>anarkiddy reinvents democratic centralism from first principles
Also this picture wasn't made by a capitalist corp, its made by an etsy or something. Its not necessarily meant to make a point, but I take issue with anti-work anarchy more than other strains of anarchism when it comes to whether it will actually work. Even in the pre-industrial days people had to work in an organized fashion, right? So how come some anarchists want to eschew that entirely, and instead have everything with voluntary labor. That's plain not going to work with an advanced modern society, let alone an agrarian one. Its simply blind utopianism. People should be more sensible than this. I agree with what anarchism is trying to achieve, but its simply not a good method towards that end. Ending all hierarchies between everyone is not a bad idea on paper, but is it feasible? Well if you want to increase quality of life in doing so then I'd say no.
I have a lot of disagreements with Marxist leninists, but they seem to at least be a bit more pragmatic than anarchists are. Still, I'd rather side with an anarchist even if they are utopian because I think marxist leninists societies have led to periods within them of distinct dystopianism.
>>1889045Doesn't democratic centralism have something with Marxist-leninism? It is when the vanguard party reaches an agreement in itself through democratic means, and only relay the agreed upon idea to the outside?
>>1889042>There needs to be a lawNope, and neither does any other basis of a class order or private property system intrinsically "need" to exist. Your claim is simply /pol/-tier state worship.
>>1889061There needs to be law and enforcement in place to prevent people from doing bad things to each other. Even if crime is dealt with somehow in anarchist societies, I don't think they should be dealt with based on the whims of the people. This stuff is subjective, so there should be an agreed upon standard to deal with this, which is why at the very least direct democracy is better, because it is closer to anarchism than representative democracy.
>>1889079>There needs to be law and enforcement in place to prevent people from doing bad things to each otherYes, we need a cabal of people who have extraordinary abilities to do bad things to other people to keep people from doing bad things to other people. It'll be totally alright, the organization says it's only going to do bad things to people who are doing bad things. Totally trustworthy!
>>1889052no. democratic centralism is when everyone in an organization debates what to do next, votes on a plan, and then commits to that plan 100% even if only 51% agreed to it, because if the 49% that voted against it doesn't commit to it, then they can't be relied upon, and are effectively sabotaging the organization.
In that logic, malatesta was too a an "democratic centralist", as well as most historical anarchist decision makings. The idea of total consensus, that the final resolution should appease everyone was not very famous, even in socialist orgs.
Even if you don't voted for something, you still should follow it, since the majority choose that something. Anarchism can be interpreted as "genuine democracy", "true democracy, developed to its logical extreme, can become a reality, under the conditions of a communal confederation", "nothing but true, pure democracy in its most extreme form".
>The average ordinary person can be driven to do or believe in horrible things in the right circumstance.
And a society that has underwent social revolution does not provide such a circumstance
>Why not settle for direct democracy
Direct democracy isn't incompatible with Anarchism, Anarchists advocate it
>There needs to be a law and some form of police, to protect the citizens.
How would police protect you any more than the workers militias advocated for by Anarchists? The only difference is that the police are beholden to the state bureacracy, an abstraction that could care less how they wield their power, whilst a workers militia is beholden to their community. As you imply, traditional police are separate from citizens, they are not integrated into the community like the workers militias.
>there will still need to be perhaps a limited amount of them to stop the edge cases.
Exactly, these will be edge cases, nothing more than the community will be able to collectively handle
Anarchism, like so many things can be summarized in one line: Freedom - yes. But for whom, to do what?
>>1889215He was. And the CNT also adopted the structure of the bolsheviks on their own. It's convergence of revolutionary strategies.
>>1889042>certain in an anarchist commune that things will work out fine? Why would you be certain an anarchist commune would work out fine given anarchisms complete failure in 200+ years of the workers movement?
Anarchism being older than marxism
>Why not settle for direct democracy or communalism insteadRetarded. Noone wants to sit around in another committee meeting doing direct democracy for basic things like clean water/housing etc
>There needs to be a law and some form of police, to protect the citizensLmao anarchism everyone
>Even if you could eliminate all of the things that would drive people to crime in the first place, there will still need to be perhaps a limited amount of them to stop the edge cases. Anarchists are retarded.
If capitalism was ever under serious threat again we'd probably need to build more prisons to throw liberals and fascists in
>>1889286>unironically rehearsing the received opinions of worldview Marxism in 2024>anarchists are retarded!The emotional performances of teenage children learning to justify the bourgeios order through the thin fiction of "worldview Marxism" have no value. You will never be a real leader so sit down and shut up.
>>1889364worldview marxism is just a LARP for insecure people who need a replacement for religion and don't actually give a fuck about taking a scientific view of things
>>1889364Ah yes, I am sure you have experience and can think outside cliches
As if I haven't seen the whole left in its totality
You are emotionally driven to tantrums and emotionally invested in anarchism
>>1889366Do you know scientists or scientific theory or philosophy of science? Or is science to you an emotionally charged word like democracy?
>>1889366Exactly. Unfortunately, worldview Marxism defined itself as Science from the starting gate. Their ideas are the ones in general circulation, the ones that generally come to mind when people think of Marx. And on the other hand we have "communists" who repeat Puritan talking points with Marxist flair.
>>1889413Bot, reported
>>1889414<Dühring’s success rested upon a strong desire within the workers’ movement for a Weltanschauung, or “worldview,” a comprehensive explanation of the world offering an orientation and answers to all questions. After the worst outgrowths of early capitalism had been eliminated and the everyday existence of the wage-dependent class within capitalism was somewhat secure, a specific Social Democratic workers’ culture developed: in workers’ neighborhoods there emerged workers’ sports clubs, workers’ choral societies, and workers’ education societies. Excluded from the exalted bourgeois society and bourgeois culture, there developed within the working class a parallel everyday life and educational culture that consciously attempted to distance itself from its bourgeois counterpart, but often ended up unconsciously mimicking it. And so it was that at the end of the nineteenth century August Bebel, the chairman of the SPD over the course of many years, was graciously honored in a manner similar to the way that Kaiser Wilhelm II was honored by the petit-bourgeoisie. Within this climate, there emerged the need for a comprehensive intellectual orientation that could be opposed to the dominant bourgeois values and worldview, in which the working class played no role or merely a subordinate role.You're retarded for needing or wanting propaganda to be true.
>>1889415I'm sure, Mr. Freethinker, that if you were to investigate yourself, you'd find most of that to be projection. A shadow.
>>1889417Reported for spam
>>1889416Instead of answering the question (do you know anything of the current discourse you refer to [science] you give me some 150 year old text.
Half-remembered and not digested
I so enjoy watching history warp as words pass from the lips of one to the ears of another. Imperfectly formed, half understood, poorly remembered
>IF goldtext THEN perform triangulation maneuver
Ackshually, that was Michael Heinrich, a historian of philosophy and political science whose work of decades concentrates on the critical study of the development of Marx's thought, from his 2013 An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Capital. Bye bye, ignorant incurious hazbot
hahahaha
My point still stands
You deserve some props for creativity, incurious I've never been called
Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.
>How, then, do things stand with freedom? In a polemic against the Menshevik's critics of the Bolshevik power in 1920, Lenin answered the claim of one of the critics - "So, gentlemen Bolsheviks, since, before the Revolution and your seizure of power, you pleaded for democracy and freedom, be so kind as to permit us now to publish a critique of your measures!" - with the acerbic: "Of course, gentlemen, you have all the freedom to publish this critique - but, then, gentlemen, be so kind as to allow us to line you up against the wall and shoot you!" This Leninist freedom of choice - not "Life or money!" but "Life or critique!" -, combined with Lenin's dismissive attitude towards the "liberal" notion of freedom, accounts for his bad reputation among liberals. Their case largely rests upon their rejection of the standard Marxist-Leninist opposition of "formal" and "actual" freedom: as even Leftist liberals like Claude Lefort emphasize again and again, freedom is in its very notion "formal," so that "actual freedom" equals the lack of freedom. That is to say, with regard to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?" - for him, in the above-quoted case of the Mensheviks, their "freedom" to criticize the Bolshevik government effectively amounted to "freedom" to undermine the workers' and peasants' government on behalf of the counterrevolution… Is today, after the terrifying experience of the Really Existing Socialism, not more than obvious in what the fault of this reasoning resides? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized situation in which the "objective" consequences of one's acts are fully determined ("independently of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves…"); secondly, the position of enunciation of such statements usurp the right to decide what yours acts "objectively mean," so that their apparent "objectivism" (the focus on "objective meaning") is the form of appearance of its opposite, the thorough subjectivism: I decide what your acts objectively mean, since I define the context of a situation (say, if I conceive of my power as the immediate equivalent/expression of the power of the working class, than everyone who opposes me is "objectively" an enemy of the working class). Against this full contextualization, one should emphasize that freedom is "actual" precisely and only as the capacity to "transcend" the coordinates of a given situation, to "posit the presuppositions" of one's activity (as Hegel would have put it), i.e. to redefine the very situation within which one is active. Furthermore, as many a critic pointed out, the very term "Really Existing Socialism," although it was coined in order to assert Socialism's success, is in itself a proof of Socialism's utter failure, i.e. of the failure of the attempt to legitimize Socialist regimes - the term "Really Existing Socialism" popped up at the historical moment when the only legitimizing reason for Socialism was a mere fact that it exists…
>Is this, however, the whole story? How does freedom effectively function in liberal democracies themselves? Although Clinton's presidency epitomizes the Third Way of the today's (ex-)Left succumbing to the Rightist ideological blackmail, his healthcare reform program would nonetheless amount to a kind of act, at least in today's conditions, since it would have been based on the rejection of the hegemonic notions of the need to curtail Big State expenditure and administration - in a way, it would "do the impossible." No wonder, than, that it failed: its failure - perhaps the only significant, although negative, event of Clinton's presidency - bears witness to the material force of the ideological notion of "free choice." That is to say, although the large majority of the so-called "ordinary people" were not properly acquainted with the reform program, the medical lobby (twice as strong as the infamous defense lobby!) succeeded in imposing on the public the fundamental idea that, with the universal healthcare, the free choice (in matters concerning medicine) will be somehow threatened - against this purely fictional reference to "free choice", all enumeration of "hard facts" (in Canada, healthcare is less expensive and more effective, with no less free choice, etc.) proved ineffective.
We are here at the very nerve center of the liberal ideology: the freedom of choice, grounded in the notion of the "psychological" subject endowed which propensities s/he strives to realize. And this especially holds today, in the era of what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call "risk society," 3 when the ruling ideology endeavors to sell us the very insecurity caused by the dismantling of the Welfare State as the opportunity for new freedoms: you have to change jobs every year, relying on short-term contracts instead of a long-term stable appointment. Why not see it as the liberation from the constraints of a fixed job, as the chance to reinvent yourself again and again, to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality? You can no longer rely on the standard health insurance and retirement plan, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for which you have to pay? Why not perceive it as an additional opportunity to choose: either better life now or long-term security? And if this predicament causes you anxiety, the postmodern or "second modernity" ideologist will immediately accuse you of being unable to assume full freedom, of the "escape from freedom," of the immature sticking to old stable forms… Even better, when this is inscribed into the ideology of the subject as the psychological individual pregnant with natural abilities and tendencies, then it's as if I were to automatically interpret all these changes as the results of my personality, not as the result of me being thrown around by the market forces.
>>1889537>>1889540>ZizekNah, German Idealism is not welcome here.
>>1889551poor glownonymos, don't be mean to him. He is trying. Stop having beef for nothing, lets chill out.
>>1889551I don't like him either
>>1889553I don't think I get your meaning. But when you interact with the text it's not a test of Zizek or me. It's yours.
>>1889551I imagine german idealism haters to look like bertrand russell and be the sorts who have never graduated from hume, still scratching at the walls of reality for solid ground.
>>1889296Not the Anon, however these are my thoughts:
>Why would you be certain an anarchist commune would work out fine given anarchisms complete failure in 200+ years of the workers movement? [\n]Anarchism being older than marxismI think the Anon is referencing the principle that most crime comes from the fruits of capitalist society, such as gang violence and theft. If we produce a society which does not perpetuate such principals, such as the rat-race for capital and endless scheming, it will produce an effect of lingering crime in a given time.
>Retarded. Noone wants to sit around in another committee meeting doing direct democracy for basic things like clean water/housing etc For one these aren't basic, and I actually do want to sit in these meetings, because it's my shit that we're taking about. I would imagine you care about your things to, no? If Johnny Appleseed runs his sewage treatment plant and contaminates your water, I'd care about that. But you're right, I imagine most people are lazy, which is why there will be representatives at the larger level.
<There needs to be a law and some form of police, to protect the citizens>Lmao anarchism everyone Yeah that'd be a pretty retarded statement coming from an Anarchist, but OP is clearly not, or atleast they got their doubts. So what do you mean here?
>If capitalism was ever under serious threat again we'd probably need to build more prisons to throw liberals and fascists inuygha what? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you even a leftist?
>>1889558I guess one last thing. If you can get over yourself and look at the text, you'll see that the interesting discussion is not in regard to freedom but totalitarianism. Freedom doesn't exist (totalitarianism neither but we largely already knew that). If you convince someone to do something, they'll convince themselves that they've talked themselves into it. So much for freedom of thought.
>>1889809>reifying power blah balhPeople don't necessarily
have to sit still for your persuasion, however. They do that mostly because they are trained to do so. You can be operantly conditioned out of dominating behaviors and thoughts just as easily.
>>1890121I sincerely doubt we are talking about the same thing / concept.
>>1890228>If you convince someone to do something, they'll convince themselves that they've talked themselves into it. So much for freedom of thought."x exists in nature, therefore its every florescence is its own sacred warrant" here applied to the idea of command. Which reactionary thinker are you reciting?
>>1889042>How am I supposed to be certainHow are you supposed to be certain of anything? People naturally believe they want peace and safety when in fact we need instability to survive.
Stop handwringing and just do it, see what happens. Peace-lovers will sullenly permit a state of constant war which irreparably disrupts the lives of those caught up in it, but any kind of experimentation is seen as too risky to attempt. I straight up don't care what hypothetically may happen, leave it up to fate.
>>1890255I was making a purely descriptive statement.
So you turned
>[…] Freedom doesn't exist (totalitarianism neither but we largely already knew that). If you convince someone to do something, they'll convince themselves that they've talked themselves into it. So much for freedom of thought.into
>x exists in nature, therefore its every florescence is its own sacred warrantAm I getting that right? Seems to me you're the one obsessed with normative statements. I don't even know what a sacred warrant is, truthfully.
The supreme vice is shallowness. I can abide almost any other.
>>1891923As someone who really enjoys a good zinger
this attitude points to something problematic
>>1889045>>1891918you don't understand what democratic centralism is
>>1891929>disagrees>provides no argumentchad
>>1889042Anarchism is poorly thought out. You need an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to enforce laws and levy taxes. The big problem with anarchism is that it relies too much on human generosity. The ideal society is one in which everybody has what they need completely independently of what others think they deserve. Rule of law is essential for this, as is the welfare state.
>>1889084>It'll be totally alrightYes it will. The point of a democratic republic is that there are limits on the state's power. It is only able to perform violence under specific and predictable circumstances, to a specific and predictable degree, and only to enforce laws that are passed with the consent of the governed via democracy.
It's important to remember what the alternatives to democracy and rule of law actually are. There is no option to just have everyone never do anything wrong. There will always be defectors in the prisoner's dilemma. The real question is whether the punishments for defectors should have to follow rules or not. The two alternatives to democracy are dictatorship and mob rule. In a dictatorship, the government can do whatever it pleases with you, and you have no rights. Read The Count of Monte Cristo. The protagonist gets arrested by surprise and thrown in prison for life when he doesn't even know what his crime was, without any sort of fair trial. That's not an ideal justice system. In a system of vigilante justice where "the community" punishes people, you get similar levels of tyranny. You get lynch mobs and witch burnings. You still have no rights, you still have no trial, you're just at the whim of the people's generosity, which will run out on anyone who did anything legitimately objectionable.
Unique IPs: 15