Sorry to say if your views are closer to true libertarianism and the principles favored by those links you would likely be considered distinctly leftist. Dbzer0 is a primarily anarchist community, on the far-left.
You have views that are independently more left or right, but say if your views were a political party, it would be placed on a spectrum from left to right based on how many of these positions fall on either side of the spectrum. Typically the views that are seen as far left and far right are mutually exclusive, like authoritarian centralized governance versus decentralization, increased immigration vs decreased, but it's true there is a lot of nuance lost when things are viewed that way.
but it's true there is a lot of nuance lost when things are viewed that way.
Exactly. In truth, I hate ALL sides, ALL PARTIES , just for differing reasons. I vote for the shit I vote for, no political party has the power to sway me to be a blind follower that just accepts whatever bullshit they do. I'm very openly critical of all political parties in general, and don't really have anything good to say about any of them. They've all done shit I greatly disagree with.
Racists? Omg. 😱 that's literally most parties in the US. Democrats have a racist history just the same. Welcome to America, all parties are racist in one way or other, because this country breeds extremism and corruption. Even liberalism has perpetuated systemic racism on several occasions despite trying to dismantle it. All the parties in the US are guilty.
Corruption runs deep, and corruption is corpo profit margins.
I think Americans need to absorb a bit more global context about the left-right spectrum. I see people saying that policies like universal health care, access to abortion, basic worker rights and affordable education are "far left". Most of the proposed policies of the left in the US are centrist in the rest of the Western world. Unless you are advocating for a Communist regime along the lines of the Soviet Union or Maoist China, you aren't really "far left". Similarly, unless someone is advocating for a fascist dictator state, we should probably not call them "far right". Of course, that is what Trumpists advocate for, so they really are far right!
We're "not allowed" to. The concept of comparing our politics to elsewhere around the world is chastised. "It's not the same here!" "They have a longer history" "they share a common culture!" (far right for "skin color")
Any excuse under the sun to keep the right as being viewed as closer to "center" and to misrepresent centrist policies as "far left" so we get no progress and all the arguments.
It's really interesting how the right has embraced moral relativism on a case-by-case basis. Often it is a strategy to quarantine/localize ideas, so as to avoid the need to reconcile them to any broader worldview.
It's also a strategy for insulating ideas and events from history that they want to shelter from criticism, like criticizing slavery, theocracy, monarchism, etc. I've seen real cases in the wild where criticism of slavery was dismissed as "presentism", as inappropriately imposing present day moral values.
I've noticed that too and found it counterintuitive. The other thing is free market economics. I would expect conservatives to embrace moral traditionalism and economic intervention but currently it's the opposite...
There are quite a few actual leftists on Lemmy. I don't think they're confused and as the meme suggests, they're rather vocal.
Meanwhile Trump and other far right people have tried to brand liberals as "radical left" which is just silly, but a lot of news sources seem content to parrot alt-right rhetoric. One thing the Republican Party has always been good at is poisoning the well.
Those terms are so vague and have so different meanings to a lot of people that I often avoid using them... I recently read the idea that egalitarian=left // strong hierarchy=right and it kinda makes sense, but it's still quite debatable
Generally it's better to separate views by who supports them, and who they benefit. Leftists tend to support the Proletariat, whereas rightists tend to support the bourgeoisie.
I'm not sure its that easy nowadays, when lots of freelancers and self-exploiters struggle while being considered bourgeoisie. Or at least, not "proletariat". The lines are not as clear as they used to be.
If you’re working five days a week for a living, you’re not really a part of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the business owners, not the business managers and assistants. At best, a freelancer with no employees under them would be petite-bourgeoisie. You wouldn’t graduate to the bourgeoisie until you have a few employees under yourself, who take care of the day-to-day operations.
A lone freelancer is just a step away from an employee, with none of the legal protections. Hire a manager to run the day-to-day op, and employees to do the grunt work, thus freeing yourself up to sit back and collect profits. Then you would start to be the bourgeoisie, because you only need to check in to ensure everything is running smoothly and occasionally sign some new contracts. The majority of your time isn’t being spent at work for someone else.
Except there are a ton of right wing positions that don't benefit anyone except the politicians who use them to keep their supporters angry and afraid. I'd go so far as to say left wing policies are primarily about helping people and right wing policies are primarily about hurting people.
Reactionary proletarians are victims of bourgeois culture wars, it's the fascist anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT rhetoric that serves as a distraction. That doesn't make the GOP a Worker party even if some workers vote for the GOP.
Left vs Right isn't about Democrat vs Republican, but class interests and dynamics.
Council communists and Anarchists generally qualify for far-left status. (Or, differently put, council communism is methadone therapy for Marxists who don't yet dare make the jump to syndicalism).
authoritarianism and far-left are mutually exclusive.
You're correct, believing that "authoritarian" is a well defined or meaningful term and not just a snarl word created during the cold war to equivocate communists and Nazis is incompatible with being far-left
The first use of authoritarian is in 1852, in the writings of AJ Davis apparently. Here's the quote:
1856 A. J. Davis Penetralia 129 Does any one believe that the Book is essential to Salvation? Yes; there are many externalists and authoritarians who think so.
Authoritarian was also increasing in usage well before the cold war, beginning around 1910 or so. An example from Nationalism and Culture by Rudolf Rocker, written in 1933:
Nietzsche also had a profound conception of this truth, although his inner disharmony and his constant oscillation between outlived authoritarian concepts and truly libertarian ideas all his life prevented him from drawing the natural deductions from it.
That's a thoroughly modern use of the word authoritarian, written almost 15 years before the start of the cold war. Authoritarian is used to describe those who support hierarchial systems of government. That's the short and sweet of it, perhaps not a perfect dictionary definition but it illustrates the distinctive bit. Auth-left ideologies get equivocated with fascism because there's an undeniable ideological throughline between the two, no matter how much they hate each other.
"The working class [...] cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers [...] Compulsion of labour will reach the highest degree of intensity during the transition from capitalism to socialism [...] Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps.'
Trotsky wrote that. It may not be 1:1 but the similarities between his ideas and those.of fascists are pretty obvious.
All of this, written before the cold war. Tell me again how authoritarian is a made up word that serves only to slander "communists"?
Thank you for the detailed background on that. People often resort to No True Scotsman claims to disavow bad elements from the group they support, or better yet toss them to their rivals. But honestly the more an entity is pulled away from center along the authoritarian/liberal axis, the less meaningful any left/right distinction becomes.
I just wanted to clarify, I'm not an authoritarian. I'm an anarchist. And the left/right distinction still does matter very much along the authoritarian/libertarian axis. I don't think much of auth-left ideologies but I hold them in much better regard than fascists. There are similarities, but they are no where near the same. And liberalism is a center right authoritarian ideology
On Authority is one of my absolute favourites because it's so ludicrously bourgeois. "Oh, you Anarchists", quoth Engels, "All you amount to is saying that a stone falls down when let go, and that having to hold it up so that it doesn't fall down, to have to bow to that authority, is oppressive".
Maybe, Friedrich, your workers don't mind dealing with the necessities and physical processes of yarn and cloth manufacture, what they mind is not being able to fire your ass for saying excessively over-reductive shit like that.
On Authority is one of my absolute favourites because it’s so ludicrously bourgeois
Are you really saying "Engels was bourgeois, therefore the argument he's making is bourgeois"? lol
“All you amount to is saying that a stone falls down when let go, and that having to hold it up so that it doesn’t fall down, to have to bow to that authority, is oppressive”.
Tell me how you haven't read it even more. Because he's actually concluding:
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
Read the paragraphs directly before: Engels refers to "arguments as these", so we can safely assume that the example he gives there is representative. What's his example? Safety in railway operations.
That, indeed, is not a job for a delegate, a person chosen by council to represent the council in a bigger council, a political position which comes with no authority, but one of a safety commissioner, a person who was entrusted with, granted authority, by a council to enact necessary safety procedures for the common good. The railway safety commissioner would be choosen by the railway workers. Someone they trust to be a stickler to details and procedure.
Both, btw, are recallable on the spot should they abuse their positions, or turn out to not be suitable for other reasons.
This is not a mere "changing of names", the tasks are completely different in character and the levels of authority could not be any more different. What Engels seems to be incapable of conceiving is that an e.g. city council doesn't have authority over a neighbourhood council. That the delegates the neighbourhood councils choose come together in a city council and then precisely not dictate to the neighbourhood councils what they're supposed to do. That's your brain on hierarchy.
So, yes, Engels concludes that he's right. And thereby proves that he either a) didn't understand what the anti-auths were telling him or b) didn't care, as authoritarians are prone to do when challenged on the necessity of there being rulers.
As to "labour cannot be organised without hierarchy" in general: It's long been proven false. There's a gazillion of examples in which it has done. There are, right now, armies out there operating without hierarchy that are fighting both Cartels and ISIS, very successfully so. If armies can be organised like that, surely it does work for ice cream factories. Stick to materialism, please, your idealist claim doesn't become true by repeating it.
That, indeed, is not a job for a delegate, a person chosen by council to represent the council in a bigger council, a political position which comes with no authority, but one of a safety commissioner, a person who was entrusted with, granted authority, by a council to enact necessary safety procedures for the common good.
granted authority
authority
?
This is not a mere “changing of names”, the tasks are completely different in character and the levels of authority could not be any more different. What Engels seems to be incapable of conceiving is that an e.g. city council doesn’t have authority over a neighbourhood council. That the delegates the neighbourhood councils choose come together in a city council and then precisely not dictate to the neighbourhood councils what they’re supposed to do. That’s your brain on hierarchy.
So how can you organize anything if noone tells anyone what to do? People just suddenly know? How is that supposed to work? Who decides the level of authority? Another authority?
a) didn’t understand what the anti-auths were telling him
Literally changing the name of "authority" to "granted authority". You only changed the name of things. Engels is making the argument on the materiality of authority. That even if the authority is granted, it's an authority. He is referring to whatever makes the organization happen as authority (even when granted).
And says that without this (authority) organization is impossible. Which makes sense.
b) authoritarians are prone to do when challenged on the necessity of there being rulers.
So how can you organize anything if noone tells anyone what to do? People just suddenly know?
You talk to other people and agree on a plan of action? Have you ever, in your life, interacted with people?
That even if the authority is granted, it’s an authority.
One example doesn't even grant any authority: A delegate has no authority.
If you OTOH now try to pull semantics and say "but by being convinced by other people of a joint plan of action, they have authority over you", or "A delegate has the authority to do as they're told by their council" then you're doing the "holding up a stone thing": You make authority such a broad term that not just organisation, but physics itself is impossible without it. Or, in different words: It's playing dumb. You hear what Anarchists are saying, including their definitions of authority, of distinguishing power-to against power-over, and say "but the stone has authority over you that's silly"!
You talk to other people and agree on a plan of action? Have you ever, in your life, interacted with people?
Yes but than the plan of action takes form of authority. Which is the point that Engels makes.
One example doesn’t even grant any authority: A delegate has no authority.
Then noone is required to take the delegate serious. The delegate enjoys no authority and there's no organization happening as everybody is free to do whatever th fuck they want.
holding up a stone thing”: You make authority such a broad term that not just organisation, but physics itself is impossible without it.
Only when you take it in in bad faith, because we're talking about people and not inanimate objects (stones). The definition of anarchists is just another social construct that basically describes authority..
Yes but than the plan of action takes form of authority. Which is the point that Engels makes.
It is an extension to the libertarian notion of authority that Engels makes.
Suppose you and your comrades are are at a party conference in another city, and, in a wild bout of anti-authoritarianism, you're talking among yourselves which restaurant to go to instead of following party orders. Maybe it's just an oversight, the responsible buerocrat didn't do their job. Anyway the obstacle is not insurmountable, the choice is not very contentious, some people have preference, one's a vegan, but in the end you all agree that Mexican is a perfectly fine choice.
Then, out of nowhere, a KGB agent appears saying "Now it would be a shame if someone changed their mind about eating Mexican and would need to be sent to Gulag, would it, after all, we can't have a decision without subsequent imposition of authority".
Then noone is required to take the delegate serious.
The delegate is taken just as serious as the council they represent. They are, after all, the representative of that council. If you ignore what the delegate says, you're ignoring what the council says. But the authority is that of the council, not of the delegate.
The definition of anarchists
Council communists have a compatible definition, btw. It's only Bolsheviks and their descendants who disagree because they can't stand workers actually having a say in things, see the Trotsky quote before. That is authoritarianism. You can't declare it away by playing semantic games.
Suppose you and your comrades are are at a party conference in another city, and, in a wild bout of anti-authoritarianism, you’re talking among yourselves which restaurant to go to instead of following party orders. Maybe it’s just an oversight, the responsible buerocrat didn’t do their job. Anyway the obstacle is not insurmountable, the choice is not very contentious, some people have preference, one’s a vegan, but in the end you all agree that Mexican is a perfectly fine choice.
Then, out of nowhere, a KGB agent appears saying “Now it would be a shame if someone changed their mind about eating Mexican and would need to be sent to Gulag, would it, after all, we can’t have a decision without subsequent imposition of authority”.
Basically you're arguing against the state, which we sure both want. The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it's will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.
I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it's not a even playing field between labour and capital. You need a form of authority to make the reorganization of political economy possible.
The delegate is taken just as serious as the council they represent. They are, after all, the representative of that council. If you ignore what the delegate says, you’re ignoring what the council says. But the authority is that of the council, not of the delegate.
authority is that of the council
authority
How are you not aware of what you're saying? Do you want me to do an anarchist caricature of going to the restaurant like you did in your example? Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it. There's no authority. If you tell me that the hunger is the authority im going to laugh
Basically you’re arguing against the state, which we sure both want.
You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?
(Side note: In the ole socialist definition of "state". Both still qualify for the modern political theory definition of state which bogs down to "a people, a territory, a type of governing system (organisation)". Gotta be careful with that one it often gets confused).
I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it’s not a even playing field between labour and capital.
Indeed, without state power labour would have the upper hand. You saw that in the Russian revolution where workers very quickly formed soviets and kept things running. Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.
Then, going back a tiny bit:
The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it’s will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.
How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?
Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it.
How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things? Doubly so if there's a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?
There's actually interesting modern polls around this, made in the context of UBI: The overwhelming majority say that if they received UBI, they'd still be working about as much. Maybe get another job, maybe cut down hour a bit, maybe take a sabbatical to do learn a new trade and switch there, but overall the wheels would keep churning at about the same speed. Meanwhile, the same overwhelming majority, when asked what other people would be doing, said "they'd stop working". That kind of mind-bug is a mixture of capitalist realism and hierarchical realism, the notion that people need to feel the whip to be motivated to be productive. That without imposition of force, humanity as we know it would cease to exist: We'd lose our zest, our creativity, our ambition, our love for one another, everything. That humanity is an inherently asocial species, held together by the powers that be. That we need to be domesticated to be ourselves.
If lifespans doubling within a few decades, and a backwater, feudal failed state becoming a global super power constitutes "going to shit", then I sure wouldn't mind seeing some shit around here.
A superpower which doesn't exist any more, it was torn apart by its own lack of productivity and internal contradictions.
The industrialisation went quickly, true, but heavy industry was the only thing the Soviet Union ever got remotely good at, its state apparatus failed to incorporate advances made elsewhere, heck it was so bad that the GDR started its own chip programme because the Soviets wouldn't and they needed chips to stay competitive in the market of industrial machinery. Did you know that in the 80s VW Wolfsburg was full of GDR-built machines? They used the proceeds to buy things that are necessary to keep Prussians happy and not rebelling, such as coffee (I'm being absolutely serious here coffee was a big political issue in the GDR).
Meanwhile, rapid increases in lifespans and living standards aren't exactly rare because it's not actually that hard to get half-way decent when you start from a point of utter destitution.
The USSR did achieve nothing special in that regard, and definitely nothing special enough to justify the abuses that come with their approach.
A superpower which doesn’t exist any more, it was torn apart by its own lack of productivity and internal contradictions.
Yeah, you're right; it didn't attain divinity and immortality, so it was basically a failure. Might as well have stayed feudal.
Meanwhile, rapid increases in lifespans and living standards aren’t exactly rare because it’s not actually that hard to get half-way decent when you start from a point of utter destitution.
Actually they are, you don't see that kind of rapid increase in capitalist countries almost ever, while it's the norm for communists.
The USSR did achieve nothing special in that regard
Lol, ok
and definitely nothing special enough to justify the abuses that come with their approach
K. Looking forwards to seeing you meet your own standards on this one.
You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?
Yes. Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?
In the ole socialist definition of “state”
I use the "Monopoly on violence" definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)
Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.
They just did it for fun, wasn't like there was fascist and imperialist forces right?
How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?
Democratic centralism, but it will have beraucrats until the state abolished capitalist force. The party bureaucrats debate internally and acts in unison. You can freely join the party. It's deliberate to keep non marxist/people that think capitalism is good, outside. It's based. Read "What is to be done" from Lenin.
How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things?
Not what Engels or I am saying? The "decision" or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.
Doubly so if there’s a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?
Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It's this abstract that Engels is referencing
UBI
A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say
Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing. UBI also comes at the cost of consolidating various social spending in order to create more dependency and have only one front of negation to deal with as a capitalist
Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?
Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that's because the Rothschilds don't want you to succeed. Couldn't be because the plan was shit.
I use the “Monopoly on violence” definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)
There's no monopoly on violence in Anarchism.
Democratic centralism.
Have you actually read Lenin. That's not a method to organise a society, it's a method to organise a party. All it basically bogs down to "Once the party has made a decision, party members are to stop arguing and get to work implementing it". It has numerous problems when it comes to de-facto centralisation of power, as well as inability to address and correct decisions that were, or have become, wrong.
The “decision” or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.
That's literally the authority of the shoe-maker. Being a specialist and therefore trusted to make expert decisions is not the same as having power over people. Anarchists freely bow to the shoe-maker when it comes to matters of shoe production, but not when it comes to where to walk with them.
Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It’s this abstract that Engels is referencing
No they're not bound by that decision. There's plenty of reasons why one would want to change their mind.
A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say
It takes power away from capitalists by giving the labourer the option to walk away from job offers they don't like. It is not a total overhaul of the system, true, but you should be able to appreciate the juicy irony of fighting capitalist power with market mechanisms.
Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing.
People need more to live than housing, also, you're being paternalistic. "Here, live in this place, eat this stuff". What if I want to take the same amount of resources and live in another place, and eat different stuff?
Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that’s because the Rothschilds don’t want you to succeed. Couldn’t be because the plan was shit.
Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with "Rothschild's"?
As far as I now the soviet union went from feudalism to a space traveling nation. Similarly the rise of China is impressive af. Cuba despite it's sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US. etc.
How many anarchist non-state states exist? Rojava? Tell me how their dealing with capitalist imperialist forces is going
There’s no monopoly on violence in Anarchism
Idc. I tell you how I use the term. It ssimilarly a wide category that encompasses disciplinary measures inside anarchist organization.
authority of the shoe-maker
Brother in Christ why are you so dense about this and not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could've meant and try to view from that lense (not necessarily having to adopt it)
People need more to live than housing, also, you’re
Agree and it's the socialists states duty to serve these interests
being paternalistic. “Here, live in this place, eat this stuff”.
I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.
Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with “Rothschild’s”?
Nah I'm more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism, dunno whether you share it it's not a universal. Could've just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. "Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we're falling behind, they're exerting authority over us" give me a break no they're not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.
higher life expectancy than the US.
Yeah saying "we're better off than the US" is just as convincing as American saying "we're better off than Haiti". Darn low bar. Do better.
not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could’ve meant
Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels? Why isn't he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn't argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.
I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.
Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money. In one case you can consume those goods, in the other you can choose which goods you consume. You can forego expensive food for a while to save up for canvas and paintbrush, if you so please. You can choose whether you spend the money included for purposes of recreation to travel to a metal concert, the opera, or a beach bar. You can choose to spend that recreation money on better food or a new hammer, if you so please.
Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it's still miles better than "work for a boss or starve", or "work for a boss or don't get to choose your meal". Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king
Could’ve just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. “Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we’re falling behind, they’re exerting authority over us” give me a break no they’re not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.
What no theory does to a mf
Yeah saying “we’re better off than the US”
Do you even read?
I said "Cuba despite it’s sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US"
Qualitative different statement
Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels?
Because he's dead?
Why isn’t he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn’t argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.
"Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine"
Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money
It's paternalistic still? The economic base is capitalist and has a welfare superstructure. The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.
Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it’s still miles better than “work for a boss or starve”, or “work for a boss or don’t get to choose your meal”. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you're basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful
“Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine”
It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There's a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.
The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.
The employer also doesn't get a say. The citizen overall, though, does get a say (in liberal democracies at last), as to how large the universal allowance is. The Labourer outnumbering the employer in the liberal democratic process thus gives an overall tilt towards the labourer, the ability to ensure that it's large enough to be able to tell bosses "Shove it, I quit".
Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you’re basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful
On what? Housing? People spend it on housing. They can pool it into cooperatives, no issue there regarding economies of scale.
It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There’s a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.
It is if you expand the definition of salad.. how are you not understanding this??
Anti-auths don't have any issues with caprese We do have issues with fruit salads, though.
...or something along the lines I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don't have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese. But you'll get it, eventually, as long as you stop confusing stuff by equivocating.
Wasn't sure if that was a legitimate question or just another example.of the usage of authoritarian. But if it was a question, I'll leave this video. It's an anarchist critique of on authority. Short answer, yes. It is possible to have organization without an authoritarian structure
05:22 Acknowledges that argument that Engels is making is that "anything is authoritarian"
05:28 Acknowledges that Engels has a very broad definition of "authority"
06:20 Builds a strawman by giving a context "Engels existed around the time of the industrial revolution", reading the paragraph about steam boats, etc. and is
0740 using it to suddenly drastically narrows the definition of Engels down to mean "technological development is authoritarian".
10:15 At 10:45 correctly explains the point that Engels is making and copes hard with the fact that Engels indeed questions the entire political theoretical understanding of authority lol
12:00 correctly understands that the point is that "Anti-Authoritarians want to change society" and if Engels can prove that organization without authority is impossible, it will mean that he will be able to show this deep contradiction
13:55 He builds another strawman by claiming that Engel's argument is "Steam is an authority" and not the actual argument that the organization of labour inheretly requires authority and in a society without capitalism the production process would take authorties place (i.e Steam)
14:50 Another strawman where he claims that "hunger would be authority" in an ancient hunting times, instead of the organization of how the hunt would take place
This is so dumb i don't want to continue and its so long wtf
Pure ideology, that video was such a waste of time
The entire point of the video is Engles misunderstood what constitutes "authority" in a libertarian framework. He created an overly broad conception of authority and proceeded to (poorly) attack that. If you're going to critique an ideology you should at the very least have an understanding of what the core concept your criticizing means. Engles made some shit up, put that in the mouths of anarchists and acted like a little piss baby about it. How on earth did you get 15 minutes into the video and not pick up on that very obvious point?
Pure ideology? You're hilarious. Like y'all haven't been sucking at the teat of Marx well past the point of his half baked ideas being useful. It never occured to you geniuses that maybe there was a bit more at play than capitalism and anachronistic conceptions of class warfare? Marx's ideas of power and complex systems are overly simplistic at best, and Engles is a bourgeois pig that somehow deluded your big "scientific socialist" brains into thinking he was one of the good ones. But go ahead and tell me how childish authoritarian conceptions of authority are righ and how I'm a big dumb guy for thinking otherwise
The entire point of the video is Engles misunderstood what constitutes “authority” in a libertarian framework.
He's not misunderstanding what constitutes authority. He is giving a broad definition and proves the existence of authority after abolition of capitalism by referring to the organization of labour.
minutes into the video and not pick up on that very obvious point?
Because the "obvious points" are made with strawmen (see comments above)
Pure ideology? You’re hilarious. Like y’all haven’t been sucking at the teat of Marx well past the point of his half baked ideas being useful. It never occured to you geniuses that maybe there was a bit more at play than capitalism and anachronistic conceptions of class warfare? Marx’s ideas of power and complex systems are overly simplistic at best, and Engles is a bourgeois pig that somehow deluded your big “scientific socialist” brains into thinking he was one of the good ones. But go ahead and tell me how childish authoritarian conceptions of authority are righ and how I’m a big dumb guy for thinking otherwise
He’s proving the existence of authority (with a definition thats wide/encompasses the libertarian framework).
He's not using that definition anywhere in his article.
If you know think about going for the "but Engel's definition is broader, therefore, his argument is still valid" boy oh boy I suggest you study logic. That's not how widening and narrowing works.
Say, cooks. They say: "These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads". Botanists say "These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes".
Say, cooks. They say: “These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads”. Botanists say “These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes”.
Ok I can see where the problem is. You don't know how narrowing and widening works.
Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It's the qualifier. The proper application would be:
Botanist says:" These things are fruits. We have tomatoes, etc. I can make fruit salad".
Cooks ways:"A fruit salad is a type of salad. I have noodles I can make noodle salad. I use a wider definition of salad which encompasses fruit salads, noodle salads and a bunch of others"
Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier.
Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said "you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes" they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for "fruit salad" (there's no botanical definition of "fruit salad", it's a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.
On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down "fruit" to "tropical fruit" or "temperate fruit" and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to "banana" and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.
Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said “you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes” they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for “fruit salad” (there’s no botanical definition of “fruit salad”, it’s a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.
Yes we have a category error because you made it The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.
On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down “fruit” to “tropical fruit” or “temperate fruit” and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to “banana” and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.
Yes you're right in this example the qualifier is tropical that narrows down fruits. In the previous example we talked about fruit salads. The category being salads.
The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.
The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It's also not a fruit salad.
The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It’s also not a fruit salad.
Well duh, it's because you made an error, you made the cook say it for some inexplicable reason in your thought experiment and I'm pointing it out to you.
The statement of the cooks, "these are fruits, we can turn them into fruit salad" is perfectly accurate. There's no error in there. In my example it's the botanists which make the mistake by widening the definition of "fruit" without double-checking whether that widening changes their understanding of "fruit salad" to become something different from what the cooks were saying.
In my example it’s the botanists which make the mistake by widening the definition of “fruit” without double-checking whether that widening changes their understanding of “fruit salad” to become something different from what the cooks were saying.
Indeed, you made the thought experiment and build this error into it (aka Strawman). I corrected the conversation to show how to correctly apply widening and narrowing in regards to "fruit salads"
What you should’ve done instead is apply it to Engels’s widening of the term “authority” to mean things that don’t fit into a fruit salad, any more.
Ok let me do it now since youre dense: Authority encompasses "granted authority". Granted is the qualifier. Authority is the category. Authority being defined as:
Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.
If something is granted it's not imposed. Those two things are mutually exclusive. If Engels was honest in his argument he'd have used "imposed authority" to characterise what anti-auths were criticising, not the general "authority".
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that’s true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
Exactly. I like to keep things simple and boil things down to authority. I'm the only one allowed to define me, and I don't have the right to define others. If everyone has absolute freedom to be what they are, then by design no one has the right to define, exploit, marginalize or otherwise or oppress them. if anyone was oppressed, not everyone would have absolute freedom. Then on top of that we put societal contracts. "Here's a time period of my labor, would you trade it for that thing you have". "I'd like to give some of my extra things so that more people can have good things [taxation] "Here's consent, how about you?" "I go by [pronoun]."
Anarchism -> Maximum freedom for all
Hierarchism-> Maximum freedom for the one on top.
Smarter people than me have talked about the nuances for ages so as I said, I like to simplify things. Fullyautomatedspacegayluxurycommunism ftw!
What if I want to use my absolute freedom to oppress someone else? What if I use my absolute freedom to build a structure that blocks the view of the mountains from my neighbors, who love the view? Whose freedom should get oppressed to solve that?
While I would say that graph is more correct than the two-dimensional ones, many of us are fed in the west. (As a social libertarian/anarcho communist) I make the point that I don't believe authoritarians actually qualify significantly for any form of left or right. They are all about their authority primarily and doing what they wish to do. They will resort to any rhetoric or means to achieve their goals they think will serve them. Whether it is left or right.
Case in point Hitler, who is closely associated with fascism which is considered nominally right-wing. Absolutely aped the terminology and rhetoric of early 20th century socialism. Till it didn't serve him anymore. China who is more or less The Golden child of ml activists is more state capitalist than they are State communist. Because it suits those in power.
The graph more accurately might look like a deformed Dorito. Authoritarians being fluid and centrist. Not committed to being left or right. On the right side gradually sloping down through libertarians into capitalists/liberals on the far right. Somewhere neutral between authoritarian and actual libertarian. But the more true libertarian you trend the more left you absolutely trend. That's for sure.
At least online, it seems like the only Americans who call themselves far left agree those are all centrist positions. It's only "centrists/progressives*" (moderately far right Americans) and other flavors of far right who still often dont generally call themselves far right (trump enthusiasts, alex jones types, proud boy types) who label basic things like universal health care a far left idea or just call it impractical atm.
*I feel like 10 years ago, people who were at least moderately left were the main people using this term, but in the last few years, people right of center have been using the label to try limit progress by pretending they're just trying to be practical/realists about what can actually be done.
To be “on the left” at minimum you need to be totally opposed to the capitalist system.
From there, there are many ideologies to choose from whether authoritarian (like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc.) or anti-authoritarian: mutualism, communalism, one of the many strains of anarchism, etc.
Also if you’re authoritarian I’d say it’s questionable whether you’re still on the left.
If you believe that “authoritarian” is a well defined or meaningful term and not just a snarl word created during the cold war to equivocate communists and Nazis, I'd say it's questionable whether you're still on the left.
You're half right. Americans as a whole don't need to absorb context, but American conservatives do.
The rest of us are well aware of what's going on. There are democrats in our government that are pretending to be against "socialism", but they are old and these clearly dated policies aren't going to last.
I get the feeling most of that nonsense was just fear mongering to force Biden into office instead of Bernie four years ago.
Nah, American "left" liberals definitely need to learn that there's a while spectrum of political beliefs to the left of them, and that anti-capitalism exists in general
Go to most other Western societies and your version of "far-left" is new, naive, and conservative. In my country, most right-wingers back all the "socialism"—by American definition—that we have.
Y'all got decades of catching up to do. I admire the surge, but you've got a lot of examples around the world of how to actually do it. All the while also understanding what you apparently claim to stand for.
Keep enjoying that Us versus Them game though, since that's more what Americanism is into. Love that division. Good job 👍 /s
This meme references the "far-left," ie Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, etc, not the Social Democrats. If it was referring to the American "left," it would say "liberals."
"Yeah, but if you go to those countries in Europe, you'll find that almost no one likes the socialized health care they have in their country." - Every American conservative and libertarian ever trying to defend the freedumb of paying thousands of dollars out of pocket each year for basic medical treatment.
I love the NHS in my country. I'm currently in hospital right now and the staff are fucking amazing but it's underfunded so I got stuck in an isolation room all of Saturday after being transferred to another hospital. Anyway the staff isn't the problem, it's the lack of support and funding that's killing the quality of the service which everyone i.e patients, staff, even politicians all agree on.
ALL of our major media outlets are for profit corporations and serve as propaganda outlets.
NONE of our major media outlets speak honestly about progressive policies.
ALL of our right wing propaganda equates socialism with "the left" and "the left" is portrayed in the absolute worst ways possible. They constantly talk about Venezuela and eating rats (they say we want that). The argument about abortion is almost entirely to be at opposition with "the left" and to paint us as "baby murderers." Any conversation about taxation is equated to theft from "hard workers" to be given to "lazy slobs who pop out babies to collect free money." They specifically take opposition to anything "the left" wants so they don't have to have policies other than "hate the other."
Surprisingly not their media though which makes a point to complain about politics in everything and then pretends they aren't being political about everything they say and do. And claims it's just interacting with reality as the center. They love to claim that they decide where reality is so they can decide where center is.
"I just want to live in a society that uses some of the value its working class generates to improve the lives of the general population in any meaningful way."
No, it's saying that far-right people claim they aren't right or left, and just care about the truth, as a means to distance their image from their actual views.
Some people genuinely aren't left or right, those people are generally Social Democrats, ie Capitalism with strong social safety nets and some level of government ownership of some key industries. However, this isn't perceived as being a centrist view due to the Overton Window, ie in America, Liberalism, a right wing ideology, is the status quo, with a liberal party and a fascist party.
Both sides see in black and white, but for far different reasons, the far left want to eliminate the concept of profit over people, while the far right want to eliminate people that dont fit inside their rigid and arbitrary 'moral' structures.
Did you notice how you cant refute my statement? Leaving your only option to call this a one sided assessment of the status quo, while in actuality it sums up of the state of current affairs quite succinctly. Popcorn do be good though.
The left is the party of trying to help the lowest so everyone can live a decent life and the right is the party of trying to achieve the best possible life for a few of the highest
You're just supporting this clueless "both sides" narrative with exactly no nuance. The right is factually incorrect and is centered around supporting hierarchy, regardless of vibes, while the left opposes hierarchy. Polarization is not what's wrong with American society, it's a symptom of the underlying cause, which is Capitalism's decay.
It's interesting innit, that the reddit migration to Lemmy gave the most vocal ideologues a place to gather, and a reason not to go back. I wonder if the discussion on Reddit is a bit more nuanced now?
But, since you asked nicely, I'll rephrase it as a conservative would. As I think someone should believe what feels right to them, but at least understand the mind and motivations of your opposition, otherwise you will fail in your goals. That's something not one of the 10 downvoters and 5 commenters have been able to do.
The far left seeks to eradicate the fundamental principles of individual initiative and free enterprise in favor of a collectivist agenda, they're in favor of legalization of all drugs and the murder of children and don't understand that a functioning society is a fragile house of cards. They think that children growing up without one or both parents is perfectly fine, and the child will in turn be a well-adjusted adult, regardless. They want to open the borders to let every spy, murderer, and rapist into their neighborhood. The far right aims to preserve traditional values and defend against the erosion of societal norms by those advocating for radical change.
Okay great job you dressed up some hateful shit with jingoistic buzzwords. What's your point? We've all heard this before, no one is unaware of the rationalizations that conservatives tell themselves to justify their hatred and selfishness as tough love and societal stewardship.
Okay, now what are the rationalizations that progressives/liberals/Democrats/leftists/whatever the preferred term that's the opposite of 'conservative' tell themselves?
Keep in mind, you're including the entire group here, as you did with 'conservatives', so anything any [preferred leftist term] does means it's representative of the entire group.
ETA: yes it's as old as human nature and organized religion, yes, and you're continuing it. Everyone with different beliefs is "the other" and "the enemy" and "must be removed from existence to ensure peace for our people." I'm trying to point out that you're being taken advantage of, and the truth seems to be evoking strong emotions.
If you say down and had an honest conversation without yelling and turns were allowed to be finished, you'd find you have much more in common with these individuals than "the enemy" as the group you see them as.
But ideological warfare prevents class warfare, so it continues being spoonfed to you, and you happily latch on to every bite so you continue to feel a sense of purpose.
"I speak alternative facts, making others do the work of figuring out what I meant."
vs.
"I have researched in-depth and know what I am talking about and why."
Tbf there are probably far-right people who are more like the latter. Just b/c I do not recall ever hearing those arguments does not mean that they don't exist!
Innuendo studios nailed it when they described the alt right as wearing opinions like hats. They try one on, see what fits during an argument, and discard the argument as soon as it becomes a liability or too much work to defend. The problem is that people on the left try to engage these opinions and arguments as if they are actually held by the person when the person is not worried about consistency. They’re worried about the appearance of victory in a public space, usually a web forum.
The only way to win is to not engage. So I generally will throw up a link or two, make a short statement about why something being stated is either too broad of a generalization or is just straight up incorrect, and then I do not read their replies. Because that is where they want you. They want to take you force you into an 80 comment flame war.
Basically everything he has made is fantastic. His gamergate talk is excellent and super relevant to the sweet baby inc. nonsense (aka Gamergate 2: Fuckboi Boogaloo)
A fascinating series, I cannot agree more. His other works too like protagony/agency. I really hope he can find a way to do more like that, but as a more personal video from him mentioned (not on the channel iirc, search for his name instead) that depends on funding support.
To sum up: it is far easier to tear down than to build up. :-| Also, truth is often stranger than fiction, and much harder to pin down and truly understand.
Really I guess these are not merely two opposing sides of the same argument, but literally represent opposing worldviews.
Tbf there are probably far-right people who are more like the latter. Just b/c I do not recall ever hearing those arguments does not mean that they don't exist!
Those people are working with the heritage foundation and other far right think tanks. They understand that their brand of mask-off fascism is problematic to a lot of people, so they allow their ideas to percolate through various right wing media outlets and entertainment personalities. By the time their ideologies reaches the mind of your average voter they've been neatly repackaged as "hey we're just asking some questions here, we just want to get the facts straight."
Thanks. I have no time lately but perhaps I should research them directly and actively then, e.g. to find out things like if the COVID response was used to bring population numbers down as a means of control and possibly thought to be beneficial for the sake of mitigation of the effects of climate change. But probably I am giving too much credit for even that much level of strategic thought towards climate change effects for the survival of humanity and perhaps it is solely "we do not need the masses anymore so let's kill them off, or at least not help at all with saving them", i.e. think of myself first, only, and always, and nothing else.
Right up until they aren't anymore. e.g. when someone chooses not to take the vaccine, somehow MANY of those (I wonder if perhaps nearly all?) end up in hospitals, spreading their diseases to others and putting stress on the already-overworked system.
I legit would not judge someone who for whatever reasons decided to withdraw from society, like Amish, and not take the vaccine, but DO social distance for the sake of others, and then die but like... fully by their own, informed & rational choices according to their own valuation of priorities in their life. I fully respect that.
It is the hypocritical nature of those who are not informed, yet act to block others' access from knowledge and benefits of society, that I am against. These people will judge themselves later on, once they finally cannot escape into their fantasies quite so comfortably, except by then they have already dragged others along with them. In short: they are shocked, Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED to find that actions have consequences. But... they should not have been so shocked?! An ounce of preparation is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes.
TLDR: it is irresponsible, childish behavior, from adults who should know better.
Sometimes they never get it, even when their actions directly lead to someone they love dying.
My buddy won't talk to his brothers anymore because they took their unvaxxed grandmother out to a concert and she got COVID and died a couple years ago. They (from what he said at the time) accepted no blame for this.
Personally i wonder if the consequences were too horrible for them to accept right away. Maybe with time, but i don't talk to them either.
I remember those videos by mothers who killed their children by refusing to allow them to receive vaccinations. They were heart-rending stories told by those who KNEW, whereas before they only THOUGHT that they knew. Before it happened, they were obstinate and ignored all medical advice and did the exact opposite. After it happened... then they REALLY knew that they had screwed up. And they begged, pleading with other mothers not to do the same. They were ofc ignored, by those who similarly KNOW better, despite literally all of the evidence to the contrary.
Or you can go to old graveyards, and see grave after grave of infants who died young, from what are today easily-preventable diseases. Something like 4 out of 5 children died prior to 5 years of age iirc (or even if that is wrong, still more than half?), so much so that religious ceremonies still practiced today make that age a cutoff - like before that the child doesn't even have a name, but after that it suddenly is considered a likely candidate to grow up into a full person, thus is finally worthy of being officially given a name.
I do have empathy for people with mental illnesses who cannot handle processing in the real world, but I also have empathy for all the people who have DIED b/c of those dumb-shit behaviors. Especially when they push further and refuse to allow OTHERS to have the kind of care that they want. Like, choose for yourself sure, but you do not have the right to choose for someone else. That is not only merely unintelligent, but childish on their parts. At least, that is true in the best-case scenario, while the worst is that it is linked to authoritarianism, which sadly is the most likely one in many cases - e.g. these people would turn you in to the government, if that was asking, just exactly like if we were real, actual Nazis. Like, "hey, lookie here, this person took the vaccine!!" (or had an abortion, or even a miscarriage) Even they do not want to have to live in that kind of world - e.g. having to call someone by their preferred pronouns - but they will absolutely heap that burden upon you if they think that they themselves will be exempt, leopards-ate-my-face style.
