this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1176 points (90.9% liked)

Memes

45772 readers
1694 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So how can you organize anything if noone tells anyone what to do? People just suddenly know?

You talk to other people and agree on a plan of action? Have you ever, in your life, interacted with people?

That even if the authority is granted, it’s an authority.

One example doesn't even grant any authority: A delegate has no authority.

If you OTOH now try to pull semantics and say "but by being convinced by other people of a joint plan of action, they have authority over you", or "A delegate has the authority to do as they're told by their council" then you're doing the "holding up a stone thing": You make authority such a broad term that not just organisation, but physics itself is impossible without it. Or, in different words: It's playing dumb. You hear what Anarchists are saying, including their definitions of authority, of distinguishing power-to against power-over, and say "but the stone has authority over you that's silly"!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You talk to other people and agree on a plan of action? Have you ever, in your life, interacted with people?

Yes but than the plan of action takes form of authority. Which is the point that Engels makes.

One example doesn’t even grant any authority: A delegate has no authority.

Then noone is required to take the delegate serious. The delegate enjoys no authority and there's no organization happening as everybody is free to do whatever th fuck they want.

holding up a stone thing”: You make authority such a broad term that not just organisation, but physics itself is impossible without it.

Only when you take it in in bad faith, because we're talking about people and not inanimate objects (stones). The definition of anarchists is just another social construct that basically describes authority..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes but than the plan of action takes form of authority. Which is the point that Engels makes.

It is an extension to the libertarian notion of authority that Engels makes.

Suppose you and your comrades are are at a party conference in another city, and, in a wild bout of anti-authoritarianism, you're talking among yourselves which restaurant to go to instead of following party orders. Maybe it's just an oversight, the responsible buerocrat didn't do their job. Anyway the obstacle is not insurmountable, the choice is not very contentious, some people have preference, one's a vegan, but in the end you all agree that Mexican is a perfectly fine choice.

Then, out of nowhere, a KGB agent appears saying "Now it would be a shame if someone changed their mind about eating Mexican and would need to be sent to Gulag, would it, after all, we can't have a decision without subsequent imposition of authority".

Then noone is required to take the delegate serious.

The delegate is taken just as serious as the council they represent. They are, after all, the representative of that council. If you ignore what the delegate says, you're ignoring what the council says. But the authority is that of the council, not of the delegate.

The definition of anarchists

Council communists have a compatible definition, btw. It's only Bolsheviks and their descendants who disagree because they can't stand workers actually having a say in things, see the Trotsky quote before. That is authoritarianism. You can't declare it away by playing semantic games.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Suppose you and your comrades are are at a party conference in another city, and, in a wild bout of anti-authoritarianism, you’re talking among yourselves which restaurant to go to instead of following party orders. Maybe it’s just an oversight, the responsible buerocrat didn’t do their job. Anyway the obstacle is not insurmountable, the choice is not very contentious, some people have preference, one’s a vegan, but in the end you all agree that Mexican is a perfectly fine choice. Then, out of nowhere, a KGB agent appears saying “Now it would be a shame if someone changed their mind about eating Mexican and would need to be sent to Gulag, would it, after all, we can’t have a decision without subsequent imposition of authority”.

Basically you're arguing against the state, which we sure both want. The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it's will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.

I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it's not a even playing field between labour and capital. You need a form of authority to make the reorganization of political economy possible.

The delegate is taken just as serious as the council they represent. They are, after all, the representative of that council. If you ignore what the delegate says, you’re ignoring what the council says. But the authority is that of the council, not of the delegate.

authority is that of the council

authority

How are you not aware of what you're saying? Do you want me to do an anarchist caricature of going to the restaurant like you did in your example? Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it. There's no authority. If you tell me that the hunger is the authority im going to laugh

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Basically you’re arguing against the state, which we sure both want.

You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?

(Side note: In the ole socialist definition of "state". Both still qualify for the modern political theory definition of state which bogs down to "a people, a territory, a type of governing system (organisation)". Gotta be careful with that one it often gets confused).

I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it’s not a even playing field between labour and capital.

Indeed, without state power labour would have the upper hand. You saw that in the Russian revolution where workers very quickly formed soviets and kept things running. Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.

Then, going back a tiny bit:

The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it’s will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.

How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?

Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it.

How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things? Doubly so if there's a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?

There's actually interesting modern polls around this, made in the context of UBI: The overwhelming majority say that if they received UBI, they'd still be working about as much. Maybe get another job, maybe cut down hour a bit, maybe take a sabbatical to do learn a new trade and switch there, but overall the wheels would keep churning at about the same speed. Meanwhile, the same overwhelming majority, when asked what other people would be doing, said "they'd stop working". That kind of mind-bug is a mixture of capitalist realism and hierarchical realism, the notion that people need to feel the whip to be motivated to be productive. That without imposition of force, humanity as we know it would cease to exist: We'd lose our zest, our creativity, our ambition, our love for one another, everything. That humanity is an inherently asocial species, held together by the powers that be. That we need to be domesticated to be ourselves.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?

Yes. Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?

In the ole socialist definition of “state”

I use the "Monopoly on violence" definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)

Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.

They just did it for fun, wasn't like there was fascist and imperialist forces right?

How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?

Democratic centralism, but it will have beraucrats until the state abolished capitalist force. The party bureaucrats debate internally and acts in unison. You can freely join the party. It's deliberate to keep non marxist/people that think capitalism is good, outside. It's based. Read "What is to be done" from Lenin.

How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things?

Not what Engels or I am saying? The "decision" or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.

Doubly so if there’s a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?

Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It's this abstract that Engels is referencing

UBI

A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say

Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing. UBI also comes at the cost of consolidating various social spending in order to create more dependency and have only one front of negation to deal with as a capitalist

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?

Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that's because the Rothschilds don't want you to succeed. Couldn't be because the plan was shit.

I use the “Monopoly on violence” definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)

There's no monopoly on violence in Anarchism.

Democratic centralism.

Have you actually read Lenin. That's not a method to organise a society, it's a method to organise a party. All it basically bogs down to "Once the party has made a decision, party members are to stop arguing and get to work implementing it". It has numerous problems when it comes to de-facto centralisation of power, as well as inability to address and correct decisions that were, or have become, wrong.

The “decision” or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.

That's literally the authority of the shoe-maker. Being a specialist and therefore trusted to make expert decisions is not the same as having power over people. Anarchists freely bow to the shoe-maker when it comes to matters of shoe production, but not when it comes to where to walk with them.

Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It’s this abstract that Engels is referencing

No they're not bound by that decision. There's plenty of reasons why one would want to change their mind.

A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say

It takes power away from capitalists by giving the labourer the option to walk away from job offers they don't like. It is not a total overhaul of the system, true, but you should be able to appreciate the juicy irony of fighting capitalist power with market mechanisms.

Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing.

People need more to live than housing, also, you're being paternalistic. "Here, live in this place, eat this stuff". What if I want to take the same amount of resources and live in another place, and eat different stuff?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that’s because the Rothschilds don’t want you to succeed. Couldn’t be because the plan was shit.

Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with "Rothschild's"?

As far as I now the soviet union went from feudalism to a space traveling nation. Similarly the rise of China is impressive af. Cuba despite it's sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US. etc.

How many anarchist non-state states exist? Rojava? Tell me how their dealing with capitalist imperialist forces is going

There’s no monopoly on violence in Anarchism

Idc. I tell you how I use the term. It ssimilarly a wide category that encompasses disciplinary measures inside anarchist organization.

authority of the shoe-maker

Brother in Christ why are you so dense about this and not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could've meant and try to view from that lense (not necessarily having to adopt it)

People need more to live than housing, also, you’re

Agree and it's the socialists states duty to serve these interests

being paternalistic. “Here, live in this place, eat this stuff”.

I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with “Rothschild’s”?

Nah I'm more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism, dunno whether you share it it's not a universal. Could've just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. "Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we're falling behind, they're exerting authority over us" give me a break no they're not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.

higher life expectancy than the US.

Yeah saying "we're better off than the US" is just as convincing as American saying "we're better off than Haiti". Darn low bar. Do better.

not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could’ve meant

Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels? Why isn't he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn't argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.

I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.

Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money. In one case you can consume those goods, in the other you can choose which goods you consume. You can forego expensive food for a while to save up for canvas and paintbrush, if you so please. You can choose whether you spend the money included for purposes of recreation to travel to a metal concert, the opera, or a beach bar. You can choose to spend that recreation money on better food or a new hammer, if you so please.

Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it's still miles better than "work for a boss or starve", or "work for a boss or don't get to choose your meal". Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nah I’m more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism

Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king

Could’ve just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. “Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we’re falling behind, they’re exerting authority over us” give me a break no they’re not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.

What no theory does to a mf

Yeah saying “we’re better off than the US”

Do you even read? I said "Cuba despite it’s sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US" Qualitative different statement

Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels?

Because he's dead?

Why isn’t he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn’t argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.

"Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine"

Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money

It's paternalistic still? The economic base is capitalist and has a welfare superstructure. The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.

Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it’s still miles better than “work for a boss or starve”, or “work for a boss or don’t get to choose your meal”. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you're basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king

Anti-semitism like this.

“Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine”

It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There's a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.

The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.

The employer also doesn't get a say. The citizen overall, though, does get a say (in liberal democracies at last), as to how large the universal allowance is. The Labourer outnumbering the employer in the liberal democratic process thus gives an overall tilt towards the labourer, the ability to ensure that it's large enough to be able to tell bosses "Shove it, I quit".

Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you’re basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful

On what? Housing? People spend it on housing. They can pool it into cooperatives, no issue there regarding economies of scale.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There’s a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.

It is if you expand the definition of salad.. how are you not understanding this??

I'm ending this conversation as it's pointless.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Anti-auths don't have any issues with caprese We do have issues with fruit salads, though.

...or something along the lines I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don't have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese. But you'll get it, eventually, as long as you stop confusing stuff by equivocating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don’t have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese.

You're such a joke

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I lost track, you never noticed you had none from the start,, we're not the same.