarchical sentiment we have a much better chance of not living in an oppressive state at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:i would never connect my shitpost twitter to academic twitter cause i dont think the dean wants to see pigpoopballs I dread to think what academics have alts to be horny/depressed on
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I really recommend reading Demanding The Impossible. If you're fine with reading PDFs then I know LibCom has it. (Or just DM on Twitter if you want a mobi) You could just skip right to the first chapter on an actual anarchist (Chapter 15 on Godwin) though I think there's interesting stuff on the previous ones covering the developments that lead to anarchism, from Taoism all the way on that justify reading the entire book. Because it's more of a history of the intellectual & practical movements I feel like it breaks down a lot of the theory in ways that are very approachable, and it absolutely changed my politics from statist leftism to much more libertarian left. Cool thanks bud, will check it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:heres another helpful diagram Did Jordan Peterson make this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That sounds far more pessimistic to me than the idea that if we encourage antihierarchical sentiment we have a much better chance of not living in an oppressive state at all? Possibly, I'm just extremely convinced that the CIA would very quickly crush any country that genuinely did this. I hope I'm wrong!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:can't find a specific post to quote, but in reply to 'socialism isn't realistic' posting, I think that's why there's a huge difference between 'next step' and 'end goal.' ThomasPaine posted:I don't know the quote? Bertrand Russell Group posted:University life is so different from life in the world at large that men who live in academic milieu tend to be unaware of the preoccupations and problems of ordinary men and women; moreover their ways of expressing themselves are usually such as to rob their opinions of the influence that they ought to have upon the general public. Another disadvantage is that in universities studies are organized, and the man who thinks of some original line of research is likely to be discouraged. Academic institutions, therefore, useful as they are, are not adequate guardians of the interests of civilization in a world where everyone outside their walls is too busy for unutilitarian pursuits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Did Jordan Peterson make this? its from someones phd thesis https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/IRONY-OF-A-REVOLUTION%3A-HOW-GRASSROOTS-ORGANIZATIONS-Lynn/b6f74cb9871fbc6b9966ed79ed82b87ec35c21f2
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:heres another helpful diagram No dragons, 4/10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Possibly, I'm just extremely convinced that the CIA would very quickly crush any country that genuinely did this. I hope I'm wrong! Well that's a good argument to crush the CIA first before you try it, but it's also a good argument not to crush your own anarchist wing because you should at the least understand that they're your best insurance against becoming the KGB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Echoing the academia being poo poo chat, academic twitter is a strange mixture of bland and stressful for people who are in it: constant reminders that people are working constantly with seemingly nothing going on in their lives except very boring preoccupations like cupcakes and donuts. It's either that or they get into FBPE twitter: one prominent person in my field is very active on twitter and is constantly sharing that stuff. Then occasionally the odd blast of racism, and outright denial that racism is a thing in academia because everyone's such nice liberals. HAHA YES LIKING TEA IS A PERSONALITY TRAIT I do actually get pretty irritated that the whole 'grad school is awful and you'll be stressed and poor and exhausted and you'll never get a job lol' has become a meme because I worry it just normalises that culture and defangs genuine resistance to it by turning it into a joke. I feel like there is also a particular type of student who will just not shut up about how busy and overworked they are in a particularly moralistic way. It's often bullshit, and I've seen plenty of these types spending half the time they're 'working' watching iPlayer, but that together with the memes can really contribute to a toxic environment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
anarchism is simply that there are no unjustified hierarchies, it's not that there's no hierarchies, syndicalism is a form of anarchism, not a deviation, most forms of anarchism are basically different configurations of what are considered needed hierarchies and more importantly the system/guiding principles that decide that process (under the idea you can't predict everything) and which will best preserve that system of justification. Justification comes from democratic control as that is the only way to adhere to the implementation of justice given all people are equal and most of the popular forms generally believe that democracy has to be as direct as possible (e.g. as far from representative democracy as time and technology allow) and as hierarchically flat as possible. Currently the most popular form of anarchism is generally considered to be libertarian municipalism where there are various institutions for managing a municipality (e.g. town or logical collection of towns or whatever they vote for) similar to what we have now, with the key difference in that they are managed by citizen assemblies and most importantly can be implemented in existing capitalist systems in a dual power structure until the point it is accepted as positive by the majority of the population. Rojava/Kurdistan has been trying this out since the autonomy they gained after the Iraq war and the weakening of the Syrian state, but obviously has had limited success as all its neighbours are just much bigger and stronger and more aggressive, but it's been successful at a local societal level. In America there's a group called the Black Socialists of America who have been pushing for a similar system and trying to create parallel community services, they even have a cool fancy graphic design map and everything: https://blacksocialists.us/dual-power-map ok hope that helps yall peace
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well that's a good argument to crush the CIA first before you try it, but it's also a good argument not to crush your own anarchist wing because you should at the least understand that they're your best insurance against becoming the KGB. Would anarchist theory permit the temporary maintenance of power structures in the process of establishing the material conditions necessary for the creation and defence of an egalitarian society?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Would anarchist theory permit the temporary maintenance of power structures in the process of establishing the material conditions necessary for the creation and defence of an egalitarian society? There are undoubtedly some anarchists who would and some who wouldn't. That's the thing with anarchists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:There are undoubtedly some anarchists who would and some who wouldn't. That's the thing with anarchists. This is why you need someone to make sure everyone gets in line 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lalalalalauraaa/status/1175731553613307904?s=20 (That's Tom Harwood)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Would anarchist theory permit the temporary maintenance of power structures in the process of establishing the material conditions necessary for the creation and defence of an egalitarian society? Probably depends who you ask but I don't think any sane anarchist is like "oh we just need to dismantle the government and then we'll be fine" cos that's what libertarians think. I think it's much more valuable as an idea to incorporate into other ideas, as a critique against more state oriented forms of socialism. Essentially you want, I think, a tension between the libcoms and the statists because the statists might be able to achieve more immediately but the libcoms should have a strong presence in parallel structures and be ready and able to check the state if and when it becomes a problem. Statists, do not purge everyone to your left to consolidate power, please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Probably depends who you ask but I don't think any sane anarchist is like "oh we just need to dismantle the government and then we'll be fine" cos that's what libertarians think. That's a fair point, though I'd also argue that the libcoms should also be willing to at least tentatively support statist communists over capitalists rather than sabotaging everything and condemning them as fash-adjacent. I realise that given the history here that trust may be neither wise nor forthcoming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
hot take re: bookchinian municipalism there is no material difference between a legislature passing laws and a citizen's assembly passing directives by majority vote; a emphasis on the social and personal element merely makes it indistinguishable from deliberative democracy theory. I would agree with Bob Black's acid criticism that it is fundamentally a statist orientation, not an anarchist one the bookchinian emphasis on radical decentralization to locii of workplaces and small towns is a nonstarter in a time period when material inequality is predominantly between growing and failing industries and firms, and between growing and failing neighbourhoods and regions, not within them. Redistribution requires federal mandates. The disposal of federally mandated redistribution demands federal oversight. The rest is frippery. The sheer size of the social redistributive budget in contemporary society is massive, it outweighs local government and administration by a ridiculous degree in every Western society - focusing on the latter is akin to forming radical committees to administer the tea and cakes. if one reduces the anarchist political theory to instead an ethical philosophy - of working within democratic laws and structures but merely advocating, in each instance, voluntarist solutions, one is fundamentally indistinguishable from a tax-shy liberal
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:That's a fair point, though I'd also argue that the libcoms should also be willing to at least tentatively support statist communists over capitalists rather than sabotaging everything and condemning them as fash-adjacent. I realise that given the history here that trust may be neither wise nor forthcoming. As you say, there's really 3 big historical moments in the consciousness of libcoms: the suppression of the Makhnovischna, the suppression of the Kronstadt Rising, & the Spanish Civil War. For all the rancour between Marxists & anarchists in the 19th & early 20th centuries, the ancoms were right there during the Russian Revolution. Right until the Bolsheviks showed that the soviet system was to be a sham and democratic centralism ran wild. Didn't end well for them. And until Marxist-Leninists actually admit that they got poo poo badly wrong and that actually centralising all power in the party was really disastrous for the proletariat, I don't really see many anarchists being willing to compromise with statists. Obviously anti-capitalism & liberalism is a huge part of anarchist theory, but that distrust of the state is just as key. ronya posted:hot take re: bookchinian municipalism Ronya insisting that everybody is actually a liberal is my favourite gimmick. Also, Bob Black is a dipshit contrarian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
royna refusing to use proper capitalisation and grammar makes them the biggest anarchist of us all
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
do i have to know what all these words mean to be a socialist i just hate rich people
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:51
|
|