113
Authoritarian Rule
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
113 points (100.0% liked)
Be sure to read the rule before you leave
12 readers
1 users here now
Rule 3: If you visit MoreTankie196, you are contractually obliged to post before you leave
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I like some laws.
"laws"
are you trying to spook me?
Stirnerposting? On Lemmygrad? I never thought I'd see the day.
left unity to make fun of socdems
This could be what revitalizes the western Left
lmao my bad, will use spoiler tag next time
are you anarchist?
In a "dismantle unjust hierarchies" sense, sure, but I think states are inevitable when people make a society.
is this Vaush's account?
I never claimed to be an anarchist
that is confusing. that sense can very well be communist. would i be wrong to presume you dont really know what are either of them?
Well "anarchist" can mean a lot of different things depending on the person so I find it more useful to just say what I agree or disagree with.
bro, you are commenting in a community called "moretankie196", of a marxist-leninist instance whose name is inspired in a soviet city. we do care about concepts and definitions.
you are very welcome to learn, with us, though :D
Okay well that's why I defined how I would identify as an anarchist
Except that’s not what anarchism is, and you can’t just say “Anarchism is whatever my heart says it is”, by saying that it has a lot of different definitions to people. That’s not how definitions works, especially for a political ideology.
That's unnecessarily aggressive, and not what I said at all.
Were it so easy.
Ad hominem deflection via tone policing is one of the weakest counter arguments there are. You can really do better, at least try to engage the main point next time, though that’s a bit difficult with no actual argument besides, “The definition is whatever I want it to be”.
If that’s not what you said, then what does this mean?
“Well “anarchist” can mean a lot of different things depending on the person“
And yes, it is that easy. That’s the entire point of political theory. Whether it be Marxist-Leninist, Liberal, Neo-liberal, fascist, and yes, anarchist, they all have established definitions.
It's not an ad hominem, and it wasn't a counter argument, you were being unnecessarily rude when you could have just said "that's not anarchism". My counter argument was "that's not what I said at all".
Ironic.
If you'd like to define anarchism instead of playing debate club, I could let you know if that's a label I agree with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing#:~:text=Ignoring%20the%20truth%20or%20falsity,angry%20while%20still%20being%20rational.
It is ad hominem. It is the definition itself, avoiding the argument to focus on an unrelated aspect of the other person or delivery.
Also HAHAHAHA. The burden of prof does not lie on me to provide your majesty with a definition that you will deny no matter what I say.
Coming from Reddit is a hard transition mate, but this isn’t Reddit. We don’t do this here, have fun arguing with a brick wall. No one needs snarky one liners and debatebro logic.
Hey, there's no need of being overly aggressive towards someone who is willing to engage. Yes, they are an internet anarchist with no theory attached, but they are way more respectful than other lost stragglers. You dont have mock or belittle them.
They are not "willing to engage", I've seen the same thing dozens of times, and it always ends the same way. I don't want internet anarkiddies here.
Its okay not to want to repeat same interactions over and over again. But your response was disproportionate to the actual offence, it is not a good look to be an aggressive party in that could have been a calm, although probably unfulfilling conversation. Now they can just screencap the conversation and post it somewhere lamenting the unreasonable tankies.
Burden of proof? I never claimed anything except "different people have different interpretations," do you need a source for that? You are extremely desperate for conflict, and I'm not interested.
If you’re willing to engage beyond fallacies, then how do you justify supporting western governments engaged in constant imperialist war and extraction for their capitalist constituents against “authoritarian” countries like Cuba who have actual democracy and put all their resources into helping their people through a brutal embargo (by the us) by providing free and quality education and medicine? [if that is indeed your position, correct me if I’m wrong.]
An important part of ML that we agree upon in theory is that states will inevitably arise as long as the conditions are there for such. Through scientific study we have come to the conclusion that the existence of classes, exploiters and exploited, is the basis of states. A state is a mechanism for the rule of one class over others. If you are an anarchist as you claim, your ultimate goal should be eliminate the state. That is our goal as communists, and our method is a state of the working class used to provide for the needs of the former needs of the exploited while suppressing the exploiters (landlords, capitalists, kulaks, monarchists, fascists), this is what liberals call “authoritarianism.”
I don't justify all the actions of western governments, and I don't identify as an anarchist, what I meant was that I agree with some principles of anarchism
This whole thing started when you said “Pretending that there isn’t a spectrum, of governments restricting liberty or expression, isn’t helping anyone.” The type of anarchists criticized by OP are those that say they hate all government yet only criticize enemies of the US. I would agree with what you originally said as in socialist societies are less oppressive to the average person than capitalism (insert Stalin quote:
spoiler
IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO IMAGINE WHAT PERSONAL LIBERTY IS ENJOYED BY AN UNEMPLOYED HUNGRY PERSON. TRUE FREEDOM CAN ONLY BE WHERE THERE IS NO EXPLOITATION AND OPPRESSION OF ONE PERSON BY ANOTHER: WHERE THERE IS NOT UNEMPLOYMENT, AND WHERE A PERSON IS NOT LIVING IN FEAR OF LOSING HIS JOB, HIS HOME AND HIS BREAD. ONLY IN SUCH A SOCIETY PERSONAL AND ANY OTHER FREEDOM CAN EXIST FOR REAL AND NOT ON PAPER.The whole reason why all of us are arguing with you is because you seem to be defending the anarchists we criticize, despite supposedly not agreeing with them.
He doesn't need to do that, actual anarchists have done so already, and if you took the time to read any foundational anarchist theory you would know what the definition is.
The only way anarchism has "different definitions to different people" is if they too were not interested in the theory and instead just the label, which is what this meme is about...
If you actually believed in dismantling unjust hierarchies you would understand that all hierarchies are unjust. Like the political hierarchy of the United States.
Yeah that's true, I haven't done any anarchist reading, but I've had numerous alleged anarchists explain things differently, so I just said which aspects I agree with.
You might want to consider how much they've read too, or what they've read. Find yourself an audio book, I know that's helped me.
What works would you recommend?
Idk if you're asking about specifically anarchist reading here, if not:
Principles of Communism by Engels is a good essay-length read ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm ).
State and Revolution by Lenin is a great first short book length read ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ ).
On Authority is Engel's argument essay against Anarchism and the term "Authoritarian" . That may or may not be up your alley, but you'll see a lot of that reflected in what we say here ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm ).
And just because Mao is rad, "Oppose Book Worship" includes the banger "no investigation, no right to speak" and I like that. ( https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm#fn5 ).
If you're looking for Anarchist theory you could try an Anarchist instance. I think they like Bookchin or something like that.
Others might have a better answer, so I'll allow them to make suggestions. My commentary stems from holding similar views on Communism/Socialism, until I decided to actually dive into the theory. I've listened to the communist manifesto, and working on listening to Capital currently. I'd like to eventually read Black Shirts and Reds by Parenti. Having a good foundational understanding will help you evaluate our current place and time through the lense of these political ideologies and help avoid simply barking shibboleths at the moon.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 most coherent anarchist theory
Exactly, some “anarchists” are just liberals who like to have an edgy/faux-radical flag and symbol (you), while others are communists with ideological differences who are still willing to work with us toward a similar goal.
cool ad hominem but I never claimed to be an anarchist
Sorry, but I got the impression you were, as you repeatedly said you agreed with parts of anarchism and think anarchism can mean many things. If you consider being called “liberal” an ad hominem then what are you?
idk, I guess some flavor of socialist? DemSoc? I've never really sought out the perfect label, I prefer to just be pro/anti specific concepts or ideas.
In that case you're holding a belief that goes completely against the ideas implied by the label you use. Yes, there's always variety of thought in all political fields but this one is an outright contradiction.
Also, nice Trevor Moore pic.
I don't really use the label "anarchist," as I said I like some laws and I think states are inevitable, the thing about hierarchies is how some (alleged?) anarchists described the principles to me