(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Atopian posted:However I don't fit in here, because I think that China is clearly extremely capitalist and getting moreso, regardless of Xi's belief that This Time Will Be Different, and also cultural genocide is bad. Some Guy TT posted:yeah we argue about all of that stuff that doesnt mean opposing viewpoints arent even allowed to exist this thread is like totally seriously a complete libertarian paradise, a marketplace of ideas, if u will my brosephina o u want proof? Forceholy posted:r/CCJ2 used to be a poo poo posting subreddit for expats living in China, then it got really racist and got banned earlier this year. ideas so leftist and anarchist and radical that they got banned in reddit? its all welcum over here babey Antonymous posted:the idea that women anywhere need protecting from american otakus traveling to teach english because of lack of opportunity for them in america is laughable. if that's what they're into, I say go for it  u like preying on women but oppressive authoritarians wont let u express that opinion freely? its totes cool here shrike82 posted:it seems to be a sore point for a subgroup of asian american male incels tho. there's some real psychosexual stuff going on there with the most extreme example being elliot rodgers  ur a board certified asian american male knower and sexpat psychologist who harbor thoughts like "dang these women asking for an end to being discriminated against, these drat incel broads just need to get some dicks in their life"? u will find sympathetic ears in this here thread come join us, whisper to us ur secrets that the chicom owned reddit wont allow u to say freely, its all cool over here in the thread of the freeeeeeeee
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Continuity RCP posted:Dude is just plain wrong about all the revolutions of the poorest and most impressed being Marxist-Leninist though, neozapatismo is pretty libertarian. Democratic confederalism too agreed
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1296135468296351749
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
huhwhat posted:agreed Doesn't help his point that he's either lying or not well informed enough to be trying to win converts
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
huhwhat posted:agreed on the other hand i think people actually overstate the level of centralization and top-down control that existed in the explicit and original marxist-leninist states. five year plans were basically passed all the way down to individual factories for notes/suggestions/changes before being gathered back up and formalized, for instance
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
THS posted:“tankie” but yeah in the vast majority of online discourse it’s merely used for left punching against anyone who thinks US imperialism is actually very bad tankie means you don't want to send the tanks in to venezuela
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
.
sincx has issued a correction as of 05:31 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:one of my favorite bits of anarchist writing is this: https://social-ecology.org/wp/1999/08/thoughts-on-libertarian-municipalism/ Which is why he gave up the word anarchism and why I have done the same. My fantasy government is now democratic confederation with a democratic centralism executive apparatus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
huhwhat posted:u can apply the same logic to the tankie and anarchist divide Lol this is so good, thanks for your medium post, noted source of theory. Maybe next time we can get your YouTube video, or something from the wikipedia article on Marxism. 'authoritarianism, what even is it, like really?' totally has me convinced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
LittleBlackCloud posted:Which is why he gave up the word anarchism and why I have done the same. My fantasy government is now democratic confederation with a democratic centralism executive apparatus.  BrainDance posted:Lol this is so good, thanks for your medium post, noted source of theory. Maybe next time we can get your YouTube video, or something from the wikipedia article on Marxism. well? what is it? a simple question: if COVID hits, is it authoritarian to mandate that people stay inside and only go out wearing masks? would it be not authoritarian to just give them suggestions for how to avoid disease spread, or to do nothing and let them figure it out? another question: can you think of a currently-existing or historical regime on the "right libertarian" quadrant of the political compass?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
its called feudalism op
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:its called feudalism op i dunno man, seems like the feudal system had some significant internal repressive apparatuses
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i dunno man, seems like the feudal system had some significant internal repressive apparatuses thats called private property op
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:thats called private property op but—
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Going by the political compass site, authoritarian simply means "wields power and uses it". But any non-democratic state, be it China, Russia or wherever, can be legitimately called authoritarian. The tankie has a point that you need tanks to win the revolutionary war, but having tanks and using them isn't necessarily authoritarianism. But if I get locked up in the gulag for questioning where those tanks get pointed, then you're an authoritarian state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Going by the political compass site, authoritarian simply means "wields power and uses it". But any non-democratic state, be it China, Russia or wherever, can be legitimately called authoritarian. can you name a non-authoritarian state?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
drat I could give you a bibliography, it's one of those things. I disagree with him a lot but Guillermo O'donnell's stuff about bureaucratic authoritarianism and Juan Linz is where I would start. But, overreaching, centralized power held by the state and suppression of opposition to a very limited ideology. That's a poo poo definition because really, it's one of those things like 'what is fascism' that don't really fit short simple definitions. There's a lot of reading you could do, and you probably should. It is not 'acting with authority' or whatever. That's just governing I guess? No, mask mandates aren't authoritarian. Quarantines aren't authoritarian. Western media does use the word wrong nearly all of the time. No I don't know any lib-right governments. That poo poo is stupid. Ferrinus posted:can you name a non-authoritarian state? I get what you're getting at now, this is a really dumb take. No one's achieved communism yet, but what do you think all this is for? BrainDance has issued a correction as of 21:18 on Aug 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Going by the political compass site, authoritarian simply means "wields power and uses it". But any non-democratic state, be it China, Russia or wherever, can be legitimately called authoritarian. what are doing with a tank that is less authoritarian than imprisonment
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
if i didnt sell my labor this year to someone that squeezed unpaid overtime out of me so that someone further up the food chain could get a new yacht i'd have starved and died. seems pretty authoritarian to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:if i didnt sell my labor this year to someone that squeezed unpaid overtime out of me so that someone further up the food chain could get a new yacht i'd have starved and died. seems pretty authoritarian to me. Well that's getting into the application of power in general, and not just states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:drat I could give you a bibliography, it's one of those things. I disagree with him a lot but Guillermo O'donnell's stuff about bureaucratic authoritarianism and Juan Linz is where I would start. But, overreaching, centralized power held by the state and suppression of opposition to a very limited ideology. That's a poo poo definition because really, it's one of those things like 'what is fascism' that don't really fit short simple definitions. There's a lot of reading you could do, and you probably should. if you can’t name non-authoritarian states, of what use is the word “authoritarian?” the o’donnell stuff you cite above implies that there’s such a thing as non-overreaching, non-centralized power that doesn’t suppress opposition to a very limited ideology. but where is such a thing? if there are no right-libertarian governments, why is there a libertarian-authoritarian axis?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
Still reading up on the lenin tbh, but I do believe in a temporary directory. Not afraid of state or statelike revolutionary apparatuses, just think party should actively abdicate all the responsibilities it can without compromising its ability to respond to counter-revolutionary forces. But shrug I guess I'm in denial tho because I question orthodoxy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Well that's getting into the application of power in general, and not just states. What is the difference between an authoritarian state and a state which permits and encourages non-state entities to control peoples' lives in an authoritarian manner with a thin legal veneer to justify it
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:if you can’t name non-authoritarian states, of what use is the word “authoritarian?” the o’donnell stuff you cite above implies that there’s such a thing as non-overreaching, non-centralized power that doesn’t suppress opposition to a very limited ideology. but where is such a thing? Oh wow, lol. I don't know if I should take you seriously. Why would you expect me to know much about lib-right poo poo? I think that stuff is stupid. the rest, it's like you're torturing weird chud arguments against socialism or some end of history thing but in the opposite direction. Or like some 16th century lord telling the peasants 'oh yeah name one non-feudal state, this is all there is this is as good as it gets what's the point of even saying this is bad if everything's bad'. None of this is a binary, something can be more or less authoritarian, more or less capitalist, whatever. South Korea after a bunch of industries were deregulated maybe a little over a decade ago I guess became more lib-right bullshit (and it's hosed), but it's not some completely libertarian hellhole. Just even more of the normal capitalist hellhole. If it did have to be binary, then poo poo almost nothing exists, there's no perfectly anything state. Actions and policies can be described in some way without the entire government or state being that. This is where some of my only support for the party is. Why lib-right and not lib-left? Lib-left movements have at least existed, the zapatistas exist, anarchist worker's movements exist even though they're not states or governments (and why would they be a state?) the bitcoin of weed posted:What is the difference between an authoritarian state and a state which permits and encourages non-state entities to control peoples' lives in an authoritarian manner with a thin legal veneer to justify it Not a whole lot. BrainDance has issued a correction as of 22:22 on Aug 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
If you want non-authoritarian governments, look at the current social democracies of Europe - Norway, Sweden, Germany, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:but— 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:If you want non-authoritarian governments, look at the current social democracies of Europe - Norway, Sweden, Germany, and so on. one could argue they’ve merely outsourced their authoritarianism and terror to the global and violent economic order upheld by american imperialism. if that context and world system were not what it is, their relative lack of coercion to their own citizens would be impossible (and this is handwaving away their issues with immigrants, i certainly know people in those nations who would dispute a label of non-authoritarian)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:None of this is a binary, something can be more or less authoritarian, more or less capitalist, whatever. South Korea after a bunch of industries were deregulated maybe a little over a decade ago I guess became more lib-right bullshit (and it's hosed), but it's not some completely libertarian hellhole. Just even more of the normal capitalist hellhole. okay so it’s a gradient not a binary, fine. can you compare some states on the basis of HOW authoritarian they are? who’s more or less authoritarian than the usa, for instance? south korea strikes me as a very questionable example. like, a bunch of its industries deregulated, yes. but did that make it LESS authoritarian? do you associate deregulation of private firms with decreasing authority and increasing liberty? it seems to me that deregulation actually increases the power of the bourgeoisie to enact their power - their authority, if you will - on the populace quote:Why lib-right and not lib-left? Lib-left movements have at least existed, the zapatistas exist, anarchist worker's movements exist even though they're not states or governments (and why would they be a state?) the zapatistas do have an army. what will that army do if people within the territory start hoarding food or medical supplies, or start sabotaging production or feeding intelligence to hostile foreign powers? the reason i bring up the “libertarian right” quadrant is not because it’s rare or stupid but because it’s totally imaginary, just like the libertarian left quadrant. there is no second axis that you can mix and march with the first - a state can only defend or reproduce itself through force, and will use force against anyone who tries to attack it, whether from within or without
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:If you want non-authoritarian governments, look at the current social democracies of Europe - Norway, Sweden, Germany, and so on. ridiculous, these are all western liberal governments fed by imperialism, as THS points out. but, even ignoring their treatment of immigrants and implication in the global system of exploitation, they’re run on the capitalist mode of production. the police and military ensure that a few private individuals can claim dominion over way more land, food, medicine, or whatever than they need, and meanwhile if i want some i have to jump through hoops like working for a wage or registering in and complying with the government bureaucracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:okay so it’s a gradient not a binary, fine. can you compare some states on the basis of HOW authoritarian they are? who’s more or less authoritarian than the usa, for instance? I didn't say South Korea was more authoritarian. I said it was more lib-right than it had been before. Though anarchists usually don't see much of a difference and want to democratize industry, I don't get it are you arguing against the left entirely? I literally said there aren't pure examples of anything. Left itself is imaginary because we haven't gotten a purely communist society anywhere yet? The Zapatistas are more lib-left than others. A lib-left 'state' barely makes any sense as it is. Most anarchist strategies don't even dismiss violence entirely. If you had read any anarchist literature you'd see that that's kinda not the point. Chinas probably more authoritarian than the US under any sane definition of authoritarian, as capital still dominates people's lives along with the party. That's not really controversial. Whether that's bad or not I guess is what gets argued here. That's not really a plus for America, which is all in all pretty horrible and I don't think you would find a lot of leftists who wouldn't think the arrangement between the government and capital is some form of authoritarianism, at the least. It doesn't even make sense that something has to currently exist as a government for it to be 'real', that's pretty much the end of history 'neolibs won' argument and it's so dumb. Things can exist as theory. Communism exists as theory, that is kind of the point of aiming for it or some other system, that it can exist or is inevitable that it will exist. A lot of things don't exist because, surprise, western imperialism made sure they don't. You're using idiots arguments against socialism, I don't know what to tell you dude. 'communism will never work look at the places that failed to get there!' well no poo poo look at the state of the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:I didn't say South Korea was more authoritarian. I said it was more lib-right than it had been before. Though anarchists usually don't see much of a difference and want to democratize industry, I don't get it are you arguing against the left entirely? i know you said that south korea had become more "libertarian right" than before, as in, less "authoritarian right" than before. the thing is, i think you're flat-out wrong. the deregulation of private industry doesn't reduce the extent to which the populace are under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. in fact, in many ways it makes them even more vulnerable to their unaccountable corporate masters! you also say that china is "more authoritarian" than the US. but under what actual metric? the chinese government saved its people from the coronavirus; the us government fed its people to the coronavirus. the US has more people in jail. the US has a much stricter and more enduring system of racial apartheid. how is the US more libertarian (in the anarchist sense) or democratic or whatever? is it because it says it is? i don't actually think you have a coherent definition of "authoritarian"!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i know you said that south korea had become more "libertarian right" than before, as in, less "authoritarian right" than before. the thing is, i think you're flat-out wrong. the deregulation of private industry doesn't reduce the extent to which the populace are under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. in fact, in many ways it makes them even more vulnerable to their unaccountable corporate masters! Yep, that's why it's a stupid broken ideology. "Authoritarian" isn't a synonym for "bad". And that is a huge difference there between lib-left and lib-right, do you think anarchists are Ron Paul types? Ferrinus posted:you also say that china is "more authoritarian" than the US. but under what actual metric? the chinese government saved its people from the coronavirus; the us government fed its people to the coronavirus. the US has more people in jail. the US has a much stricter and more enduring system of racial apartheid. how is the US more libertarian (in the anarchist sense) or democratic or whatever? is it because it says it is? It's not coherent because you're not using that definition. I don't even get what your definition is? The coronavirus response wasn't an example of authoritarianism one way or another, maybe it would be to weird lib-right guys but they're idiots so who cares, they're barely related to anarchists other than falling on the bottom half of the bs political compass which we all think is dumb anyway. Anyway America edges out as "less authoritarian" because the window for dissent is slightly larger and American workers can in some very broken way collectivize still. The replacements for collectivization in China are beyond broken and feed into limiting dissent and giving capital more power. It's corrupt as poo poo, they work about as well as "freedom of assembly" works in America... maybe less. I'm not gonna say America isn't authoritarian, but that's the comparison you worked in so that's what it is, seems like asking which circle of hell is the hottest to me. For real go read something cuz this is like the "if people evolved from apes why are there still monkeys?" of leftist stuff. Go read something socialist even, it's gonna deal with a lot what you're getting hung up on, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
“go read a dang book” is not a very compelling end to a post fyi
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
THS posted:“go read a dang book” is not a very compelling end to a post fyi Yeah, it's not, but what else do you do when someones dumber than a brick? I don't feel like summarizing everything he is missing, and I wouldn't do nearly as good of a job as people who already have. I'm just some guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:Yeah, it's not, but what else do you do when someones dumber than a brick? post here
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
.
sincx has issued a correction as of 05:31 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:The Ukraine?? Are they calling Putin ml lmao That doesn't make much sense as a response to what you're quoting: Putin's government, and the state he leads, are by no means Marxist Leninist, but you don't need to be Marxist Leninist find yourselves in the cross-hairs of the empire, and there is really no denying the fact that anarchists supported, and still stand by their support for the overthrow of a Ukrainian government the US and the EU wanted gone, even if that meant supporting a movement whose most effective fighters were outright neo-nazi terrorists, coalition governments that based themselves on fascist parties, the banning of communist organizations and symbols, and right wing mobs burning down trade union offices with workers inside them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Going by the political compass site, authoritarian simply means "wields power and uses it". But any non-democratic state, be it China, Russia or wherever, can be legitimately called authoritarian. "Non-democratic" is doing a lot of work there. This argument basically requires an unconscious assumption that, being in some nebulous way fundamentally unlike the "liberal democracies" with with the speaker is familiar, states like the PRC or the Russian Federation must be closer to historical Fascist states, or something like Tsarist autocracy, when in practical terms, confining the subject as narrowly as possible to "authoritarianism," if contrasted with states of those types, the two examples in question would be basically indistinguishable from "liberal democracies."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:Yep, that's why it's a stupid broken ideology. "Authoritarian" isn't a synonym for "bad". And that is a huge difference there between lib-left and lib-right, do you think anarchists are Ron Paul types? i think you're losing the plot here. you offered up south korea as a country that at least moved towards the "libertarian right" quadrant of the popular political compass by deregulating its various industries. now, if we ARE Ron Paul types, then we associate "authoritarianism" with "government power", and the south korean gov't exerting less control over private south korean corporations does indeed count as a move towards libertarianism but, presumably, we're both socialists, and therefore we understand that in a capitalist country like south korea the proletariat is kept under the crushing dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. whether corporations pay small or large fines for polluting can inform us as to the strengths of various factions within the state, but doesn't actually make the state more or less "libertarian" in the sense that the political compass counterposes libertarianism and authoritarianism. in other words, if there's such a thing as "authoritarian", there must also be such a thing as "less authoritarian", right? but south korea doesn't count as an example of that. so what does? my guess is "nothing" quote:It's not coherent because you're not using that definition. I don't even get what your definition is? The coronavirus response wasn't an example of authoritarianism one way or another, maybe it would be to weird lib-right guys but they're idiots so who cares, they're barely related to anarchists other than falling on the bottom half of the bs political compass which we all think is dumb anyway. here you seem to be defining "authoritarian" as some combination of silencing dissent and preventing worker organizing. very well, let's go with that. firstly, i disagree with you about the coronavirus response. i think the american (lack of) response to the coronavirus is actually a telling sign of the crushing, overwhelming power of american capital; it absolutely refused to channel even a speck of its resources to keep the american working class alive, and indeed has thrown its weight around to force americans back to work and back to school as fast as possible just to keep the profits flowing. there have been attempts, with mixed levels of success, by american workers to fight this trend, but by and large schools and businesses are reopening and we're (i'm an american) going to die in droves for the sake of capitalist profits. meanwhile, in china, no one had to threaten to strike to keep schools and businesses closed because... schools and businesses just stayed closed, as though they were being run by sane people who were capable of planning for more than three weeks ahead into the future. shipments of food and supplies were rerouted to the epicenter of the epidemic en masse. cpc members were activated and directed to take temperatures, deliver groceries, do wellness checks, and so on. this privilege - living under a government that does the bare minimum to keep you alive, even if it cuts down on bourgeois profits - is something that american workers struggled in tiny pockets to achieve but that chinese workers already enjoyed by default. so, in the realm of the coronavirus, the chinese people actually had much more leverage and control over their own government, and could expect more from that government as a matter of course, than americans could possibly dream of. american capital actually exerts far more power - more authority - than chinese capital does when it comes to the citizens' lives. something like 1,500 people are dying in the US per day thanks to our pathetic, nonexistent covid response. imagine what harsh words you'd use if the chinese government were killing 1,500 workers per day! you can't collectivize or voice dissent when you're dead! secondly, i don't see how you can claim, in the wake of the george floyd protests, that the "window for dissent" is larger. possibly you're confusing the fact of there BEING big obvious protests in america at all for the idea that free expression and protest is actually meaningfully ALLOWED in america, but the militaristic and indeed murderous response from the police and the total unwillingness of state and federal governments to rein those police in should disabuse us of the notion that the USA is a place where people enjoy freedom of speech. there aren't massive protests in china right now for us to compare the response to, although we can point to stuff like chinese cops generally going unarmed and the us prison population actually being higher than china's despite its population being dramatically lower. also, maybe a state that isn't built on racial apartheid might suffer less internal unrest? just a thought, let's move on. thirdly, you say that american workers have more freedom to collectivize, but this is another highly questionable claim. organized labor is a broken shell of itself in the USA, in which more than half of the constituent states have "right to work" laws and something like 12% of workers are unionized at all. 20% of china's population is unionized. china, obviously, has an official mass government union that brooks no independent competition, but in its place the US just has... nothing. the 30% of china's GDP comes from state owned enterprises while in the US it's something like 12% (afaict), and unlike in the US party cadres lodge themselves into the decision-making bodies of even private corporations. so it seems to me that by the metrics of quashing dissent and supporting the organization of labor, the chinese government is actually less "authoritarian" than the US government. but maybe there's just something about them that tips the scales the other way. what is it? Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 07:27 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Bookchin notes that the state isn't the completely negative boogeyman made out by other Anarchists and had gotten rid of may lovely aspects of "Traditional Society" such as the Patriarchal parochialism of families in the Ancient Near East. I think it's best to look at Bookchin as an extremely heterodox Marxist than as an Anarchist in the vein as someone like David Graeber. Dude was literally born and raised as a Communist and was much more familiar with Marxism than Anarchist works. I think he started reading Kropotkin like 10 years after declaring himself an Anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 02:42
|
|