Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Dumb Ideologies]

Distarce, if I'd been alive at the time of the French Revolution and there was terror on my home streets I'd be ringing dial-a-reactionary faster than I could invent the telephone.

I'm a reformist. Your talk about the nobility of violent overthrow and destruction of the old order does nothing for me except make me feel sickened. Sure as heck I'd support an outsider group who might restore order and put down the vandals. Reform or nothing. The moment you start bringing violence to the streets and killing my countrymen for your perverse extremism you have lost the last right to call on me as an ally - you make yourself someone who must be put down.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I see it as important to see authority descending from above, rather than ascending from below, because of the symbolism that legitimate authority is established by God.

Oh, but do you conceive the monarch as the only one enlightened by the light of God? Maybe you can think that God gave us his authority and thought instead of a king, so God emerges from everyone individually forming 1 will from the bottom, but before that, from the top (God).

Except that the monarchy is also an icon of heaven, with the king representing God, and the people representing the angels.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because the monarch must actually receives the blessing of the Church.

The Church isn't God.

The Church is the body of Christ, who is God.

[Conscentia]

If I'd been alive at the time of the French Revolution and there was terror on my home streets I'd be ringing dial-a-reactionary faster than I could invent the telephone.
I'm a reformist. Your talk about the nobility of violent overthrow and destruction of the old order does nothing for me except make me feel sickened. Sure as heck I'd support an outsider group who might restore order and put down the vandals. Reform or nothing. The moment you start bringing violence to the streets and killing my countrymen for your perverse extremism you have lost the last right to call on me as an ally.

Your countrymen would be the ones revolting. Revolutions are a mass action, not the work of some conspiracy. If we talking about a Blanquist coup you might've had a point.

[Conscentia]

The Church isn't God.

The Church is the body of Christ, who is God.

Do you believe that literally? Do you believe that priests are omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible?

[Distarce]

Distarce, if I'd been alive at the time of the French Revolution and there was terror on my home streets I'd be ringing dial-a-reactionary faster than I could invent the telephone.

I'm a reformist. Your talk about the nobility of violent overthrow and destruction of the old order does nothing for me except make me feel sickened. Sure as heck I'd support an outsider group who might restore order and put down the vandals. Reform or nothing. The moment you start bringing violence to the streets and killing my countrymen for your perverse extremism you have lost the last right to call on me as an ally - you make yourself someone who must be put down.

Would you be a counterrevolutionary even in Nazi Germany?

The Church isn't God.

The Church is the body of Christ, who is God.

Well, as I've seen, monarchs have also scandals and they can ruin the image of the monarch. I don't know how you'll solve this. Same with the Church, and they're humans.

[Dumb Ideologies]

If I'd been alive at the time of the French Revolution and there was terror on my home streets I'd be ringing dial-a-reactionary faster than I could invent the telephone.
I'm a reformist. Your talk about the nobility of violent overthrow and destruction of the old order does nothing for me except make me feel sickened. Sure as heck I'd support an outsider group who might restore order and put down the vandals. Reform or nothing. The moment you start bringing violence to the streets and killing my countrymen for your perverse extremism you have lost the last right to call on me as an ally.

Your countrymen would be the ones revolting. Revolutions are a mass action, not the work of some conspiracy. If we talking about a Blanquist coup you might've had a point.

The people inciting the violence for their senseless ideology of class war are verminous. They are Blackshirts in different uniforms only. I only hope their end is like the stereotypical redshirt from sci-fi!

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Church is the body of Christ, who is God.

Do you believe that literally? Do you believe that priests are omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible?

No, only the Church as a whole, when acting in concert, is infallible, and protected by the Holy Spirit.

[Conscentia]

Do you believe that literally? Do you believe that priests are omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible?

No, only the Church as a whole, when acting in concert, is infallible, and protected by the Holy Spirit.

So priests don't have free will when "acting in concert"? There's no dissent amongst them? Or do they vote on it until they reach a consensus? What if they refuse to give the blessing? How do you expect to find someone worth the blessing in a population of millions?

[Distarce]

Your countrymen would be the ones revolting. Revolutions are a mass action, not the work of some conspiracy. If we talking about a Blanquist coup you might've had a point.

The people inciting the violence for their senseless ideology of class war are verminous. They are Blackshirts in different uniforms only. I only hope their end is like the stereotypical redshirt from sci-fi!

I agree with Conscientia. A revolution isn't an isolated act of political vandalism: it's an important, visible and big event carried out by the masses. You'll look like a masochistic pacifist priest if you were part of the working class and counterrevolutionaries wouldn't defend you unless you begged too miserably, with luck; betraying your class and your own interests too.

Anyways it seems like your vision of revolution is like a gun waiting to be triggered by some people, but there are circumstances and it has to be supported by a lot, a lot of people.

[Conscentia]

Your countrymen would be the ones revolting. Revolutions are a mass action, not the work of some conspiracy. If we talking about a Blanquist coup you might've had a point.

The people inciting the violence for their senseless ideology of class war are verminous. They are Blackshirts in different uniforms only. I only hope their end is like the stereotypical redshirt from sci-fi!

Revolutionary thinking doesn't become widespread enough to actually trigger revolution for no reason. You speak as though there's no sense in violent resistance under any circumstance, which is plainly absurd.

Stop promoting violent resistance you traitors! We have to reform the Nazi regime.

[Distarce]

The people inciting the violence for their senseless ideology of class war are verminous. They are Blackshirts in different uniforms only. I only hope their end is like the stereotypical redshirt from sci-fi!

Stop promoting violent resistance you traitors! We have to reform the Nazi regime.

Revolutionary thinking doesn't become widespread enough to actually trigger revolution for no reason.

Reformist in Nazi Germany: "Oh, what a disgrace of soviets killing nazis only for their ideology, it has totally nothing to do with material conditions and oppression; why can't the Soviet Union convince them with flowers? You're using the same means, communists=nazis!".
-But nazis invaded first and we can't do other thing, it's the only language they understand in war; now we have to act in Germany!
Reformist in Nazi Germany: "Oh, but it's not the same as an invasion to other country, because it's legal. It doesn't matter how the ruling class oppresses in the original country their citizens, the paper and power gives them legitimation even if it's a dictatorship, i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶n̶a̶z̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶". And where's your paper and permission to overthrow the nazis? You don't have, what a criminal!"
-But nazis oppress the working class in the conquered territories and in their own country too, we can't do other thing!
Reformist in Nazi Germany: "Oh, then nothing, wait until they kill you, but at least you wouldn't have incited that perverse violence of yours and you will go with God and you'll have peace in heaven".

I agree with you, this is absurd.

[Great Minarchistan]

[spoiler](Image)

Brilliant! If a class dominates the other one, erase all classes so there'll be no domination problem!

I'm sorry bro but if you already studied Biology you learned that every human is born different and he'll pretty much compete with other human beings to achieve power. And that's not only an aspect from humans, as many other animals, plants and bacteria compete to get more power.

[Conscentia]

[spoiler](Image)

Brilliant! If a class dominates the other one, erase all classes so there'll be no domination problem!
I'm sorry bro but if you already studied Biology you learned that every human is born different and he'll pretty much compete with other human beings to achieve power. And that's not only an aspect from humans, as many other animals, plants and bacteria compete to get more power.

"Class" in Marxist terms is determined by characteristic relations to the means of production. Unless you're suggesting there's some fundamental biological difference between those that own property and those that don't, your post makes absolutely no sense as a response to that image.

[Great Minarchistan]

Brilliant! If a class dominates the other one, erase all classes so there'll be no domination problem!
I'm sorry bro but if you already studied Biology you learned that every human is born different and he'll pretty much compete with other human beings to achieve power. And that's not only an aspect from humans, as many other animals, plants and bacteria compete to get more power.

"Class" in Marxist terms is determined by characteristic relations to the means of production. Unless you're suggesting there's some fundamental biological difference between those that own property and those that don't, your post makes absolutely no sense as a response to that image.

It was actually a rant. It is funny how marxists and such strive for equality but cant do it right.

[Distarce]

[spoiler](Image)

Brilliant! If a class dominates the other one, erase all classes so there'll be no domination problem!

I'm sorry bro but if you already studied Biology you learned that every human is born different and he'll pretty much compete with other human beings to achieve power. And that's not only an aspect from humans, as many other animals, plants and bacteria compete to get more power.

I've studied biology and I didn't study that every human is born different to compete with other human beings to achieve power, this can't be extended to humans as we can form our system, so it doesn't serve as an ideological reason for capitalism; maybe you didn't read Kropotkin's Mutual aid https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library ... ion.lt.pdf He showed us that animals also evolve helping themselves, not only from competition (and what about education? Did a teacher help you?); also, in socialism it's "to each according to his contribution"... so your argument is flawed.
------

Now about democracy...

Even, in bourgeois democracy and trias politica... with world capitalism... you have a materialist dictatorship.

First of all, most of the financiation, of the people who run the big media; who are part of the bourgeoisie, rise parties as they want and most people don't know the other parties; or they don't want, they aren't educated or they simply don't have the time for it... plus other ideological apparatuses like biased education (like the economist Mankiw, distorting communism) by the Keynesian, Neoclassical and Austrian school of economy for example. I've seen a teacher in a class saying that in communism the state decided consumer goods, like an orange for example; when this is personal property. In that class they distorted communism to make it look absurd and they said that China was semicommunist.

But second, in the case that there were a mass organization effort to form a party and it was voted and put in the government; then they'd have to deal with external powers, the executors of capital, the imperialists. In this scenario, the only way to deal with them is with armed and conscious people; and for that only a revolution to achieve power is possible, for preparing the people and to let them know that after revolution they'll have troubles and enemies. As you see, we're still in a dictatorship, of the capital. Then, in one country, we can eliminate the bourgeoisie; but we have to play the capitalist relations of production in order to survive... also, we could be isolated in one bloc, and that's why Conscientia called in previous post the USSR "state capitalist" and I consider it socialist already because it eliminates the bourgeoisie even if it doesn't eliminate the capitalist relations of production; it's just a distinction.

[Great Minarchistan]

I've studied biology and I didn't study that every human is born different to compete with other human beings to achieve power, this can't be extended to humans as we can form our system

Have you missed the last thousand years? Humans and human civilizations are in a constant fight for more power.

so it doesn't serve as an ideological reason for capitalism;

Unless if you want to preserve individual freedoms, then yes it is. Same applies to the reduction/abolition of the State.

maybe you didn't read Kropotkin's Mutual aid https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library ... ion.lt.pdf He showed us that animals also evolve helping themselves, not only from competition (and what about education? Did a teacher help you?);

...So does free market capitalism. I don't know about you, but I get surprised when I see a system where competition generates progress and this progress generates a benefit for the whole society. You also have a cooperation relationship between the workers and the consumers.

also, in socialism it's "to each according to his contribution"... so your argument is flawed.

Correction: To each according to need. Socialism isn't about meritocracy, and due to your flaw my argument is still valid.

Now about democracy...

Even, in bourgeois democracy

People still use bourgeois in 21st century? Whatever...

and trias politica... with world capitalism... you have a materialist dictatorship.

Which capitalism? You know what, capitalism is a broad term, and it can designate State capitalism to Anarcho capitalism.

First of all, most of the financiation, of the people who run the big media; who are part of the bourgeoisie, rise parties as they want and most people don't know the other parties; or they don't want, they aren't educated or they simply don't have the time for it...

Oh, "big biz" capitalism. Heh, rip.

plus other ideological apparatuses like biased education (like the economist Mankiw, distorting communism) by the Keynesian, Neoclassical and Austrian school of economy for example. I've seen a teacher in a class saying that in communism the state decided consumer goods, like an orange for example; when this is personal property. In that class they distorted communism to make it look absurd and they said that China was semicommunist.

What a shitbag teacher. Also, just a correction (maybe you know it, but anyway): Communism is anarchist, at least according to Marxist-Leninist definitions.

As you see, we're still in a dictatorship, of the capital.

While it is partially true, it's worth noting that the capitalism you are talking about is corporatism (where the State babysits large-ass corporations and creates an unfair environment for small business, therefore blocking competition).

Then, in one country, we can eliminate the bourgeoisie; but we have to play the capitalist relations of production in order to survive... also, we could be isolated in one bloc, and that's why Conscientia called in previous post the USSR "state capitalist" and I consider it socialist already because it eliminates the bourgeoisie even if it doesn't eliminate the capitalist relations of production; it's just a distinction.

When you eliminate the "bourgeoisie" but keep the capitalism, then it is just a radical social-democracy - or depending of your definition of bourgeoisie, it could be libertarian capitalism. And while I agree with you regarding USSR not being State capitalism, it didn't keep the capitalism. It enlarged the State intervention and sterilized the capitalist mode of production (since AFAIK the soviet industry didn't seek profit). All it created was socialism.

[Wulfenia]

Stop promoting violent resistance you traitors! We have to reform the Nazi regime.

Congratulations, you've graduated to the same level as those conservatives who compare themselves to people who lived under the USSR.

[Conscentia]

Stop promoting violent resistance you traitors! We have to reform the Nazi regime.

Congratulations, you've graduated to the same level as those conservatives who compare themselves to people who lived under the USSR.

You're taking that out of context. They made a comparison to blackshirts so I used that example. The point there was only to demonstrate the absurdity of the "reform or nothing" attitude they expressed earlier. I am in no way comparing living in, say, the UK to living under the Nazi regime.

[Geoagorist Territory]

As I'm a gradualist anarchist who's a near-total pacifist, I can sympathize slightly with DI.

However, although I'm a gradualist, I disagree with reformism.

More importantly however, while I'm quite willing to ally with progressives, I don't find nationalism or restrictive immigration policies to be intellectually or morally respectable positions. I suspect we would disagree strongly on many other short to mid-term goals for reform.

I would suggest progressives be as far left as it is logically possible to be while still supporting capitalism and democratic governments. Thus, civil libertarianism, open borders and cosmopolitanism, basic income, abolition of intellectual property, queer radicalism and sex-positive transfeminism, support for Green decentralism and direct democracy, etc.

But failing that, I would suggest reading Dean Baker. He's probably the best progressive writer around, he's quite intelligent. He's also an economist and that's obvious from his clear writing on economic issues.

The number one priority for progressives (or perhaps number two, if you live in the US) should be getting rid of policies that redistribute income upwards. Dean Baker totally smashes the myth that what we see today is the natural outcome of the market, rather than the result of state policies.

[Korouse]

"Class" in Marxist terms is determined by characteristic relations to the means of production. Unless you're suggesting there's some fundamental biological difference between those that own property and those that don't, your post makes absolutely no sense as a response to that image.

It was actually a rant. It is funny how marxists and such strive for equality but cant do it right.

Right? It's like Marxists don't even know what human nature is. They need to read basic economics 101, I swear, or I'm gonna have an aneurysm.

[Great Minarchistan]

It was actually a rant. It is funny how marxists and such strive for equality but cant do it right.

Right? It's like Marxists don't even know what human nature is. They need to read basic economics 101, I swear, or I'm gonna have an aneurysm.

Probably an ironic post, but if it wasn't, agreed.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It was actually a rant. It is funny how marxists and such strive for equality but cant do it right.

Right? It's like Marxists don't even know what human nature is. They need to read basic economics 101, I swear, or I'm gonna have an aneurysm.

Speaking of that, archaeologists have actually have found complex societies without social hierarchies.

[Jelmatt]

Right? It's like Marxists don't even know what human nature is. They need to read basic economics 101, I swear, or I'm gonna have an aneurysm.

Speaking of that, archaeologists have actually have found complex societies without social hierarchies.

Can I have a source? Not that I doubt it, I'm just interested.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Speaking of that, archaeologists have actually have found complex societies without social hierarchies.

Can I have a source? Not that I doubt it, I'm just interested.

Jenné-Jeno, Mali; a study by Susan and Roderick MacIntosh found no social inequality in housing or burials despite its status as a complex society.

http://anthropology.rice.edu/research.html