Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.
An anticommunist breadtuber (but I repeat myself) debunks Engels 😂 Anarchism, unlike Marxism-Leninism, has yet to succeed in the real world for more than a few months. We will welcome anarchists’ lectures once they’ve proven their theory in praxis.
Anarchism’s lack of success to date is historical fact, and I think that’s reason enough not to take the time to engage with some Burgerland anarchist’s video essay.
The laws or nature impose required forms of organization upon human society to function. The “double slavery” idea is not some obscure idea. When humans enslave nature to use it for their benefit, nature enslaved humans and imposes specific forms of organisation in turn. The specific form of organization imposed upon a society of large scale industrial producers is large scale centralized organization, in which the will of singular individuals is drowned out.
Ok, I’ve read it and I’m not impressed. The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way. While the hexbear author acknowledges that fact in the beginning and seems to take the (IMHO flawed) definition of the anarchist’s critique at face value, he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one.
Authority as indirect or direct force (essentially the engels) argument is the only logical way of definition authority, as the hexbear post argues using the example of the armed mugger. The definition of authority as blind obedience (as defined by the anarchist) is completely flawed in that it doesn’t account for the source of the blind obidelience and isn’t easy to measure.
The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
I think you’re confusing dismissing your viewpoint after engaging with it in a serious way with being disingenuous
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way.
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued in a Marxist Response
he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
They aren’t engaging with the definition in a serious way. That is my point.
I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. With that definition, which is compatible with the bulk of anarchist theory, “On authority” is nothing, but the incoherent ramblings of someone with too much personal beef.
The hexbear author not once seriously engages with any of the two viewpoints given in the anarchist rebuttal. They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition. If I change the preconditions in the middle of my logical chain, shit will get goofy. Duh.
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority. Therefore, they don’t argue against necessity, or self-defense.
I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.
Okay:
then don’t link a video to defend your point that you don’t agree with
then Marxist Leninist projects meet your definition of anti-authoritarian?
They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition.
The robber example rebuts the claim by the most popular anarchist rebuttal that authority is established by unquestioning obedience. Did you not read the anarchist rebuttal?
This feels like a basic misreading of the text.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.
No, you don’t get to claim this after your failure to read, I spent 45 minutes that I will never get back listening to inane shit like him claiming “steam isn’t authority” without understanding how the circumstances of prime mover operation is socially created and influences downstream production processes, or “delegates and representatives are different actually, silly Engels” It was the same inane failures of reading along similar thrusts to the article.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.
How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority.
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?
The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.
I read the anarchist rebuttal. It made clear that force and authority are different things. The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay. The hexbear author didn’t understand that, or misrepresented the anarchist.
It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate? If not, then you don’t understand the anarchist’s critique.
How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!
I did read both the anarchist’s rebuttal and the hexbear comment (as far as I could stomach). I don’t completely agree with the anarchist’s rebuttal, which is why I didn’t share it. The hexbear bloke didn’t genuinely take the anarchist’s proposal seriously, as I’ve explained several times now.
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?
That’s not what the essay’s author claims. The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority. Please stop misrepresenting stuff, it’s getting exhausting.
It’s no use arguing, if we both don’t accept each other’s definition of authority. You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition. I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives. It would save you a lot of time.
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.
Okay so the first problem is that you’re basing your ideas around the soviet union on popular western media and not an actual understanding of how the system worked.
Here is a fun rabbit hole to go down… how did too much horizontalism lead to a failure to cyberize the planned economy ala cybersyn?
The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Timestamp.
It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
The decisions made regarding the nature and circumstances of operation impose restrictions on all operatives in the system, ergo decisions made on a local level affect everyone. It is the monopolization of the use of literal power (and torque) unless you reject specialization, it is the imposition of authority. And rejecting specialization on a practical societal level requires a massive imposition of authority.
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate?
Yes, are you asking a ML if they don’t understand the difference between strong and weak delegates? Y’all know democratic centralism is our thing right? Which is a much more thorough application of the principle.
The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay.
LOL. Someone pointing a gun at you and giving you instructions isn’t authority? It isn’t the monopolization of violence in this context?
The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority.
The essays author establishes that some anarchists define self defense as a justifiable exercise in authority.
You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition.
No, the argument is that the anarchist definition isn’t grounded in materialism.
I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
That is because Engels is a dialectical materialist and convinced that definitions grounded in dialectical materialism are superior- his problem is that anarchists are being idealist in their definition, and that they should embrace a more coherent definition of it.
Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives.
I spent a couple years reading anarchist literature, and turned to reading marxist lit when the anarchists started giving unsatisfactory explanations.
This might be your pipeline. But I would suggest avoiding wasting time on YouTube.
I agree, post-radicalization Anarchism is a comforting and easy position to adopt, because western Anarchists tend to rail against Marxism, which fits with liberal anticommunism.
On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.
The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.
Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.
This is the kind of analysis you get when you have no understanding how organizations work. Mao was not some lone actor who miraculously acquired supreme power, and then starved “half of China” for shits and giggles apparently.
Anyone familiar with the way that Mao operated knows that he made frequent use of the mass line and mass mobilisation. He also made use of the collective leadership of the party, and was often frustrated by their lack of cooperation with him (at one point even threatening to launch a revolution against the party). Even anti-communists who have at least studied China in detail know that the lone dictator nonsense is well, nonsense. It is just great man theory of history. A society is made of many moving parts.
As to the failures of the glf, they were entirely technical. The rush to industrialise in a decentralised manner left agricultural production vulnerable to poor weather conditions. This was compounded with the fact that much of the country at the time had poor transportation and communications, and ruled by corrupt cardie, leading to a disastrous lack of effective coordination across the nation. It is only with higher level organization today that countries can mount effective disaster responses. The glf proves the opposite of your point.
He mostly explained how he actually didn’t really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I’m surprised why “On authority” is so widely known.
He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn’t engage at all with anarchist theory.
Edit - addendum: even if this wasn’t true back then in Engel’s days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.
I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!
As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.
As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.
I’m not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I’m not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.
No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because “the right people” are in charge is the actual idealism.
Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)
The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact Prunebutt who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
That’s a deeply silly statement, please explain why you think Lenin misunderstood Marx.
I believe that elected representatives can represent those that elect them if you don’t have Capitalism. Saying you can’t have that and just saying “no, you’re the idealist” is unproductive and goes nowhere.
Material Conditions did improve in Catalonia! Never said they didn’t, that’s a claim you lied about me saying, though I’ll let it slide this time. A lot did work, but a lack of proper organization led to losing to outside pressure.
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist and Marxist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact Prunebutt who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
Am I not allowed to make a joke? Your point was that since Marx dissavowed some self-proclaimed Marxists during his lifetime, that those that followed him and took on the moniker must also not understand his ideas. You have to admit this is silly and not logically supported, right? That’s like saying burgers are chicken sandwiches, because both have meat in buns.
The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen’s consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.
Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.
The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.
Aww somebody’s projecting. I love how you deny the reality of socialism that has been achieved in the real world while accusing me of idealism. Peak anarchist logic right there. 🤡
That’s right, being a foul tankie, I’m completely incapable of independent thought and simply do what my betters tell me like an automaton that I am. Only enlightened dronies are capable of truly independent thinking.
Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.
If the critique was well founded we’d see it applied in practice in the real world. The fact that anarchists aren’t able to put their ideas into practice shows that they can be safely binned.
Seriously. I might not be a great “Marx Scholar” and I don’t think the revolution will just be a peaceful process “whished into existence” but I don’t think Marx was Dunkin g on anti authoritarians here and to presume the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the long term free society of Marx ideals is utter garbage. Communism will be anti-authoritarian or it will not be.
The thing is that anarchism fundamentally doesn’t scale. There’s a reason we see central authority arise in every functioning society regardless of its political system. It’s the same reason complex animals evolve things like nervous systems and brains. Large organism need a way to coordinate actions towards a common purpose, and a human society is no different. This is why we see anarchist style societies at small scales, and then as they grow they develop central coordination mechanisms. The fact that anarchist can’t wrap their heads around this simple concept is frankly depressing.
Anarchists tend to fall for idealism, and see only Anarchism as “good” and therefore acceptable. That’s really the key point, they feel like they must unify means and ends, and that the microscopic chance that one day Anarchism may be established is worth fighting for.
It’s idealism to the core and puts the individual over the well-being of the group.
Indeed, and this is why anarchism is really just an offshoot of the liberal ideology at the end of the day. Idealism holds that existence is inseparable from human perception and that reality stems from the mind. This leads them to think that they can just will reality into existence through sheer force of will. The general premise most anarchists seem to believe is that the state is responsible for all the problems in society, and if it was somehow abolished then people would just naturally act in cooperative and enlightened way. This appears to be premised on the assumption that most people think the way anarchists do.
You’ve claim to know with great detail and certainty what anarchists believe without citing any anarchist thinkers. All you are doing is constructing a strawman of anarchists based on vibes hoping that none will be here to refute it. Anarchy is more than the absence of the state, and none who are knowledgeable posit that anarchy will materialize without effort. Anarchists are idealists not out of naivete, but necessity. It has been born out of history that when means and ends are not unified, the means become the ends. This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.
Nah, I’m going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.
Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that listening to anarchists regurgitate this nonsense is incredibly offensive. It completely discredits your argument and shows that it is you who’s opining on a subject you have no understanding of. All people like you accomplish is enable capitalist oppression by rejecting real world solutions.
Nah, I’m going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
The Bolsheviks discount anarchist achievements by claiming them as their own. Anarchists fought alongside the Bolsheviks because they promised to realize the anarchists’ goal of all power to the Soviets. When it became clear the Bolsheviks lied in order to selfishly establish themselves as the intelligentsia, a privileged class, the anarchists resisted and were violently repressed by their former brothers and sisters in arms.
I would like to hear about your experiences growing up in the USSR as I know there were many positive aspects, but by betraying the values for which many of the revolutionaries fought they created a society with an unstable foundation, as evidenced by its’ eventual collapse. Anarchists did not reject real world solutions, they defended them with their lives and lost. The Bolsheviks have themselves to blame for the collapse.
This clearly illustrates that anarchists are not capable of organizing in effective ways that can protect their ideology. The same way anarchists ended up losing to Bolsheviks, they end up losing to capitalists, and fascists. What Bolsheviks achieved was to build a socialist state that was able to defend itself and greatly improve the lives of the working majority. Anarchists simply aren’t capable of doing that as the past century has shown beyond all doubt.
USSR was the first ever attempt at building socialism at scale, and while it may have collapsed, other socialist projects live on today and continue to improve lives of over a billion people on this planet.
You’re using the same argument capitalists use to dismiss socialism, namely that socialism clearly doesn’t work because all socialist projects ended in collapse or continue in a state of poverty. This is, in essence, victim-blaming. Just as socialism struggles under the oppression of capitalist hegemony, anarchism struggles under the oppression of both capitalists and statists.
What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat. If power had gone to the Soviets as the Bolsheviks promised then the USSR would not have collapsed under the weight of its’ contradictions. You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.
What I’m pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That’s the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That’s the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn’t change the material reality of the world.
The difference between anarchists and communists is that the latter actually managed to build functional societies, and to effectively resist capitalism. Anarchists failed to do that, and the reasons for why anarchist approach fails time and again are well understood now.
What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat.
Repeating nonsense over and over will not make it true.
You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.
This is an idealist position that’s divorced from realities of the world. USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.
What I’m pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That’s the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That’s the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn’t change the material reality of the world.
The Bolsheviks’ had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.
USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.
Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.
The Bolsheviks’ had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.
No amount of moralizing will change the fact that anarchists fail to organize effectively time and again. If anarchists actually learned anything then we’d see that put into practice. The lack of any actual achievements is the elephant in the room here.
Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.
Yes, it absolutely did as anybody with even minimal historical knowledge would know.
This is getting repetitive and we’re just talking past each other so let’s just agree to disagree about the USSR. I just want to make the point - which I hope we can agree on - that the revolution wouldn’t have been successful without political pluralism within the ranks, and no future revolution will either. Dismissing the contributions of anarchists will only harm your cause.
Revolutions require a critical mass of people to come together, and sometimes people who have different vision for the end goal find opportunities to work together as Bolsheviks and anarchists did. Lenin wrote extensively on the subject of when alliances should be formed. MLs don’t have a problem working with anarchists, recognizing that there are common interests and that a time may come where such alliances may need to be rethought. The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.
It’s also worth noting that the reality in the west today is that both MLs and anarchists are an insignificant political minority. If the current system does end up collapsing in the near future, then fascism is the most likely outcome. While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.
The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.
You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.
While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.
I agree, but remember this conversation was started because you were insinuating that anarchists never accomplished anything.
You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.
I’ve been pointing out that anarchists have not managed to put their ideas into practice on any appreciable scale while Marxists have done this. Ultimately, what I’m telling you is that anarchists need to show how they can actually make their ideas work and withstand the challenges that they face in the real world. This is a problem that anarchists have not been able to solve in my view.
You say that it’s the fault of Bolsheviks that anarchists didn’t get their way in USSR, but there’s no reason to believe that anarchists would’ve fared any better against the capitalist invasion that followed in 1918, or against the nazis a couple of decades later. In fact, the centralization of power that you decried was ultimately what allowed USSR to rapidly industrialize and come out victorious in WW2.
Meanwhile, I completely agree that the socialist projects that Marxists managed to build are not without their own problems. Yet, I think they are a strict improvement over capitalism as imperfect as they may be. My view is that the threat of fascism is very real and that it grows by the day, and in face of that the left should focus on using tools that have been proven to defeat fascism in the past.
The dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the bourgeoisie are suppressed politically until they can be integrated into the rest of society, it doesn’t mean a dictatorship, it means a democracy where the former oppressors don’t get a seat at the table.
Mark Twain Two Reigns of Terror Quote never gets old. People are blind to all the normalized terror around them that happens soley because one class seeks to maintain its dominance over the class they exploit to make thier lifestyles possible.
I like how the reactionary communities post shit that isn’t thought out. Then you got a couple of… Left communities where they post thought out essays. Too long to read but probably mostly true
TSA is security theater that fails over 90% of real-world tests. It just wastes a ton of time, jet fuel, and people’s energy who could be doing jobs that actually help others or even just hanging out because that would literally be a more productive use of their time.
the meme is referencing a quote from marx that is greatly useful for dunking on idealist leftists who believe that the revolution can simply be wished into existence without all the dirty work.
Obviously they do, they are dunking on armchair leftists that judge every leftist movement on how perfect it is, but judge all liberal structures with supreme nuance.
we have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. but the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of god and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
Typical Stalinism/Maoism: Anyone who opposes my implementation of Marxism is an enemy of the proletariat and can be persecuted to any extent. These people agree with the mainstream idea that communism can’t be implemented democratically, but come to the conclusion that democracy must be abolished.
This meme is an open dogwhistle to tankies and thankfully meaningless to anyone who hasn’t fallen into or interacted with this small subsection of the far-left.
The kind that rails on “anti authoritarianism”? Or do you have a charitable interpretation of “authoritarianism” that is somehow compatible with democracy?
I also fail to see what any of that has to do with capitalism, which I have neither defended nor mentioned yet you brought up.
Goddam arguing with tankies and their endless litany of non-sequiturs is such a pointless exercise.
Do you have evidence of Marx and Engels, both who railed against so-called “anti-authoritarians,” saying that “Democracy must be abolished?” Do you have evidence of Marxists who followed them saying “Democracy must be abolished” either? I do not believe you will.
What I do see is Communists advocating for the destruction of Capitalism and the structures that support it, replacing them with proletarian democracy.
It isn’t a non-sequitor, your point itself was a strawman that doesn’t exist.
I love how being unable to make a coherent argument you go on bleating about tankies. If you admit that capitalism is not a democracy for the majority, then what democracy is being abolished?
Being against “anti-authoritarians” is not the same thing as being “authoritarian” as these categories are not useful in the first place. No marxist considers themselves to be either category.
NSA MASS SURVEILLANCE KENT STATE KENT STATE UNI CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY DAVID MISCAVIGE 佔領華爾街 MAY 4 1970 MASSACRE 肯特州立大学枪击事件 MAY 13 1985 MOVE BOMBING「MOVE」組織轰炸 RED SUMMER 1919 HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE 众议院非美活动调查委员会 TRAIL OF TEARS 美国本地人种族灭绝 JIM CROW SEGREGATION 吉姆·克勞法 HUMAN RIGHTS 人權 CITIZENS UNITED 联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案 SAFETY 安全 HIGH SPEED RAIL 人民共和国高速铁路 STRONG MASS LINE 群众路线 REPUBLIC OF HAWAII 夏威夷共和国 THIRTEEN COLONIES 十三殖民地 VIETNAM AFGHANISTAN IRAQ 伊拉克 EDWARD SNOWDEN 爱德华·斯诺登 SCIENTOLOGY 山達基教會 GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION CAMP 关塔那摩湾拘押中心 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 諾貝爾和平獎 BARACK OBAMA 贝拉克·奥巴马 COMMUNISM SOLIDARITY LABOUR ACTION ANTI-CAPITALIST PRO-REVOLUTION PROTEST MOVEMENT ANTIFA RIOT POLICE BRUTAILITY POLICE OCCUPATION PAID SUSPENSION LEFTIST COUNTER PROTEST CHARLES MANSON MANSON FAMILY JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES BORDER CONCENTRATION CAMPS MKULTRA ASSASINATE FRED HAMPTON JANE FONDA EUGENE DEBS MALCOLM X EAT THE RICH THE CRUMBLING OF AMERICA REAGANOMICS INFOWARS MANUFACTURING CONSENT FASCIST OLIGARCHY FBI HONEYPOT NSA SPYING ICE DEPORTATIONS WAR ON DRUGS PRISON SLAVERY CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE ENHANCED INTERROGATION MY LAI PRISON RAPE DEPORTATION MS13 PIZZAGATE LOLIHENTAI PURCHASING KINDER EGG LOTTERY OPERATION SEA SPRAY PATRIOT ACT AMWAY 21 SAVAGE 奇多贝尼托 SCOTT WARREN NET NEUTRALITY LOVEINT EGLIN AIRFORCE BASE COINTELPRO OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD OPERATION EARNEST VOICE OPERATION AURORAGOLD 1999 BELGRADE EMBASSY BOMBING IRAN AIR FLIGHT 655 QASEM SOLEIMANI JEFFREY EPSTEIN MASS PEDOPHILIA ABROAD AND DOMESTIC OPERATION SNOW WHITE HARVEY WEINSTEIN OPERATION CONDOR AARON SWARTZ WACO SIEGE RUBY RIDGE SIEGE 1998 CAVALESE CABLE CAR DISASTER PROJECT ELDEST SON GUNS FOR ANTIGUA GARY WEBB FREE BURMA RANGERS STRONGHOLD RESCUE & RELIEF MCNAMARA’S MORONS PROJECT APPLE PROJECT MIRROR PROJECT WITCH GEORGE PELL ACQUITTAL FORT DETRICK KILLING OF HUEY LONG BLAIR MOUNTAIN ERIC HARROUN MIRACLE VALLEY JINGMING BUILDING INCIDENT YANGJU HIGHWAY INCIDENT 16754432 JAPANESE WARCRIMES OPERATION ASIAN TOUCH OPERATION FREEDOM DEAL CHILEAN COUP D’ETAT TULSA MASSACRE MERE GO-OK RULE MORO CRATER CUBANA FLIGHT 455 OPIOID EPIDEMIC SACKLER FAMILY JADE HELM 15 NO GUN RI RYAN WHITAKER PROJECT SUNSHINE WECH BAGHTU DASANI FAKE WATER ICE CONCENTRATION CAMPS ICE HYSTERECTOMIES OPERATION MIDNIGHT CLIMAX OPERATION MONGOOSE JULIAN ASSANGE EMMETT TILL ANDRE VITCHEK NIKOLA MOTORS FORT HOOD MISSING SOLDIERS AGRICULTURAL ABCD AARON SWARTZ KENTUCKY POLICE HITLER RUSHAN ABBAS GITMO US MILITARY BUYS APP DATA ELAINE MASSACRE LITTLE HIROSHIMA LYSOL INJECTION US RACTOPAMINE MEAT PIKETON WASTE BONUS ARMY DANNY CHEN NORTH DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROTESTS 北达科他州接入管道抗议 FERGUSON PROTESTS 弗格森暴动 ST. LOUIS PROTESTS 2017 年圣路易斯抗议活动 NUCLEAR TESTING BIKINI ATOLL 比基尼环礁的核试验 UNITE THE RIGHT RALLY 团结右集会 CHARLOTTE PROTESTS 夏洛特暴动 ATTACK ON SUI-HO DAM 袭击穗河水坝 MILWAUKEE PROTESTS 密尔沃基骚乱 Shooting of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile 奥尔顿·斯特林和菲兰多·卡斯蒂利亚的射击 Occupation of the Malheur NationalWildlife Refuge Malheur国家野生动物保护区的占领 death of Freddie Gray 弗雷迪·格雷的死 Shooting of Michael Brown迈克尔·布朗的拍摄 death of Eric Garner, Oakland California 奥克兰奥克兰市埃里克·加纳（Eric Garner）逝世 Operation Condor 神鹰行动 Occupy WallStreet 占领华尔街 My Lai Massacre 我的大屠杀 St. Petersburg, Florida 佛罗里达州圣彼得堡 Kandahar Massacre 坎大哈屠杀 1992Washington Heights riots 1992年华盛顿高地暴动 No Gun Ri Massacre 无枪杀案 L.A. Rodney King riots 洛杉矶罗德尼·金暴动 1979 Greensboro Massacre 1979年格林斯伯勒大屠杀 Vietnam War 越南战争 Kent State shootings肯特州枪击案 Bombing of Tokyo 轰炸东京 San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing 旧金山警察局公园站爆炸案 Assassination of MartinLuther King, Jr. 小马丁·路德·金遭暗杀。 Long Hot Summer of 1967 1967年炎热的夏天 Bagram 巴格拉姆 Selma to Montgomery marches 塞尔玛到蒙哥马利游行 Highway of Death 死亡之路 Ax Handle Saturday 星期六斧头 Battle of Evarts 埃瓦茨战役 Battle ofBlair Mountain 布莱尔山战役 McCarthyism 麦卡锡主义 Red Summer 红色夏天 Rock Springs massacre 岩泉大屠杀 Pottawatomie massacre 盆大屠杀 Jeju uprising 济州起义 Colfaxmassacre 科尔法克斯大屠杀 Reading Railroad massacre 阅读铁路大屠杀 Rock Springs massacre 岩泉大屠杀 Bay viewMassacre 湾景大屠杀 Lattimer massacre 拉蒂默大屠杀 Ludlow massacre 拉德洛屠杀 Everett massacre 埃弗里特屠杀Centralia Massacre 中部大屠杀 Ocoee massacre Ocoee大屠杀 Herrin Massacre 赫林大屠杀 Redwood Massacre红木大屠杀 Columbine Mine Massacre 哥伦拜恩矿难 Guantanamo Bay 关塔那摩湾 extraordinary rendition 非凡的演绎 Abu Ghraib torture and prison abuse 阿布格莱布的酷刑和监狱虐待 Henry Kissinger 亨利·基辛格 TIMBER SYCAMORE DANNY CHEN PROJECT ICEWORM CHINESE EXLCUSION ACT BIKINI ATOLL GUANO ACT LOVE CANAL JIM JONES PEOPLE’S TEMPEL PARENT’S CHOICE HEAVY METALS OPERATION BROTHER SAM 2021 TEXAS BLACKOUT
Those topics are not banned in China, actually. It’s Westerners who are themselves propagandized into believing that they are.
People who live in Five-eyes states don’t understand how propaganda works in their own countries, despite it not being a secret. Here are some uncontroversial Wikipedia entries on it; standard stuff that’s taught in schools of marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism.
.
Westerners are propagandized to the gills about Xinjiang/the Uyghurs and the Tiananmen riots and Tibet/the Dalai Lama and Falun Gong/Dafa, for example. All of those were or still are CIA/NED/other US three-letter-acronym projects, BTW. The Dalai Lama was on the CIA payroll (perhaps he still is); the US funded and organized terrorist cells in Xinjiang; the NED funded and helped organize the Tiananmen “revolutionaries” and Falun Dafa.
All it does when someone posts that garbage is show their ignorance. Like that copypasta is some magic spell. Just embarrassing.
This is the problem with these conversations, you don’t honestly engage at all and instead resort to ad hominims, irrelevant tangents or even in this case straightuplying. Copying and pasting from scripts that fail to address the point is not doing you any favours.
It’s not a football match. You don’t have to pick a side and defend it no matter what. You can and should be equally be critical of immoral actions regardless of where they come from. By playing the whatabout game to ‘defend your side’ all you do is normalise these things by implying that it’s fine because everyone does it.
You accept Five Eyes corporate media uncritically because you don’t understand media, which I tried to explain, but you decided that it was an irrelevant tangent.
you don’t honestly engage at all
I don’t have all day; I’ll address two.
Xinjiang/The Uyghurs
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just a few weeks ago.
We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.
Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.
The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.
Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.
Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).
Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.
It’s not a football match. You don’t have to pick a side and defend it no matter what.
It’s not; I’m not; and neither do you.
Edit to add: I’m certainly not picking “our” side. I mean, have you seen our side? The side that’s providing political and material support for an actual genocide as we speak?
So your response to my comment pointing out that you’re just attacking me, posting from a script and not engaging with the discussion is to what… Attack me, post some scripts and continue not to engage? If you just want to monologue, maybe make a separate post.
I pointed out the irony in your original reply and you’ve yet to address it except to make the courageous claim that there is no censorship in China. When I show counter examples it’s back to ad hominims. Can you address the specific points of censorship please? I That’s what we are talking about. “Addressing” two points as you have done gets you nowhere to defending your original claim that there is no censorship in the China.
Also another obviously dishonest point you added in your edit. Clearly your side has nothing to do with where your born, I don’t know where you’re from or who you are mate, it’s about selective criticism where you only criticise one side and never accept criticisms of another side. I am happy to criticise any ‘side’. I’m critical of the country I was born, of the US, the CCP and everyone in between.
you’ve yet to address it except to make the courageous claim that there is no censorship in China.
I never made the claim that there is no censorship in China. That would be a ridiculous claim to make considering that there is indeed censorship in China. There is censorship in the West as well, though it is of a different character.
Edit to add: Chinese people aren’t afraid to discuss the Tiananmen riots, as smug online Westerners seem to enjoy believing. That’s ridiculous. But Westerners smugly believe it, in fact it seems as if they want it to be true.
I feel like we’re playing word games now but maybe I just misinterpreted you. Are these topics censored on the Chinese internet or not? That was the whole point of my original comment.
Chinese people aren’t afraid to discuss the Tiananmen riots
I never said they were afraid to discuss them. Just that they were banned on the Chinese internet.
smug online Westerners
Ad hominim ad nauseum. This just makes it seem like there is no substance to what you’re saying if you keep resorting to ad hominims.
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.