/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain't driving 20 minutes to riot."

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

Sup ML’s, can you redpill me? Anonymous 11/18/2020 (Wed) 02:39:36 No. 1146994
I’m a libertarian socialist and I’m really interested in learning more about these authoritarian states, such as common misconceptions and cool facts about them that could help me defend these states in a debate. >What are the core beliefs of ML? >Is china capitalist? Why do they have corporations and billionaires? >Was life under the USSR as bad as people say it is? (working conditions, egalitarianism, etc.) >Are the “kill counts” for socialist “dictators” all blown out of proportion and fake? >Was the USSR imperialist? I’d also really appreciate some books and shit I could read, I’m already reading some Lenin stuff
Stop watching and simping shartonhead first of all
>>1146994 >I’d also really appreciate some books and shit I could read Here you go, some (modern) entry level stuff for you.
ShoeOnHead isn’t hot
read grover furr and eric hobsbawm
>>1147045 heresy
>>1147022 shoulda said pic unrelated
>>1147060 if she didn’t wear makeup you would be disgusted by her
>>1147136 but she does wear makeup so I don't see the problem 🤷‍♂️
(31.06 KB 960x356 43ylc1.jpg)
>>1146994 >What are the core beliefs of ML? Worker's should control the means of production. They need a state to do that. Western imperialism is the greatest threat to world peace today. >Is china capitalist? Why do they have corporations and billionaires? It has a pretty loose interpretation of traditional ML doctrine but I wouldn't call China capitalist. They allow a wealthy class to exist under tight supervision and with the expectation that they provide some benefit to the state. >Was life under the USSR as bad as people say it is? (working conditions, egalitarianism, etc.) Kinda. Most stories you hear on the internet are bullshit but it wasn't heaven. It was pretty great in many ways though. >Are the “kill counts” for socialist “dictators” all blown out of proportion and fake? All lies. 100% >Was the USSR imperialist? Nope.
>>1147269 >Worker's should control the means of production. The means of production should be collectivized*
>>1147269 >>1147300 How much worker's self-management would there be in an ML society?
>>1147304 >>1147304 What sort of answer do you expect to that question? Under my awesome perfect ML society, there will be 57.936% worker self-management and the other 42.064% will be run by evil faceless bureaucrats who hate freedom. Historically, these things very between localities. Worker self-management in the GDR was quite different from that of say, Vietnam or Cuba or Yugoslavia or the USSR.
(4.31 MB FundamentalsML.pdf)
>>1146994 read the state and revolution by Lenin. pdf related also is good
>>1147352 >What sort of answer do you expect to that question? Here's a few sub-questions: Would workers be allowed to elect their their managers? How is workplace decision-making power divided between planners and workers? I understand that Yugoslavia had a fair amount of workers' self-management, and had a system comparable to worker cooperatives. I'm not aware of, say, the USSR having much as much workers' self-management.
(107.13 KB 819x543 IMG_20200924_110625.jpg)
>What are the core beliefs of ML? Way too vague to give an answer. It's a worldview synthesizing Marx and Lenin as a guide to action. Be more specific about an aspect - philosophy, political economy, scientific socialism - you want to talk about. Here is a good introduction: https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/burns-emile/1939/what-is-marxism/index.htm Generally, the idea is to capture the state, and to erect a dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are in public property so production and distribution can be rationally planned as opposed to the anarchy of the market, with the goal of constructing a socialist mode of production. As Marx put it: <If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm >Is china capitalist? Why do they have corporations and billionaires? The CPC argues that China is in the "preliminary stage of socialism", e.g. the transformation of capitalism towards socialism where in the last instance the Chinese bourgeoisie does not control economic decision-making and where the logic of value-realization does not determine outcomes in public industry, which entails the commanding heights of the economy to safeguard the proletarian dictatorship. China makes extensive use of the market and a private sector, which was somewhat forced upon them due to their unique historical situation of being isolated both from the West and the USSR while having the biggest population on the planet that they couldn't feed themselves nor supply with electricity. So no, I wouldn't just say it's "capitalism". >Was life under the USSR as bad as people say it is? (working conditions, egalitarianism, etc.) I mean, the last two things certainly wasn't the main quarrel people had with the USSR. It was pretty egalitarian and working conditions weren't too bad unless you talk about Magnitogorsk in the 30s. It certainly was no paradise but it was immensely better than capitalist Russia with certain traits we can be proud of - like the elimination of homelessness, unemployment and a completely stress-free life. Plus the fastest economic growth ever recorded after Japan. The USSR was a pretty comfy place to live in with good education provided to you. >Are the “kill counts” for socialist “dictators” all blown out of proportion and fake? They're are all blown out of proportion and are getting increasingly challenged in bourgeois academia as well. It all comes from dubious sources, like the Black Book of Communism which includes declining birth rates as "kill counts". Here, watch this video about the kill count of capitalism and the "methodology" of attributing deaths to socialism: https://youtu.be/ClLKm8Q8Pns The restoration of capitalism in Russia alone has killed 4-5 million people. >Was the USSR imperialist? No, neither is modern Russia. For an imperialist state you need a monopoly bourgeoisie and finance capital that relies on super profits stemming from export of capital. http://links.org.au/node/4629 Remember that we don't define imperialism colloquially like "when a country does mean stuff" or whatever. The USSR preserving it's hegemony in Hungary or the ČSSR is not imperialism, whatever one thinks of those interventions.
>>1146994 Sharing is caring. Here, have a good read.
>>1147361 >I'm not aware of, say, the USSR having much as much workers' self-management. See: https://archive.org/details/WorkersParticipationInTheSovietUnion/ Besides, worker participation is not supposed to be an end in itself. Anarchists seem to think worker control of means of production entail to vote upon who cleans the pipes tomorrow in an individual firm. >How is workplace decision-making power divided between planners and workers? Don't take it from me, take it from the example of the universally demonized example of North Korean workplace organization: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9558.html
>>1147401 >It isn't imperialism when we do it!!! Only when meany capitalists do it!!!
>>1147412 I mean once you make liberal usage of terms Lenin tried to evaluate scientifically, you end up with nothing. Here is a good rebuttal to the "all states are equally imperialist" crap: https://monthlyreview.org/2014/11/01/contra-hardt-and-negri/ Remember that conceptions of "ultra-imperialism" conceived by the likes of Kautsky effectively caused him to support German participation in WWI, and are frequently used to support positions like Zionism in the "left" today.
(190.14 KB 1486x424 muhauth.png)
First start by realizing "libertarian vs authoritarian" isn't a real thing in practice.
>>1147419 Spotted the tankie
>>1147421 spotted the liberal
>>1147418 Redefine the term all you want, you just seem to euphemizing the USSR's imperialistic activities. Any nation imposing its will on another is imperialism, regardless of what economic or political system it has. That is true when the United States backs a coup in Latin America, and it true when the Soviet Union puts down an uprising in Hungary.
>>1147421 Is Engels a tankie now?
>>1147430 Maybe not, but that particular take of his was shitty nonetheless
>What are the core beliefs of ML? Marxism-Leninism supports a Violent overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie (the Capitalist state) followed by the creation of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a political system in which a single Vanguard party that represents the most advanced section of the proletariat, governs the country through the principle of Democratic Centralism (freedom of discussion, unity of action). This is done in order to establish a Socialist mode of production, a Planned Socialist economic system in which the State owns the means of production and exchange (State-ownership of Large and Medium sized businesses with no Stock Exchanges) and provides a massive Social Safety net (Free Housing, Free Healthcare, Free Education, Job guarantee, etc.). Eventually once all Capitalist threats and Bourgeoisie cultural elements are eliminated through the implementation of Global Socialism, their will be a transition to the Stateless, Moneyless, Classless, Communist mode of production. >Is china capitalist? Why do they have corporations and billionaires? China is a Capitalist state complete with Billionaires, Sweatshops for U$ corporations, and Stock Exchanges. It is ruled by a faux “Communist” party that is in reality a Bourgeoise institution with a Fascist ideology known as Dengism that promotes Neoliberal economics, Class Collaborationism, and extreme Han chauvinism, and Imperialist foreign policy (as represented by its Belt and Road Project, its ludicrous territorial claims, its support for UNSC sanctions of the DPRK, and its support for Saudi Arabia and Israel) rapped in Marxist-Leninist aesthetics in order to fool the proles. China has been this way since the Death of Mao in 1976 and the beginning of the “reform and opening up” in 1978. >Was life under the USSR as bad as people say it is? (working conditions, egalitarianism, etc.) Contrary to Bourgeoise propaganda, the USSR provided the best standard of living to the people’s of Eastern Europe and Central Asia That has ever Been before or after its existence. This can be seen clearly by the fact that before the USSR the population of these territories were predominantly impoverished Serfs who suffered regular famines, while after the USSR the population of these territories have been ravaged by High unemployment, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, Prostitution, STDs, and rapidly shrinking population. Meanwhile during the USSR, people had Free Housing, Free Healthcare, Free Education, and guaranteed employment. >Are the “kill counts” for socialist “dictators” all blown out of proportion and fake? Complete Bullshit derived from ludicrous Bourgeoisie Anti-Communist propaganda that was sourced from Nazis that were bitter about the failure of Barbarossa, LOL. >Was the USSR imperialist?>>1146994 Absolutely not, according to Lenin’s definition Imperialism results from the need to invest Financial Capital in foreign markets through FDI, Colonialism, and the outsourcing of labor to low—wage countries. obviously the fact that the USSR was Socialist prevented it from engaging in this behavior, and instead it was at the forefront of supporting De-colonization and National Liberation movements.
>>1147428 It's not really redefining a term, Lenin's definition is derived from J.A. Hobson and Rudolf Hilferdinger and has been the dominant one as no other tendency has so far provided another theory of imperialism. The fact that you yourself use the world "imperialistic" instead of "imperialist" implies that you probably are a bit unsure about this, and probably deep down realize that "it's not quite the same." >Any nation imposing its will on another is imperialism Hence you are making every state always and at any time imperialist, rendering the term useless. >That is true when the United States backs a coup in Latin America, and it true when the Soviet Union puts down an uprising in Hungary. Things have class character. The managerial strata of the ČSSR being put down by tanks while wanting to introduce more reformist economic models and pander to the West is a different thing than ultra-right capitalists seizing power in Bolivia, ousting a popular socialist-leaning government supported by indigenous people. Both can be called a coup, but that doesn't mean that they're the same in substance.
>>1147421 Ok, ignorant. I've never seen Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc nor the supposed libsocs Rosa, De Leon, etc. categorize socialism by libertarian or authoritarian. It seems the people doing this just walked out of Breadtube.
>>1147447 Also, don't listen to this guy, "King Lear" has outed himself as a rabid China hawk. Just look at his uncompromising defense of the USSR only to contrast it with every State Department talking point about China, it's probably that racist Christcom that plagued every China thread side a good year or so.
>>1147428 >Any nation imposing its will on another is imperialism, regardless of what economic or political system it has. The USSR didn't impose its will on anyone, the people of one nation allied with them, thats called democracy. A minority of wealthy business owners and royals decided to call that imperialism and now you are defending them, and justifying it on grounds of nationalism. You are actually upholding liberalism and private property ownership against an international democratic majority while carrying water for a fascist coup.
>>1147456 Not even uber-lib philosopher Hannah Arendt who is credited with creating the "totalitarianism theory" wrote that "authoritarianism" and "libertarianism" is a dichotomy, nor did she claim that socialist states were totalitarian. Her reasoning for this is of course not making it better for us, she said that socialist states lacked the frenetic cheering masses like in fascism. Everybody who uses this dichotomy has never read a single thing because even the liberal founding fathers of this terminology didn't believe in it.
>>1147038 Cockshott isn’t an ml
>>1147430 By "any nation imposing its will on another", I mean in an unequal, non-consensual manner. Basically, when a powerful nation forces a less powerful nation to do something, against the wishes of its leaders and/or people. What the USSR did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia would count. I wouldn't call their activities in, say, Cuba imperialistic though, as I believe both Cuba's leaders and its people were okay with them. I just think that the Leninist definition is just a convenient way of saying "when we do it it's not imperialism lol", even if the basic substance of a powerful socialist nation's actions are the same. Also, you don't need the profit motive to be imperialistic. In the case of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the motive was to protect the USSR's sphere of influence, which was in turn supposed to function as a buffer zone between them and the Western capitalist bloc. The fear was that a rogue Hungary or Czechoslovakia would be neutral or join the Western bloc. Besides, imperialism long predates capitalism. It would also be naïve to think that the USSR was a classless society. >>1147461 The people of Hungary in 1956 never """allied""" with the USSR. They were forced to submit to the USSR's will. The Hungarian revolutionaries weren't liberals by the way.
>>1147483 So you hate democracy? Fuck off red fash.
>>1147428 Poor Nazis :,(
>>1147493 Eat shit and die, radlib
>>1147428 >Any nation imposing its will on another is imperialism, regardless of what economic or political system it has
>>1147495 Authoritarians stay mad! Did someone take your factory? Did those mean workers gang up on you? Poor baby.
>>1147493 When did I say I hate democracy? I defended the Hungarian and Czechoslovak revolutions, which were efforts to make their countries more democratic.
>>1147483 >the Leninist definition is just a convenient way of saying "when we do it it's not imperialism lol" Dude the USSR didn't even exist when Lenin's Imperialism was published.
(382.19 KB 996x575 Rasputin_2.png)
>>1147502 B-but RasputinLenin was an evil time wizard. Muh Russians.
>>1147500 Go back to reddit, you faggot
>>1147483 You are not making an argument against Lenin's theory of imperialism, you are just equivocating on terms. I don't know if you tried to imply that, but Lenin's writings about this weren't some opportunistic justification after the fact because he wrote this before the Bolsheviks seized power and decades before Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Also, you buy in the liberal myth of equal consent in a class society - according to that, a tiny nation subduing itself economically in a trade agreement with a huge imperialist nation is doing so "consensually" as long as the elected representatives of both states agree. That's bourgeois moralism. >What the USSR did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia would count Which I'm sure are countries you have deeply researched and have weighed the popular majorities against one another to come to this definite conclusion. I'm sure you have analyzed the class composition of the insurgents in question and came to the conclusion that they're all spotless heroes. >Also, you don't need the profit motive to be imperialistic. It has nothing to do with the profit motive in the first place. I already explained this to you - imperialism is a stage of capitalism, when capitalism of free competition is replaced by state monopoly capitalism which is a melange of monopoly capital, socialized corporations (socialized in the sense that they're controlled by shareholders and increasingly function as capital without capitalists) and finance capital (a merge between monopoly capital and financial capital that ends up financializing the economy). In this stage, exploitation of the working class is not the only source of profit, it relies heavily on super profits to keep the value-realization process afloat, which results in extortionate moneylending and unequal exchange to secure capital - not commodity - export to imperialized countries, which in the last instance is secured with military and causes inter-imperialist competition. This is the theory of the underlying political economic motions of imperialism, you haven't refuted that, you didn't engage with it, all you're stuck with is the surface level of "geopolitics" where states look out for their own interests, which is overly simplistic. >Besides, imperialism long predates capitalism. It would also be naïve to think that the USSR was a classless society. Colonialism is precisely different from capitalist imperialism as it relies on the export of commodities. Secondly, whether or not something is "naïve" doesn't matter, was there a proprietary class relation to the means of production by bureaucrats or was there not? Clearly there was not, bureaucrats at best were self-serving employees but did not own means of production. >The Hungarian revolutionaries weren't liberals by the way. I know, a lot of them were fascists and antisemites.
>>1147483 They absolutely did the right thing though. I’m not saying that it wasn’t “imperialist,” or that they weren’t imposing their rule but if you are competing with the antithesis of you on the world stage you especially don’t want another Yugoslavia.
>>1147456 >>1147465 Well let's take a look at what the terms "authoritarianism" and "libertarianism" mean if we want to see how they can be applied to classify political systems: >Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism >Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism When I look at these two definitions, the main thing that seems to distinguish them is authority. And by a authority, I don't mean rules, but rulers. Authoritarianism has strong authority, authority with few restrictions and that can easily restrict the liberty of those subject to it. Libertarianism, on the other hand, has weak authority, authority with many restrictions and that cannot easily restrict the liberty of those subject to it. Additionally, authoritarianism generally implies social stratification, while libertarianism generally implies egalitarianism. So a system with highly centralized power could be considered authoritarian, while a system with more widely distributed power could be considered libertarian. A good example of a socialist society with highly centralized power would be Maoist China, while a good example of a socialist society with more widely distributed power would be the Zapatistas.
>>1147508 >I know, a lot of them were fascists and antisemites. >A bunch of students that want more democratic participation in politics are fascists Ok, if you say so.
>>1147511 >a system with highly centralized power could be considered authoritarian How does this follow from "restriction of liberty"? Couldn't a system have decentralized power and still restrict liberty? Also how do you get >authoritarianism generally implies social stratification How does that fit in with justified hierarchies? Isn't authority justified if its subject to democratic recall?
>>1147511 Are you seriously hitting me with Wikipedia definitions? You do realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, right? >Authoritarianism has strong authority, authority with few restrictions and that can easily restrict the liberty of those subject to it. Great, now what the fuck is "liberty"? Can you define it? >Additionally, authoritarianism generally implies social stratification, while libertarianism generally implies egalitarianism. Proof? If I'm making everybody equal by decree, I'm an authoritarian according to you, yet I'm an egalitarian. If I'm lording over you as the CEO of a corporations, I'm definitely not an egalitarian but certainly also a libertarian considering I'm doing this "consensually". What exactly is the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the landowning class if not an authoritarian act? Does it make a material difference if its done by the NKVD or a "confederated people's militia" or whatever? For the subject on which authority is imposed upon - the bourgeois or the landlord - it does make not an iota of difference. I can't believe this hasn't been posted here so far, but yeah, at least read this short article by Engels: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm >A good example of a socialist society with highly centralized power would be Maoist China, while a good example of a socialist society with more widely distributed power would be the Zapatistas. Mao literally purged Peng Dehuai who advocated for more Soviet-style centralized planning and insisted on decentralized planning where everybody ended up with a steel furnace in their backyard. Ironically, the Zapatistas have more to do with modern MLM-Gonzaloite parties than you're probably aware of. But even if we take this false dichotomy at face value, how are the Zapatistas not authoritarian? They brutally punish alcoholics and drug abusers. They don't allow for prostitution. All restrictive, authoritarian measures.
>>1147513 There were literal Horthyites in the insurgent mass and there were lynchings of Jews. This isn't irreconcilable with students taking the streets, you idiot.
>>1147511 Also, just to engage with that stupid Wiki definition of "authoritarianism". >political plurality Liberal spook. In my country there are five political parties in the parliament, from social democrats to right-wing populists, and they're all for neoliberal capitalism and only disagree on social issues like abortion or immigration. There is your political plurarity. More political parties do not make a system more pluralistic, and vice versa a nominal one-party state like Cuba is effectively a no-party state with pluralistic discussions on a base level. >strong central power I don't see it. Feudalism is highly decentralized, but highly authoritarian. A bourgeois democratic republic is more centralized than feudalism, but less authoritarian. >preserving the status quo Literally every authority does that. >reductions on democratic voting The USSR didn't do that, they extended a fuckton of democratic voting rights to all people, including women and minorities, and literally rang on people's doors during elections to make them vote, and they also had democracy in places you don't have democracy in the West, such as in unions or workplaces.
(21.49 KB 640x360 pn0n7yqb2iy41.jpg)
Guys is Shoe0nhead a transwomen or i am going crazy with the Mandela effect?
>>1147547 no her makeup routine is just fucking weird
>>1147547 I hope fucking not because I'm currently having an email exchange with her and I'm planning on getting flirtacious soon.
(139.41 KB 351x468 EmXCjpQWMAIgkX5.png)
>>1147548 B-but i remember watching her from her anti sjw days and remember her bringing up that she was trans i even remember a contrapoints video where Natalie brings her up Bruh im actually going fucking insane
>>1147547 no she just wears a fuckton of makeup
>>1147557 source? i don't think thats correct. She's said shes bisexual before though
(35.95 KB 620x412 6-7-2018-sex-robot-1.jpeg)
>>1147547 read lacan, all women are transwomen.
>>1147518 >How does this follow from "restriction of liberty"? Couldn't a system have decentralized power and still restrict liberty? If power is fairly decentralized, the people with power will generally have less ability to restrict others' freedom. >How does that fit in with justified hierarchies? Isn't authority justified if its subject to democratic recall? Hierarchies in this context refer to systems in which power is unevenly distributed. Centralization of power implies uneven distribution of power. This isn't about whether or not authority is "justified". If authority is subject to democratic recall, it is weaker than if it were not. >>1147524 >Great, now what the fuck is "liberty"? Can you define it? You'll hate me for this, but I'll use another Wikipedia definition: >Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases.[1] >If I'm making everybody equal by decree, I'm an authoritarian according to you I'm referring to power. If you give up your power, you will cease to be authoritarian. >If I'm lording over you as the CEO of a corporations, I'm definitely not an egalitarian but certainly also a libertarian considering I'm doing this "consensually". That is an authoritarian relationship due to the centralization of power in your hands. Also, the workers will likely have less freedom with you being able to be an effective dictator over them. >Mao literally purged Peng Dehuai The ability to purge someone (especially without authorization from the people or a parliamentary body) is an authoritarian move. It requires a high degree of centralized power. >But even if we take this false dichotomy at face value, how are the Zapatistas not authoritarian? They brutally punish alcoholics and drug abusers. They don't allow for prostitution. All restrictive, authoritarian measures. In this context, I am referring to concentration/centralization of power, not whether or not there are strict rules. If theses rule were agreed to by the the Zapatista masses and not imposed on them from a dictator or a landlord or something, then they are not authoritarian. I should probably explain the relationship between power and freedom. I recall my sociology professor in college defining power as the ability to overcome the resistance of others in pursuit of what you want. Absolute power would mean you could overcome any resistance, while no power would mean you could not overcome any resistance. Generally speaking, more power means more freedom, as others will be less able to restrict it. A system in which most people have very little power will generally be a system in which most people have very little freedom, as people more powerful than them will be able to restrict it fairly easily. This relationship isn't 100% consistent as you can see in the case of the Zapatistas, but it is generally how things seem to work. >>1147540 >I don't see it. Feudalism is highly decentralized, but highly authoritarian. A bourgeois democratic republic is more centralized than feudalism, but less authoritarian. Feudalism is less authoritarian than an absolute monarchy, but more authoritarian than, say, a liberal democracy. Democracy entails some degree of decentralization of power, as the masses, and not just hereditary rulers, have a say (direct or indirect) in how things are run. >The USSR didn't do that, they extended a fuckton of democratic voting rights to all people, including women and minorities, and literally rang on people's doors during elections to make them vote, and they also had democracy in places you don't have democracy in the West, such as in unions or workplaces. The elections had other issues, like having only 1 candidate for each office. As I recall, Communist party officials picked the candidates. I've heard though that local governments were generally more democratic than than the national government.
>>1147599 >If power is fairly decentralized, the people with power will generally have less ability to restrict others' freedom. What about countries where they beat women for going outside? Thats a very decentralized power and it restricts a lot of freedom. What about fascist street gangs? >This isn't about whether or not authority is "justified". I thought anarchists believed in justified hierarchy. A teacher-student relationship has power that is unevenly distributed and that doesn't make it a bad thing. Same with a parent who stops a child from running into traffic. >Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. >I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm Authority is not the same as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism >Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3] So a democratically justified hierarchy, subject to recall, that has centralized power, is not authoritarianism. >>Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty >Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty >Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will. Negative liberty is worthless without the capacity to act. We live in a society.
>>1147663 Kvetching about justified v. unjustified hierarchies is a pretty good litmus test as to weather or not any given anarchist can be dismissed outright (lookin' at you, Chomsky). It's such an obvious theoretical dead end. Literally everyone believes in abolishing unjustified hierarchies and maintaining justified ones, liberals believe the power of property owners and parliament is justified, petty reactionaries believe the petty tyranny of the patriarchal father is justified, Marxists believe the authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat is justified. Fascists believe that murder-hobos should wield absolute state power to crush the labour movement and social deviants, and that this is justified. If "seeking to abolish unjustified hierarchies" makes one an anarchist then literally everyone is an anarchist. It's the worst political meme bar none.
>>1147663 >What about countries where they beat women for going outside? Patriarchy is more authoritarian than gender equality, as power is more concentrated in that system (in the hands of men specifically). >What about fascist street gangs? Some of that might depend on how powerful those gangs are. If they effectively run entire neighborhoods, then they could be considered pretty authoritarian within the context of that neighborhood. Also, if they have a fairly centralized power structure, that would make them fairly authoritarian internally. There are other elements of society as a whole that probably would influence a fascist gang, like ethnic and gender hierarchies. Those hierarchies are themselves authoritarian, as they concentrate power in the hands of a specific gender or ethnic group. >Negative liberty is worthless without the capacity to act. We live in a society. True. I've noticed that lolberts (not to be confused with libertarianism as defined earlier) seem to like negative liberty a lot but not so much positive liberty. Another way of looking at the libertarianism-authoritarianism spectrum could be looking at extremes. One extreme is perfect totalitarianism, in which all power is concentrated in the hands of a single person (perfect totalitarianism has never existed in practice). The other extreme is perfect anarchy, in which power is perfectly evenly distributed between people (perfect anarchy has never existed in practice either).
>>1146994 Core beliefs: 1)Planning is necessary to socialism (As opposed to "Market socialists") 2)Revolution is necessary to build socialism (As oppose to social democrats) 3) The goal of the Revolution should be to take hold of the State and use it to oppress the bourgeoisie not to get rid of a State altogether (As opposed to anarchists)
>>1147688 Also >Is China capitalist? Yes it is. >Are the body counts of socialist states blown out of proportion? Yes, by a factor of 2,5 to 3 at the very least >Was the Ussr imperialist? No such thing as Imperialism without markets
>>1147421 Spotted the faggot
>>1147479 >Defends planning >Defends vanguard party >States the need for revolution (at least in the right situations) This seems a lot like an Ml to me
>>1147493 >>1147500 Nobody not trolling is this retarded so just stop doing it.
>>1147511 >Taking your politics from Wikipedia Beyond parody
>>1147458 It’s nice to know that being a “China hawk” means pointing out the obvious facts that modern China is a Capitalist country and that the ideology of its “Communist” party is significantly closer to Mussolini-style Fascism (not the highly radicalized Nazi variety) then even the most revisionist Marxism-Leninism (Titoist Yugoslavia looks like pure Socialism compared to the Neoliberal hellhole that is Dengist China) as seen by the fact that the combination of Corporatist/State Capitalist economics, Class collaborationism, a One-party state, and extreme Nationalism are Classic hallmarks of Fascist ideology. It’s also worth noting that a war with China would never happen due to the fact that Dengist China is a massive sweatshop for U$ corporation and it’s “New Cold War” with the U$ is blatantly Fake wrestling to distract and control the people’s of both countries (the same can be said of Putin’s Russia as well). From a Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist perspective it is a shame their will never be a war between the U$ and China/Russia because that is the only way their will ever be the right material conditions for a successful Socialist revolution in the 21st century.
>>1147599 >I've heard though that local governments [in the USSR] were generally more democratic than than the national government naturally, as it's easier to do so on a local level when we're looking at what was literally the BIGGEST country on earth, which was nowhere near the level of technological and general development (they were semi-feudal and war torn before the 20s-30s, and also WWII) to have a "more democratic" national government. the fact that this even needs to be explained—why the nature of the USSR necessitated a strong central government—demonstrates both people's inability to view things outside of abstractions not bound by material circumstance, and also general not knowing history as the soviets attempted to decentralise and "democratise" more in the 50s-60s and it caused more problems than it fixed (sovnarkhoz.) it's not like the USSR was just some big entity that never tried working outside its box, and it wouldn't hurt for its leftist detractors to use their eyes and see "oh wow so the things i dictate a country do to be more or actually socialist was barely feasible oops." >>1147688 market socialist countries still had planning. "planning" does not equal having a sole central organ like gosplan figuring the economy out; there can be several plans with various levels of importance (i.e. certain industries are prioritised and therefore must be followed closer, whereas "less important" plans are followed more loosely) as seen in yugoslavia. hungary can be considered "market socialist" at least during the NEM period but they had more of a soviet-style central plan, and china in the 80s... i don't know much about, but i assume they weren't on the level of decentralisation as yugoslavia following the 74 constitution.
>>1147447 So the goal is global socialism and then they can advance into communism? I mean that makes sense bc if you do it in only one country, everyone else would try to fuck with you
>>1147269 >I wouldn't call China capitalist. They allow a wealthy class to exist under tight supervision and with the expectation that they provide some benefit to the state So what are they exactly? They have a capitalist economy, capitalist wage labor, finance capital being ever more dominant which create pressure for imperialism and rent seeking capitalist in landlords. Their private sector this year for the first time can go in reverse and buy out state provincial businesses bankrupted by the pandemic. With this rate if they aren’t capitalist now they would be in a few short years.
>>1147483 >The people of Hungary in 1956 never """allied""" with the USSR. """People""" don't ally with anything, governments representing people do. This is why Nagy had to go. He was awaiting Western (i.e. capitalist) help. In a world torn to two between a capitalist and communist bloc you have to be able to chose your side, and in the last instance you'll be either a facilitator of one or the other. >They were forced to submit to the USSR's will. They were "forced to submit" to their own government's "will" which fully supported the USSR's intervention. >The Hungarian revolutionaries weren't liberals by the way. Some of them actually were. Some of them were reform-communists, some open reactionaries, some just literal fucking dumb kids, etc.
>>1147573 Never fucking read Lacan, unless you just want to learn how to fuck better. Any other application is folly
>>1147547 A better question: Is she an Elf? >She has long and kind of pointed ears. >She has a prominent nose. >She has big eyes (how else would elves be such consistently accurate bowmen?). >She has somewhat prominent canines (elves are mostly carnivorous hunters). >She has an otherworldly/ethereal type of physical beauty. And: >She hasn't aged at all in the past decade (elves have lifespans of multiple centuries, an extremely rare few of them are even said to be immortal).
>>1146994 >Was life under the USSR as bad as people say it is? (working conditions, egalitarianism, etc.) Read the following: https://gowans.blog/2015/07/19/submitting-to-moral-blackmail-kristen-ghodsees-the-left-side-of-history/ https://gowans.blog/2013/12/23/seven-myths-about-the-ussr/ https://gowans.blog/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/ https://gowans.blog/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/ https://gowans.blog/2011/10/30/social-democracy-soviet-socialism-and-the-bottom-99-percent/ https://gowans.blog/2010/05/09/a-failed-systems-failed-promises/ https://gowans.blog/2009/10/25/democracy-east-germany-and-the-berlin-wall/ >Are the “kill counts” for socialist “dictators” all blown out of proportion and fake? Specifically with respect to Stalin, I recommend you read the following: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/newsletter-38/ >>1147970 >Never fucking read Lacan, unless you just want to learn how to fuck better. Redpill me on how reading this obscure French psychoanalyst will help me fuck better. Which book(s) of his are most helpful for this specific purpose? He probably wrote a ton of books, I'm guessing.
>>1147970 What? The whole point of Freud and Lacan is to take all the fun out of sex
>>1147807 >a One-party state So you want multi-party liberal democracy. You're with the liberals, meaning your point of view is necessarily going to be oppressed in any proletarian led revolution. If you just want another bourgeois revolution (an idiotic fantasy btw) you would fit in much better on /pol/.
>>1147517 her political opinions are a massive turnoff
>>1147447 why is it you got everything about China wrong...
>shoeonthehead pleb tier taste on e girls
>>1147807 >Dengist China is a massive sweatshop for the US Why is it everywhere you go you have white liberals like this talk about China as if they know everything about no. No China isnt one giant sweatshop for the US. No China isn't a capitalist state with a Communist Party ruling over it that pretends to he communist to "fool the proles", which is honestly the dumbest thing I've ever fucking read, you dont promote the study of Marxism Leninism literally everywhere in your country and decide to be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie anyway, Chinese people aren't mindless drones that need people to tell them what the fuck they're doing. And also your understanding of fascism is apparently just class collaboration, when Mao quite literally promoted unifying with the national bourgeoisie in order to buikd China, but hey you know everything, China is a super hyper capitalist state pretending to be socialist, because that's smart. It's also one big sweatshop where they have to kiss a picture of Xi everyday before slaving away for 5 cents a day
>>1152698 Then explain this "progressively liberalizing" business in the RCEP they're preparing to sign, and how foreign direct investment isn't intrinsically bourgeois and isn't meant to lead to broad private property rights.
>>1152998 Probably because China needs trade with the outside world to survive Now of course we all know, and I dont deny it, that China isn't a traditional socialist country ala USSR, but you also can't deny that China can somehow survive on its own without those trade deals
>>1153055 >Probably because China needs trade with the outside world to survive Why? What exactly does China need that it does not have?
(99.55 KB 673x619 rcep.png)
>>1153055 >China wasn't trading with the outside world before Is that really the party line? <promotion, protection, facilitation, and liberalisation of investment How can that not mean private property? You do understand that's what liberal means, right?
>>1147022 I think OP >>1146994 literally is shoe0nhead. Shoe describes herself as a libertarian socialist (just like the OP does), the OP pic is literally her face edited onto a Soviet sniper women, and the OP is asking for info that would help defend socialist states in a debate (presumably with the liberals/right-wingers that shoe gets into debates with on youtube or twitter or wherever).
(9.31 KB 208x326 brainlet.jpg)
>>1153233 It's the only explanation that makes any sense.
>>1153237 right, because stealth-promoting yourself while pretending to be just another random anon simping on an imageboard is totally out of the question
>>1153233 Shoe calls herself a social libertarian which is basically libertarianism but with healthcare and free education. A libertarian socialist is basically just like an anarchist
>>1147408 Seconding this one. It's a classic. Another good one to check out is "Friendly Feudalism", which exposes many of the myths surrounding feudal Tibet before and during Communist Chinese intervention. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
>>1153070 You do realize that a large part of China is still living in awful conditions
>>1147269 revisionist
>>1147430 always has been
>>1147550 sending (shitty) pics of your cock is not flirting
(6.16 MB 1920x840 Tum.png)
an earlier post here mentioned talking points. i have a few things to make talking points out of fascist economics were created by a liberal homosexual. make them fully understand this by calling them fagscists. beyond that the word nigsoc does wonders to nazis when they're called it. they just break into mindless agreeing. the kind of people that tell you you are vlid are generally insecure in their own masculinity so telling them they will never be a real man and will forever remain chuds that seems to help as well. more subtly on 4chan we could run demoralization campaigns blackpilling them on one thing after another until eventually suicide seems reasonable. then it just takes a little tap and off the cliff they go. post further ideas in the comments. advanced punction and grammer avoided for twofold reasons first being that i dont wanna be identified and the second namely being that i dont speak english.
>>1147038 >reading
>>1152603 I support One-Party states if that “One party” is a Marxist-Leninist party overseeing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat with a Socialist Mode of Production (Planned Socialist Economic system) like in the former USSR, former Eastern Bloc states, Maoist China, Hoxhaist Albania, and in modern Cuba and the DPRK. I oppose One-Party states where the “One-Party” is a Fascist Party overseeing a Dictatorship of Bourgeoise with a Capitalist Mode of Production (Market Capitalist Economic system) hiding behind Marxist-Leninist aesthetics like in modern China.
>>1155271 Based
>>1147056 do anything but this
>>1155271 Again you're so fucking retarded to believe the liberal lie that the CPC is a fascist fucking party and that they're somehow a dictatorship of bourgeoisie A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would've let the Jack Ma deal go without intervening Fucking learn what you're talking about before you comment on something
>>1155271 Also again, so retarded to belive that the chinese people are submissive fucks who can't think for themselves Imagine a "fascist" party promoting the study of Marxism and Leninism to trick the proles Most retarded shit I ever read unironically kill yourself
>>1147045 I disagree
>>1146994 >I’d also really appreciate some books and shit I could read, I’m already reading some Lenin stuff You should check out Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" and "Dialetical and Historial Materialism". "On Contradiction" by Mao Zedong. Enver Hoxha's works such as "Reject the revisionist thesis of the 20th congress" and "Imperialism and the revolution". While not necessarily Leninist, Rosa Lxemburg's works such as "Social Reform or Revolution?" are important. And watch Hakim's series on book recommendations if you want to see more books (Here's the first part of that series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwP1Wn1_rAs there's six parts in the series as of now). Oh and of course read Marx and Engels.
>>1152698 >private property, commodity production, wage-slavery, billionaires >not capitalist ok
>>1157175 you didn't read anything
>>1156616 >you're just dumb and stupid!! <no arguments made Back to /r/sino with you, faggotron.
>>1152603 Multi-party democracy =/= liberal democracy you niggtard
(152.77 KB 1000x670 kleroterion.jpg)
>>1152603 >>1159304 Electoral politics = oligarchy, you blithering idiots
>>1147045 I'm not a simp but I always thought she was a qt
>>1159302 What kind of argument can be made when the OP never made one He called China fascist based off of class collaboration with the national bourgeoisie Was fucking Mao a fascist retard
>>1163601 Mao presided over a Socialist mode of production, which is a Planned Socialist economic system with State-ownership of the means of production and exchange (State-ownership of large and medium sized companies with no Stock exchanges) along with a massive Safety-net (Free Housing, Free Healthcare, Free Education, Job Guarantee, etc.) with a Dictatorship of the proletariat (One-Party Marxist-Leninist state). Dengist China has a Capitalist mode of production, which is a Market Capitalist economic system with Private-ownership of the means of production and exchange (Private Multinational corporations combined with SOEs that have shares traded on Stock exchanges) and a nonexistent Safety-net (The Maoist-era “Iron rice bowl” was completely privatized in the 1990s), with a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise (a One-party state in which the ruling “Communist” party serves the interest of the Bourgeoise). By definition, a One-party state with a Planned Socialist economic system is a Socialist Dictatorship of the proletariat, a One-party state with a Market Capitalist Economic system is a Fascist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and a Multi-party state with a Market Capitalist economic system is a Liberal Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise.

Delete
Report

no cookies?