this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1204 points (91.1% liked)
Memes
45581 readers
2 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't believe in rights. at least, there's no such thing as an inalienable right, since governments can and do take them away. I'm not even sure how to begin to answer your question given that I think that you're talking about fictions. sort of like asking me which anarchist society had the most thetans, or protection spirits.
I didn't think that I'd have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure. but I guess it's true that some people still side with the wrong people at the second international.
Not even positive rights? You're literally like "authority means it is by definition a class society" and you don't believe in rights? How do you square that circle?
It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don't want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.
And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.
Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state? You know, that thing that socialists and anarchists both do, that involves hierarchy in repressing right wing elements? That socialists actually acknowledge the evil of, as opposed to pretending like they're not doing a transitional state?
Or do you have a new super special plan to do classless society day one? If so I'd love to hear it.
it's not new. gallianists have been at it for a century.
Sorry, I set the bar too low.
Feasible plans for a classless society day one.
How far have they gotten in that century? Because honestly the whole "at it for a century" thing reeks of failure.
nothing like moving the goalposts to end the workday.
i'm opposed to prefigurative theories of revolution. we don't know what society will look like in every corner of the world without oppression. we do know what oppression is, and we can fight it.
You're against concentration of power. Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?
It seems like you want to fight and lose.
you're going to need to define revolution and success and concentration, and at this point, we might as well just lay our cards on the table. you believe it's only practical to have a transitional state. i have a suspicion about anything that even smells like a state. we will not reconcile this in !memes today.
i don't think i'm misrepresenting your position. i feel i understand it, and i disagree about the practicality of setting up a system of oppression to end oppression.
they got the fucking arch duke (and dozens of other heads of state). they blew up wallstreet. i think these are pretty big accomplishments.
Oh, wow, so they killed some people and bombed wall street.
How successful was that in achieving their political objectives?
very. they inspired millions, which was the goal of those actions.
Okay, so, the end result of inspiring people means that their political project succeeded? Their end goal was to inspire people? I thought their end goal was a classless, stateless society?
right, but since we (they) eschew(ed) prefigurative theories, we (they) only organized to fight. the actual structure of society is up to the people who live in the world that we (they) make possible.
that wasn't their only goal, but it was one of them.
Okay, so would you agree that they failed at forming a classless, stateless society?
i'd say they haven't succeeded yet.
Okay, and why haven't they succeeded yet?
plainly, I'd say it's state repression. they struck fear in their hearts in the state struck back.
That's incredibly unspecific, repression is one of the main things states do and is a broad category.
they were hunted down and framed for crimes. they were executed. they were exiled.
I feel like they probably shouldn't have done those things then, if they weren't able to sustain themselves in the face of that sort of state repression like communists could.
I know you disagree with anarchist tactics. That's what our whole discussion is about.
Do you not also disagree with those tactics, given how spectacularly they've failed to amount to anything material?
no. I think they could have won 100 years ago and I think they could win tomorrow. I like the tactic. people can be inspired and it can happen in an instant.
this is just posturing.
you don't know the future anymore than I. you don't know what the next revolution will look like or what would start it.
do I want to bet that you don't know the future? absolutely. here's a proof.
qed
edit: oh fuck. I was supposed to bet something. how about a loaf of bread?
are you suggesting that Marxist revolutionary theory is a science like meteorology? it's not.
I'm saying they can't know the future.
They can’t perfectly predict the future in the same way that meteorologists can’t, but both beat a coin flip by a mile.
"predict" is moving the goalposts. i said they can't know, and they asked if i wanted to bet. i know that they can't know the future.
they can predict all they want. they can't know, though.
i don't really want the loaf of bread. please give it to someone who does though.
i figured if you lost a bet you wouldn't welch on it. and calling me tankie, when this whole discussion is about me opposing authoritarian regimes no matter how they wish to portray themselves, is simply dishonest.