Cowbee
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 6 hours ago:
We disagree on a ton, but I don’t believe either of us have been internally inconsistent.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 7 hours ago:
It’s a spectrum, unintentional anti-leftism due to a lack of information isn’t as reactionary as fascism, but both are reactionary.
Generally, you either support moving on to the next mode of production, or you reject that movement.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 8 hours ago:
Minor. All 3 are liberals and all 3 are reactionary. Getting into the weeds for specifics won’t really change their overall labels.
They all support “current system + minor tweaks,” and the “current system” part does heavier lifting than “minor tweaks.”
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 9 hours ago:
They are indeed all reactionary, though I would use Liberal and Fascist. All 3 are conservative liberals, and all 3 reject leftist movement, but MAGA in particular is a fascist movement.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 9 hours ago:
Yes, I fundamentally disagree with that.
Rejecting Socialism and the progression towards Worker Ownership is Reactionary behavior. You identify as a progressive, but you oppose all Socialism, and support Liberal Capitalism with robust social safety nets (unless you’ve pivoted).
You are therefore a reactionary.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 9 hours ago:
Nah, you’re directly concerned with attacking leftists and redefining words. Any anti-leftist can be considered a reactionary, but that word might not make sense to you.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 9 hours ago:
You don’t get woke points, you’re a conservative, lol.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 9 hours ago:
I never said European countries were not colonizers, all I stated was that the US is a genocidal settler-colonial state and you can only do whataboutisms.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 10 hours ago:
There were many colonies, lol. There was also Settler-Colonialism. Read about US history some time.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
It was literally founded on settler-colonialism. Just because this resulted in such a profound and extensive destruction of countless peoples that are nearly wiped out today doesn’t make it less colonial.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
Damn, guess the Indigenous peoples were so thoroughly eliminated you forgot about them.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
“Non sequitur says what?”
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
Are you saying the US isn’t a colonialist project?
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
Everything is scary when you’re scared of everything.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
What do you call someone who works a job? A jobber?
You have a fundamentally entirely different definition of terms from the rest of Humanity.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
I’m not a European, lol. The entire world and the entirety of academia understands Liberalism the way most people on Lwmmy use it, ie to refer to a pro-Capitalist ideology.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
Nah, you just call anyone left of Social Democrats “tankie,” lol.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 2 days ago:
You did, lol. Can’t be employed if there’a nobody employing.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
I think you have a point, yes, though I disagree with it personally. That isn’t to take away from your thought process or personal experiences or evaluations. The why of that disagreement takes a good long while to explain adequately, but I’ll do my best.
For starters, though I identify myself chiefly as an anti-sectarian Leftist, I do ultimately find myself agreeing more with Marxism than Anarchism. Just my own personal conclusions after learning and reading theory. I try not to only give Marxist recommendations because a comrade is a comrade, and the reason I am anti-sectarian is because I believe we need to build a mass workers’ movement of any sort before we can get to debating the finer details, though I still agree more with Marxist organizational methods in the short term.
It isn’t as much a concrete point like “having a police”, but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don’t need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it.
This is extremely close to Marx’s Historical Materialism! That’s why I recommended Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, actually. The core concept is that environments shape people, who then reshape their environments, which then reshape the people who again reshape their environments. Very cool to see you get close to it!
So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the “core” of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the “core”. The “core” is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core.
Yes and no. My primary criticism of this section is that it doesn’t specifically analyze how this consolidation happens. It can happen, but may still be designed against. More later.
Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn’t as similar and an “attack” on the “core” isn’t an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven’t paid them.
No real disagreements here. I would say it’s pretty accurate and similar to what other leftists have stated, if in different language.
In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
This is what I tend to take issue with. Under Capitalism, the State is a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie suppresses the Proletariat. This State is weilded by the Bourgeoisie, as the Bourgeoisie have all of the power, thus the will of the few oppresses the many.
However, what happens if the majority democratically operate this State? It has power, yes, but properly designed and democratically operated, it does not necessarily stand to reason that it would result in oppression of the majority like Capitalism. That’s why I asked for specifics, actually!
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it’s people.
Marxists entirely agree with this, but believe that once Capitalism is thoroughly erradicated, there is nothing to protect against, and thus no need for standing armies or other such dangerous elements. Until then, however, some form of State is necessary to protect the revolution, though it must be controlled by the Workers.
Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and “sneaks” exploitation in.
No real “disagreement,” other than I don’t actually believe Capitalism sneaks anything, it just convinces Workers the alternatives are worse.
But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the “core”. (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the “core”) While any liberal state, enables the “core” to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn’t. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the “core” and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the “core” in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by “small” actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables “small” local exploitation.
I am not sure a follow. What is an “authoritarian Communist state” and what is a “liberal Communist state?” How are they mechanically different, other than labels?
I just don’t see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
Marxists and Anarchists both agree that Revolution is necessary.
I don’t see how to escape this shit.
A mass worker movement, comrade!
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
Not stupid at all, in my opinion. There’s a lot of thought there, but I believe this thought could be much sharper and more pointed if you engaged with theory. Even if you disagree with much of it, by connecting your thoughts to the collective works of centuries of leftists and their findings, you can come to find agreement with other leftists and organize.
Did that answer your questions?
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
You outright stated that nobody is employed.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
Nah, you just lie ✌️
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
…what? Do you know what a “job” is?
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
Yes. Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the World today.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
I think you have done a lot of thinking, but haven’t really engaged much with Marxism or Anarchism with regards to philisophy.
For Marxism, check out Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.
For Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is good.
The “Human Nature” issue is one that every leftist movement has had to engage with and “solve.”
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
Liberalism.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
9 billion having the same vibe as me.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
Who do Capitalists employ? Fairies?
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
You’ve made it clear that you believe words do not have meanings, and are just vibes, yes.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
No, the entire point of liberalism is continued private property rights.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
Workers do not have equal rights with Owners.
How is democratic ownership of Capital “inherently authoritarian?”