You know what my eyes are opened too —capitalism is when hard working Americans get all the capital and communist leeches aren’t allowed to steal it just because they’re in charge.
You know what goes well with capitalism? Democracy! You vote on your sheriff, so why vote for who your boss is at work, and how many sick days everyone gets? Let’s go full capitalist!
And we’ll protect our gloriously fought victory with a vanguard enforcing conformity to support the eventual relinquishing of power to the proletariat once there is no longer class and we have expanded our stateless society worldwide, thus vanquishing borders!
Just need to kill off done rabble rousing anarchists first…
The vanguard is the proletariat, just the organized section of it. They do not constitute their own class, they come from the proletariat and have the same relations to ownership of the Means of Production. The vanguard is not to “relinquish power,” but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.
The vanguard is not to “relinquish power,” but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.
They will never lmao, that would be the same as giving up power. Power is subjective. The vanguard may not de jure “own the means of production”, but they de facto “own the right to tell everyone what they’re allowed to do”, which can be worse. Once everyone has the same amount of power, nobody has power over anyone else.
And yet in every socialist country, literacy rates and education was made a top priority. Using the USSR as an example, literacy rates jumped from 20-30% all the way to 99.9% in around a decade, and education was made free, with professors and teachers seen as incredibly valuable members of society. This pattern has been followed in every socialist country. The truth of the matter is that it’s very difficult to educate people, it’s a complex matter that requires nuanced decisions on how we teach, what we teach, and more.
Further, “power” is not subjective. There is no supernatural force called “power,” what exists is what is material. Administration and management of production and human labor is socially necessary for large-scale mass production, the type that is necessary for communism to begin with. To dogmatically oppose any and all hierarchical organization does not actually help the working classes in breaking their chains, so to speak, but instead holds them back.
Managers are objectively not an elevated class, assuming they have the same relations to ownership of the means of production, in Marxist analysis. You don’t need to read Capital for this, Marx’s Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy makes Marx’s position explicit:
Marx responding to Bakunin
Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?
In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin’s constitution, will all ‘from bottom to top’ be ‘at the top’? Then there will certainly be no one ‘at the bottom.’ Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.
The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.
The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves.
i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense.
This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists’ theory. By people’s government they understand (i.e. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people.
Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.
The universal suffrage of the whole people…
Such a thing as the whole people in today’s sense is a chimera…
…in the election of people’s representatives and rulers of the state — that is the last word of the Marxists, as also of the democratic school — [is] a lie, behind which is concealed the despotism of the governing minority, and only the more dangerously in so far as it appears as expression of the so-called people’s will.
With collective ownership the so-called people’s will vanishes, to make way for the real will of the cooperative.
So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists…
Where?
…will consist of workers. Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers…
As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor…
…and look down on the whole common workers’ world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people’s government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men.
If Mr. Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers’ cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers’ state, if he wants to call it that.
Power and hierarchy is not class. Class is a specific relation to ownership of the means of production. Principals and teachers are both proletarian, yet the principal’s job responsibility is in managing teachers, while the teacher’s job is to educate. Administrative labor is socially necessary and compensated in wages, not via ownership and entitlement to the profits of accumulation and exploitation.
Your condescension is undue. You are free to take issue with administration and managerial labor, but to conflate those with class is a horrendous misreading of class dynamics and muddies the water when discussing Marxism and anarchism.
So then we were also talking about Marxism. Even if you were doing so from an anarchist perspective, for any Marxist reading your comment it comes across as absurd. Marxists have never claimed to be getting rid of any and all hierarchies, and to judge Marxism by its ability to do so is like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.
Look, you just need to build your downstream. I take your bribes and give you some power. Then your downstream bribes you for parts of it. The more downstream you have the more bribes you get. With no borders, the whole world can be your downstream. It’s not upper and lower class, it’s upstream and downstream! See? Classless.
The thing where a warlord tells you what to do? No, death to anarchy, instead let’s have a society where hierarchies are abolished and org charts are all rhizomatic and voluntary, with vigilant critiques of power differential with an eye to equalizing them as much as possible?
Sorry, what do you think anarchy is? Because what you’re describing, no hierarchal society, voluntary… Uhh, THAT’S the definition of anarchy. Why do so many people think anarchism is just synonymous with chaos? That’s just called chaos.
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
I don’t believe the entire world can work on the honor system, but I would agree were it possible. There will always be some dude in 300 trying to step on the other 299.
In a classless society, how is anyone cared for if no one has the intrinsic motivation to do so? Because it’s the nice thing to do? Lmao.
The main issue with anarchism is that absolute freedom for you is a double-edged battle-axe. It assumes all people are good and trustworthy without any guardrails if they aren’t.
The main issue with anarchism is that absolute freedom for you is a double-edged battle-axe. It assumes all people are good and trustworthy without any guardrails if they aren’t.
The current system is biased towards bad people getting into power. History is full of wars and genocides because we concentrate power into the hands of the few. If everyone had equal power, bad actors couldn’t do nearly as much damage as they would if they held state power.
Sure, fuck it, that’s communism. Death to communism, instead we must create a classless stateless society!
You know what my eyes are opened too —capitalism is when hard working Americans get all the capital and communist leeches aren’t allowed to steal it just because they’re in charge.
You know what goes well with capitalism? Democracy! You vote on your sheriff, so why vote for who your boss is at work, and how many sick days everyone gets? Let’s go full capitalist!
Ya know, there might be something to that as a strat.
Words are just tools we made up. If fascists are willing to break the meaning of language to get what they want, maybe we can too!
Down with those communist fascists!!
Communism has needed a rebrand for a while now
Communism: “Look at me… I am the capitalism now.”
And we’ll protect our gloriously fought victory with a vanguard enforcing conformity to support the eventual relinquishing of power to the proletariat once there is no longer class and we have expanded our stateless society worldwide, thus vanquishing borders!
Just need to kill off done rabble rousing anarchists first…
The vanguard is the proletariat, just the organized section of it. They do not constitute their own class, they come from the proletariat and have the same relations to ownership of the Means of Production. The vanguard is not to “relinquish power,” but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.
They will never lmao, that would be the same as giving up power. Power is subjective. The vanguard may not de jure “own the means of production”, but they de facto “own the right to tell everyone what they’re allowed to do”, which can be worse. Once everyone has the same amount of power, nobody has power over anyone else.
And yet in every socialist country, literacy rates and education was made a top priority. Using the USSR as an example, literacy rates jumped from 20-30% all the way to 99.9% in around a decade, and education was made free, with professors and teachers seen as incredibly valuable members of society. This pattern has been followed in every socialist country. The truth of the matter is that it’s very difficult to educate people, it’s a complex matter that requires nuanced decisions on how we teach, what we teach, and more.
Further, “power” is not subjective. There is no supernatural force called “power,” what exists is what is material. Administration and management of production and human labor is socially necessary for large-scale mass production, the type that is necessary for communism to begin with. To dogmatically oppose any and all hierarchical organization does not actually help the working classes in breaking their chains, so to speak, but instead holds them back.
Thats objectively an elevated class imbued with power over others.
I know it’s hard but you really gotta question whether what you’re reading is absurd in context. If it is, it’s possible it’s sarcasm.
Managers are objectively not an elevated class, assuming they have the same relations to ownership of the means of production, in Marxist analysis. You don’t need to read Capital for this, Marx’s Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy makes Marx’s position explicit:
Marx responding to Bakunin
Power and hierarchy is not class. Class is a specific relation to ownership of the means of production. Principals and teachers are both proletarian, yet the principal’s job responsibility is in managing teachers, while the teacher’s job is to educate. Administrative labor is socially necessary and compensated in wages, not via ownership and entitlement to the profits of accumulation and exploitation.
Your condescension is undue. You are free to take issue with administration and managerial labor, but to conflate those with class is a horrendous misreading of class dynamics and muddies the water when discussing Marxism and anarchism.
I’m not discussing Marxism.
You were attacking the idea of a vanguard as has been utilized in Marxist-led revolutions.
Yes.
So then we were also talking about Marxism. Even if you were doing so from an anarchist perspective, for any Marxist reading your comment it comes across as absurd. Marxists have never claimed to be getting rid of any and all hierarchies, and to judge Marxism by its ability to do so is like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.
Nobody:
You with sectarian ragebait:
I said classless stateless society, not multi level marketing scam.
Look, you just need to build your downstream. I take your bribes and give you some power. Then your downstream bribes you for parts of it. The more downstream you have the more bribes you get. With no borders, the whole world can be your downstream. It’s not upper and lower class, it’s upstream and downstream! See? Classless.
Reminded me of this Adam Something video.
I wish anarchy would work.
The thing where a warlord tells you what to do? No, death to anarchy, instead let’s have a society where hierarchies are abolished and org charts are all rhizomatic and voluntary, with vigilant critiques of power differential with an eye to equalizing them as much as possible?
Sorry, what do you think anarchy is? Because what you’re describing, no hierarchal society, voluntary… Uhh, THAT’S the definition of anarchy. Why do so many people think anarchism is just synonymous with chaos? That’s just called chaos.
Homie is literally posting from an anarchist instance. This is satire lol.
My autism strikes again
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
Instance checks out
warlordism isn’t anarchy.
/woosh
I needed to test some aerodynamics stuff.
What?!? Are you ok comrade?
Sounds good, count me in!
good news
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
Bad news: opiates and fentanyl
This is usually my clench-point with anarchy. Yeaaaah, but… man, should we really have heroin in the 7/11 snack isle?
Libertarians: YEP!
wait, man, fuck. I get education and healthcare… kinda fixes this, but… does it, tho?
how does 711 operate in a stateless classless society to begin with?
Armed militias and unchecked gangs of armed thugs hired for enforcement and security.
Then again, we’re both thinking way too far ahead. Who’s producing medicine and opiates in an anarchist society?
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
in a classless society, how can anyone employ anyone else? I think you’re lost, and you should wander back to a liberal conclave
Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual
I don’t believe the entire world can work on the honor system, but I would agree were it possible. There will always be some dude in 300 trying to step on the other 299.
In a classless society, how is anyone cared for if no one has the intrinsic motivation to do so? Because it’s the nice thing to do? Lmao.
The main issue with anarchism is that absolute freedom for you is a double-edged battle-axe. It assumes all people are good and trustworthy without any guardrails if they aren’t.
The current system is biased towards bad people getting into power. History is full of wars and genocides because we concentrate power into the hands of the few. If everyone had equal power, bad actors couldn’t do nearly as much damage as they would if they held state power.
At least if anarchy were able to work there would be no “leaders” at all
Yes!
Don’t forget moneyless.
deleted by creator