this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1218 points (91.2% liked)
Memes
45432 readers
903 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I don't believe in rights. at least, there's no such thing as an inalienable right, since governments can and do take them away. I'm not even sure how to begin to answer your question given that I think that you're talking about fictions. sort of like asking me which anarchist society had the most thetans, or protection spirits.
I didn't think that I'd have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure. but I guess it's true that some people still side with the wrong people at the second international.
Not even positive rights? You're literally like "authority means it is by definition a class society" and you don't believe in rights? How do you square that circle?
It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don't want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.
And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.
Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state? You know, that thing that socialists and anarchists both do, that involves hierarchy in repressing right wing elements? That socialists actually acknowledge the evil of, as opposed to pretending like they're not doing a transitional state?
Or do you have a new super special plan to do classless society day one? If so I'd love to hear it.
that's not what you proposed to use as a metric. i'm not sure how to quantify them and, frankly, or what a good measure would be, i guess.
i do know that i don't trust anyone else to decide how i keep myself fed and safe. given the choice in constructing a revolution, i would empower individuals to a maximum degree and destroy concentrations of power wherever they're found.
Thats some right libertarian hyper-individualist hogwash. Stop being alienated from your fellow workers.
So, let's say the workers form Soviets. Those Soviets have to be destroyed, right?
it is going to depend, isn't it? are the soviets operated with consent and consensus?
i already explained i have no illusions that i can dictate what it's going to look like after the revolution. i do know what i won't tolerate.
Is this material to whether the soviet is concentrating power? Either way you have a small group of people making legislative and executive actions.
a system that operates with consent and consensus has no authority.
Okay, you need to actually define authority, because I feel like each anarchist I've encountered has a different definition.
I know this was lazy. but I think it's good enough.
edit: oh. this is a bit better
i have no problem working with my neighbors. i have big problems with someone tellingme how we should do that.
if we're working together I'm going to say how I think we should work.
implying that I don't want to change the status quo doesn't change whether I do.
You're starting to sound like the liberals that tell me to vote for Biden.
I'm the authority on what I want. there's no evidence that you could produce that would undercut my claim.
this is some equivocation. it's an informal fallacy you might want to look up.
it is. since you seem opposed to learning anywhere but Lemmy, I'll help you out. equivocation is an informal fallacy where you use one word in a certain context with a particular meaning, and then you use the same word in a different context with a different meaning, and then you claim that they're the same thing. The authority of the boot maker is different from the authority of the cop. The authority of the doctor is different from the authority of the insurance company.
I don't have any interest in debating.
don't be intellectually dishonest, and i won't call out your intellectual dishonesty. it's not debate bro shit.
your characterization doesn't change whether i want to debate
i have been expressing my earnest feelings and doing my best to convey them to you. explaining your equivocation was no more debate bro than explaining the definition of communism is. please look back through here, and you'll find that i'm quite happy to admit i don't really know everything, i don't have a perfect plan for every thing, and i don't care to argue about any of it. i don't mind discussing, but your accusation of debate bro-ing seems, to me, like projection.
i didn't paste anything. i've been conversing with you. you have been highly hostile with me, though.