▲ 148 ▼ yeah, I'm a centrist (thelemmy.club) submitted 5 months ago by sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (49 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 23 points 5 months ago (21 children) Authoritarian 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago* (18 children) For those that don't want to sound uneducated like @bearboiblake@pawb.social https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago* (17 children) Thank you for sharing! Do you realize that what you shared doesn't argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs: A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago (15 children) You didn't read the text, I can tell. Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority. but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form. the root issue I have with MLs The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Canigou@jlai.lu -12 points 5 months ago I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^ permalink fedilink source parent [+] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago looks inside It's liberalism permalink fedilink source parent [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 19 points 5 months ago* (22 children) I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity. I don't think a format like this is fascist in nature but I am open to being convinced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -17 points 5 months ago (21 children) I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity Yes, and it was the same for alt-right political compass memes, too. Plausible deniability has always been the approach of crypto-fascists - you point out the implied fascist ideology, they say you're taking a joke too seriously then when you say something else they hit you with the 🤡🌍. I don’t think a format like this is fascist in nature Nor do I, that wasn't what I was getting at. It's not the format at all that is an issue, nor am I implying this meme is fascistic in nature. I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (18 children) I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. I guess yeah but I am not crypto about my beliefs and if the function isn't inherently "bad" then why bring it up? I am a Marxist-Leninist, you can look at my profile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -18 points 5 months ago (17 children) I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society. Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent [–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 5 months ago ''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.'' Karl Marx permalink fedilink source parent [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (7 children) I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution. In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kromida@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago Could you define "authoritarian" for me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago “To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known!" Engels - Anti-Duhring permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago "This meme doesn't actually say what it says, it's actually secretly a different meme I saw somewhere else years ago" Completely brain scrambled. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Oh n-n-n-no! D-d-d-don’t call me a t-t-t-t-TANKIE!! 😱👻 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 5 months ago Look at the comm name, brain day skipper. permalink fedilink source parent [+] asdasd201@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Euphoric fedora affectations are alive and well on pawb.social permalink fedilink source parent [–] Canigou@jlai.lu 3 points 5 months ago I mean, there is always someone on your right as there is on your left, so depending on how you measure political "distance" you can always consider yourself in the center ^^ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 23 points 5 months ago (21 children) Authoritarian 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago* (18 children) For those that don't want to sound uneducated like @bearboiblake@pawb.social https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago* (17 children) Thank you for sharing! Do you realize that what you shared doesn't argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs: A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago (15 children) You didn't read the text, I can tell. Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority. but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form. the root issue I have with MLs The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Canigou@jlai.lu -12 points 5 months ago I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^ permalink fedilink source parent [+] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago looks inside It's liberalism permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago* (18 children) For those that don't want to sound uneducated like @bearboiblake@pawb.social https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago* (17 children) Thank you for sharing! Do you realize that what you shared doesn't argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs: A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago (15 children) You didn't read the text, I can tell. Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority. but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form. the root issue I have with MLs The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Canigou@jlai.lu -12 points 5 months ago I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^ permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago* (17 children) Thank you for sharing! Do you realize that what you shared doesn't argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs: A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago (15 children) You didn't read the text, I can tell. Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority. but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form. the root issue I have with MLs The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Canigou@jlai.lu -12 points 5 months ago I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 22 points 5 months ago (15 children) You didn't read the text, I can tell. Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority. but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian. No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form. the root issue I have with MLs The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago* (13 children) I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly Ok stay ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -16 points 5 months ago (12 children) Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (11 children) I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so. I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is: Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure” Then I seriously doubt: I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years. Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago (10 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 months ago (9 children) You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. No U I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it. You should not treat theory as your bible. You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully. Solidarity forever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -7 points 5 months ago* (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (2 children) No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -10 points 5 months ago (1 child) And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children) I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago politely You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Canigou@jlai.lu -12 points 5 months ago I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^ permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago looks inside It's liberalism permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago looks inside It's liberalism permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 19 points 5 months ago* (22 children) I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity. I don't think a format like this is fascist in nature but I am open to being convinced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -17 points 5 months ago (21 children) I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity Yes, and it was the same for alt-right political compass memes, too. Plausible deniability has always been the approach of crypto-fascists - you point out the implied fascist ideology, they say you're taking a joke too seriously then when you say something else they hit you with the 🤡🌍. I don’t think a format like this is fascist in nature Nor do I, that wasn't what I was getting at. It's not the format at all that is an issue, nor am I implying this meme is fascistic in nature. I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (18 children) I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. I guess yeah but I am not crypto about my beliefs and if the function isn't inherently "bad" then why bring it up? I am a Marxist-Leninist, you can look at my profile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -18 points 5 months ago (17 children) I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society. Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent [–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 5 months ago ''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.'' Karl Marx permalink fedilink source parent [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (7 children) I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution. In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kromida@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago Could you define "authoritarian" for me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago “To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known!" Engels - Anti-Duhring permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago "This meme doesn't actually say what it says, it's actually secretly a different meme I saw somewhere else years ago" Completely brain scrambled. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Oh n-n-n-no! D-d-d-don’t call me a t-t-t-t-TANKIE!! 😱👻 permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -17 points 5 months ago (21 children) I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity Yes, and it was the same for alt-right political compass memes, too. Plausible deniability has always been the approach of crypto-fascists - you point out the implied fascist ideology, they say you're taking a joke too seriously then when you say something else they hit you with the 🤡🌍. I don’t think a format like this is fascist in nature Nor do I, that wasn't what I was getting at. It's not the format at all that is an issue, nor am I implying this meme is fascistic in nature. I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (18 children) I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. I guess yeah but I am not crypto about my beliefs and if the function isn't inherently "bad" then why bring it up? I am a Marxist-Leninist, you can look at my profile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -18 points 5 months ago (17 children) I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society. Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent [–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 5 months ago ''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.'' Karl Marx permalink fedilink source parent [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (7 children) I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution. In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kromida@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago Could you define "authoritarian" for me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago “To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known!" Engels - Anti-Duhring permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago "This meme doesn't actually say what it says, it's actually secretly a different meme I saw somewhere else years ago" Completely brain scrambled. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Oh n-n-n-no! D-d-d-don’t call me a t-t-t-t-TANKIE!! 😱👻 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (18 children) I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right. I guess yeah but I am not crypto about my beliefs and if the function isn't inherently "bad" then why bring it up? I am a Marxist-Leninist, you can look at my profile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -18 points 5 months ago (17 children) I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society. Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent [–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 5 months ago ''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.'' Karl Marx permalink fedilink source parent [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (7 children) I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution. In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kromida@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago Could you define "authoritarian" for me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago “To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known!" Engels - Anti-Duhring permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -18 points 5 months ago (17 children) I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society. Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent [–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 5 months ago ''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.'' Karl Marx permalink fedilink source parent [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (7 children) I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution. In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kromida@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago Could you define "authoritarian" for me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago “To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known!" Engels - Anti-Duhring permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society. Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (4 children) I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) There are 2 major points here: How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened. I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago and violence cannot be controlled Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions. This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago How exactly do you expect a country of any significant size to effectively enact communism without anything resembling a state apparatus? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 5 months ago ''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.'' Karl Marx permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (7 children) I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution. In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -12 points 5 months ago (6 children) I agree with everything that you wrote, except this: a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism] I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs. I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move. I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity. If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent [–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (4 children) authoritarian I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class. This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -8 points 5 months ago (3 children) I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here. I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism. I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it. The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here. The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others. Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense permalink fedilink source parent
[–] m532@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work. Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them. Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kromida@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago Could you define "authoritarian" for me? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago “To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known!" Engels - Anti-Duhring permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago "This meme doesn't actually say what it says, it's actually secretly a different meme I saw somewhere else years ago" Completely brain scrambled. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago Oh n-n-n-no! D-d-d-don’t call me a t-t-t-t-TANKIE!! 😱👻 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 5 months ago Look at the comm name, brain day skipper. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] asdasd201@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago Euphoric fedora affectations are alive and well on pawb.social permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Canigou@jlai.lu 3 points 5 months ago I mean, there is always someone on your right as there is on your left, so depending on how you measure political "distance" you can always consider yourself in the center ^^ permalink fedilink source parent