Proof if further proof were needed that you don't have a clue what your opponents actually advocate, and are happy to just imagine exaggerated nonsense.
Last edited:
Someone(s) have sent out pro-worker messages to unsecured receipt printers connected to the internet
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Tell me you have no understanding of anarchism without telling me you have no understanding of anarchism.
Which Marxists?
Constructing a false consensus, particularly one that runs entirely contrary to the established historical consensus and openly misuses the work of historical theorists to suggest a position they would not have endorsed (without making it clear that you are engaged in a product of revisionism and what the political investment of that project is) is a distortion of reality.
Which people do you take at their word? Which ideals do you understand? What is this "whole thing" you disagree with?
Because again, if we're going to try to position "communism" as a clear, singular ideological position, then it is not the position you're claiming it is. If you want communism to include everything ever described as communist by anyone, then you kind of need to give up on the idea that there is a "whole thing" you can agree or disagree with.
Who told you that communism is about the pursuit of "equality"? Who told you that "equality" for the sake of equality was the goal of the cultural revolution?
The cultural revolution was a nationalist project that specifically involved forms of unequal treatment. It involved the brutal suppression and persecution of ethnic minorities, for example.
It was also very much framed as a virtuous project. Outside of ethnic minorities, most of those targeted for persecution were targeted for their perceived class backgrounds. At the core of a lot of these persecutions was a desire for vengeance, and a belief that morality could not be satisfied without vengeance. The people who had suffered were entitled to vengeance against their abusers, and failing that against their entire "kind" (dehumanization was a common feature of the cultural revolution and its persecutions, the idea that certain kinds of people were simply less moral or less human). These people were specifically not equals, they could not be allowed to just exist and assimilate peacefully into the national body, not until the good people, the virtuous people, had been allowed to take the vengeance they deserved.
No communist regime has ever laboured under the belief that its policies are intended to deliver a universally equal society. In some cases, the policies of communist regimes have been specifically aimed at reinforcing the social hierarchy, such as the Khmer Rogue banning marriages between people of different social strata. This is only "hypocritical" if you imagine that the goal is to immediately deliver some perfect utopian society, which it never was.
Ironically, if you want to find people in history who actually wanted to bring about some universal equality for all human beings, you'd be better off looking at dissenting Christian movements of early modern Engand, such as the early Quakers, Ranters and the Diggers. Marxists are almost universally materialists, the Marxist conception of equality is a material equality based on the ability to meet material needs. The type of equality you seem to be talking about is something else, and something that historically has only really existed as a form of intense spiritualization of everyday life found in certain religious movements.
I have a personal theory that the unmet need for spiritual connection and belonging within a community has been one of the most powerful (and dangerous) political forces of the past few hundred years. I think in most cases if you dig into the core of "utopian" politics and why people are drawn to it, you will not find an abstract desire for material equality or national supremacy or any other statement of belief, but a simple fear of alienation and a desire to be part of an authentic community. The real utopia is not just that everyone gets enough food to eat, but that everyone is part of a society where they are loved and valued enough to be considered worthy of having enough food to eat. The love is what people want, the food is a convenient side effect.
Last edited:
..?
Not necessarily. For example, the violent self-destructive drunk could be a hundred millionaire.
Absolutely hilarious argument to make when Donald "doesn't pay bills" Trump was president of the United States last year.
What percent of the time do you believe it works that way? You are suggesting exceptional circumstances.
You're talking about "power in society". You need to be fabulously wealthy or appointed by those who are to have any degree of individual power in society. Coming from and retaining modest means while having any significant degree of power is vanishingly rare
"Violent, self-destructive drunk" may be an exaggeration far from the norm, but it's not hard to consider that a great deal of people with societal and economic power are at best mediocrities who have been lucky enough to have privileges of wealth and social status (often inherited).
Disagree entirely. Wealth is not the only measure of power and influence.
Non-sequiter response. I'm not saying wealth is a measure of power, I'm pointing out that the powerful tend to be so because of wealth
I'd love several examples of people wielding significant individual social power without being wealthy or boosted by the wealthy. And consider that I'm American, where buying a congressman is relatively cheap
Weinstein was famously bad at his job on top of being a sex creep. Far as I can tell, wealth let him succeed accidentally
Do you believe it's a coincidence that the majority of our cabinet ministers in the UK came from the same specific club from an elite, exclusive private school? One in which they used to smash peoples' windows and then pay for the damages, knowing that reports wouldn't go anywhere.
Violent, self-destructive... check. Drunks, check, for several of them, including our Prime Minister. Exceedingly wealthy and powerful? Check.
Works what way? Are you saying that it's impossible for violent, self-destructive drunks (and, indeed, people with all manner of other undesirable dispositions) to own shares of Amazon or whatever? The primary means of vast wealth accumulation are bought and sold in a marketplace.
So let's deal with this one, because it's a bit yeesh.
There is one really awful grain of truth in this statement, and that grain of truth is that someone who is a violent self-destructive drunk has not become so of their own volition. Noone wakes up one day and decides to become a violent self-destructive drunk. That is a person who has lost control over their own life, and there is a whole combination of things that happened in that person's life to get them to that stage. Some of those things probably started before that person was even born.
When you see a person who is a violent, self-destructive drunk, you are seeing a person in need of help. You are almost certainly seeing a person who has been repeatedly failed by others, and who has probably been failed by quite a few "diligent professionals". You are seeing the result of a whole collection of societal failures, but above all you are seeing the results of powerlessness. You are seeing what people become when they have not been given the right tools or support they need to control their own lives. I mean this for everyone. Being rich does not guarantee you have been supported enough, it does not guarantee you have not been failed at some point in your life. It may increase the odds, but the factors that bring a person to that state are so complex that they really can happen to anyone.
So, here's the core of what you aren't understanding.
An ethic of equal power does not mean simply treating everyone the same, because even if we were to treat these two hypothetical people the same, one of them would still not have any real power or control within their own lives. The violent self-destructive drunk does not need to be given a seat on a corporate board, or to be appointed to some special government task force. They need help. They need resources and support and accommodation. The objective of an ethic of equal power is not to give random people responsibility they aren't equipped to handle, it does not even require everyone to have the same potential. The objective is to actually create the conditions required for people to have the same agency as is currently only enjoyed by a tiny minority, at least to the best of their ability.
And if someone genuinely doesn't want to work. If someone really, sincerely just enjoys getting drunk all the time, then so what? An industrial society does not require everyone in it to work. If the act of working has been so comprehensively stripped of joy or dignity that you're concerned noone will to do it without the threat of material deprivation, why has that been allowed to happen?
Last edited:
The funniest part is the fact that Authoritarian take over Capitalism so frequently they had to make a new category for it
Like, if susceptibility to Authoritarianism is the bench mark, all economic constructs would fail
"They gotta be whipped into shape. They gotta be punished for not measuring up to my standards. Do they think they're better than me?!"
Apologies, we interrupt...whatever the hell is being argued about for an important announcement for at least some workers rights
Perfect. Now we just have to wait a bit for all the unsafe scab versions to rotate off shelves and we're good to go.
Wonder if they'll start putting their name back on all their products
Wonder if they'll start putting their name back on all their products