OurToothbrush

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

idealist

Mfw someone trying to argue that their ideology is better doesn't understand their own ideology, or the idealist/dialectical materialist split, lmao

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh look ageism based insults

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

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:

  1. then don't link a video to defend your point that you don't agree with

  2. 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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

In addition to not making sense from a historical development or material analysis perspective

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The term comes from gay culture, and that is where it is still predominantly used.

But you also shouldn't make fun of bdsm bottoms (without negotiating)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Oh look, holocaust trivialization from an "anti-authoritarian"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Hey, just because they're being homophobic doesn't mean you should stoop to their level

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

That is what you are referring to though when you talk about Marx not being a Marxist.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

And how can you be sure? Given nontransparent smokescreen of all red imperialist countries like USSR, China and North Korea?

You call them imperialist without having an understanding of imperialism.

For example, explain China increasing in manufacturing output as a percent of their economy as they enter and push into the middle income bracket?

Also, how the hell is the DPRK imperialist? The only place they've invaded was a US military dictatorship in the same country that they're in, while the US dictatorship was slaughtering 10s of thousands of protestors.

Oh yes, USSR, the famous standard of democracy /s

Yes. If you can't explain how the soviet councils were layered and how elections were carried out then don't pretend like you can argue about this in an informed way.

China uses a similar system and has a 95 percent approval rate, according to Harvard Surveys.

*replace it with the gulag system

This is holocaust trivialization. The gulags were not meant to kill people, and the mortality rate in them reflects this.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (11 children)

He literally just cites abridged arguments from “The problems with on authority”

Read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” ": https://hexbear.net/post/2141265

Also yeah, I watched it so everyone else doesn't have to waste time

view more: ‹ prev next ›