Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

16

LostYonder wrote

Inherent in the western liberal idea is the christian construction of man as inherently a sinner, evil by nature who needs to be ruled over, guided, disciplined, and taught how to be good. They, by the very assumptions they have about humanity, require governance.

This is why anarchy is such a threat to them, as they see it as unleashing man's inherent evilness, thus such books/films as "lord of the flies" depict anarchy in a particular way - it is the liberal's worst nightmare. The liberal construction of anarchy is their justification for the need for "good" governance. Thus there is no basis of discussing with a liberal the merits of anarchy, it is beyond their comprehension as they are trapped within a tightly wound up tautological epistemology, trapped forever in their own circular reasoning...

12

FemIncel wrote

This probably isn't the best spot to be asking that for a real answer, not many of them here.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say it's because they don't trust or like themselves enough to make their own decisions. They feel comfortable having wolves make their decisions for them.

3

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Anarchist, why do you have such a liberal conception of the state and why do you not recognize that any anarchist society, by necessity, will require organizations that will, whether you call them state orgs or not, suppress the exploiting classes of the old society?

Here is the Marxist(leninist-maoist) conception of the state -

the state is an instrument of class rule, i.e the current state is a state of and run by the exploiters, for the purpose of ruling the exploited. The socialist state is a state run by the exploited - to eliminate the exploiters and the ideology of the exploiters.

If you do not have a state in some form or other - you cannot consolidate working class rule and you cannot reach communism. The bourgeoisie does not disappear overnight, and neither does it's ideology. Class struggle does not cease and end upon the establishment of working class rule - whatever form that may take, "stateless" socialism or not. It instead, intensifies.

If you do not suppress the resistance of the exploiters, or do not even give them reason to resist, what you will end up with is the re-establishment of the capitalist state and the destruction of any established communes.

While it is true that the USSR and the PRC did not handle things entirely correctly and what they constructed was a) influenced by bourgeois ideology and b) fell into the hands of a new capitalist class, they produced more valuable insight, were more material help to the people than practically any short-lived anarchist projects. Because of these experiments - we know where they went wrong and we know what we can do to combat this - communists are not "people who want to be ruled" - communists are "people who are sick of being ruled and see marxism-leninism-maoism as the best route to liberation".

What opposition do you have to the mass organizations that constitute a new state set up by peasants under the political leadership of Maoists to oppose capitalist governments, such as those in the Philippines and Peru? Who is being ruled by them? Who benefits by them?

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

But it is as long as people who would seek to rule you exist - To remove the power of the oppressors you must overpower them. How can it be any other way?

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

But to imply "there is no authority" is wrong - if there is no authority then the one who wishes to restore their authority can simply go and re-assert their authority. Naturally some authority must exist to stop the capitalist authority from re-asserting itself.

3

mofongo wrote

Your theory is shit, forget Mao, learn Marx, I mean actually learn it, no comments, no memes, his actual books and articles (the manifesto doesn't count).

Also, Peru? Are you talking about Shining Path? That just shows desperation to having something, is it so hard to admit that socialism never existed?

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

"Not Marxist" doesn't mean "liberal". Marx aint the be all, end all of ideology.

How many times have states been seized in the name of communism? How many times did this actually result in communism?

I'll take my chances with statelessness than begin yet another bloody and slow march towards reviving capitalism.

Break the pattern. Marx was wrong.

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote (edited )

To regard the state as an instrument of oppression without noting who's oppression is to have a liberal, idealist conception of the state that obscures class relations.

What is your issue with current revolutionary communist movements in the poorest parts of the world? Would you like to take it up with the people involved with them?

Certainly Marx was wrong on many aspects - but what issue do you take with the millions upon millions of people who were and are involved in genuine communist revolutionary movements and benefit from them? Why don't you go pose this question to them? Why do you seek to limit communism to a movement of leaders, rather than a movement of people? Why do you outright ignore the mass element and only bring it up with false concern?

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Oppression has a class character. Do you oppose oppression of the landlords, of the capitalists, of the reactionaries?

5

Defasher wrote

Self defense isn't oppression, fam.

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Self defense implies there is someone who would seek to attack you and will not relent - call it what you like, but all the same it constitutes a shift in power relations - no longer can the attacker assert their dominance as an equal or greater force has hit back at them.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

Your argument makes no sense and seems to be an attempt to confuse the issue. Rulers are good because landlords are bad? No.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Fascism is just as bad as anti-fascism, anarchism is just as bad as capitalism, really the only thing left for you to do is become a liberal and wallow in a sense of negative peace. At least then you will have the moral high ground and never have to oppress anyone.

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Are you an anarchist who has never experienced genuine oppression or are you a petit-bourgeois liberal who is afraid of the rule of the poorest sections of society over the rest

What respect should i have for someone who doesn't respect my humanity. Why should i give a fuck about some cop who kills people in my community, who makes them homeless, who enforces the oppression of private property, of capital? Why should i care about the wellbeing of a slumlord who charges me extortionate rates and doesn't care if i'm homeless or not?

Seriously, what the fuck are you fighting if not against oppression and oppressors. Who are you fighting for. What are you doing in concrete terms. Who the fuck are you helping with this rhetoric of "please consider the feelings of the nazis, the landlords, the police and the bosses.".

Anarchists, why are you counter-revolutionaries?

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

So many strawmen. Anarchists are on the front lines dealing with cops, slumlords and fascists everyday. You lot just want the cops to work for your party. And every time anarchists lead a revolution, MLs teamed up with fascists to murder us... because you'd rather have a fascist state than no state.

Don't accuse anarchists of supporting the police, it's ludicrous.

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote (edited )

And so are communists. You haven't said anything of what you make of existing revolutionary movements lead by communists, such as in the Philippines or in India, or in Turkey. Instead you wish to pursue a point about why communists "want to be ruled" just like "fascists, monarchists, conservatives" etc. I do not dispute that anarchists do good work, and i hate ML revisionists who claim china to be "socialist", Cuba as "socialist", Venezuela "socialist" Norway "socialist" etc etc, who abhor all criticism of Stalin, of the past, who disregard the imperialist ambitions of Russia and China.

Ultimately I like anarchists more than most MLs, but I don't have much interest in being ruled, i'm more interested in liberation and making it so that me and people around me don't have to struggle to survive, and that the world doesn't burn, that the entire population of the world doesn't drown, die in nuclear war, etc etc.

I do apologize if i got annoyed, engaged in personal attacks - but it's rather tiring seeing these arguments again and again while hardly seeing any engagement with the real work done by ordinary communists, who are actually real genuine people and not people too ignorant to see that they are being ruled, or whatever.

2

mofongo wrote

Revolutions lead by communists are counter-revolutionary by definition. The revolution can only come by working class action to actually be communist, one could even argue that you don't need communists to achieve communism.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

What do you mean by 'communist'? Anarchists are communists too, last I checked. And anarchism predates Marxism.

I'm from Catalonia. If you want to know what I think of MLs, ask any of the anarchists MLs helped the fascists murder to destroy our revolutionary stateless society. Oh, wait...

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

What do you think of existing revolutionary movements. I do not care what you think of what happened in the past. Tell me what you think of the work done by Maoists in the philippines. Simple question.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

Idk enough about them to answer. Are they trying to seize the state and install themselves as rulers, creating a repeat of the USSR? What are their goals?

Usually the revolution is fought by genuine communists and then they're all killed by bourgie opportunists like Lenin who use the revolution to give themselves power.

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote (edited )

Here we go :)

They want to end imperialist rule over the Philippines, they want to overthrow and put an end to semi-feudal semi-colonial rule, they want to build the people's revolutionary army, people's self defense, to implement agrarian reform, to ensure sustainability, to put an end to deforestation, pollution, etc - to ensure self-determination for oppressed nations, to advance the revolutionary emancipation of women, LGBT folks, etc etc, to build schools, hospitals, to end homelessness, you know, that sort of stuff :)

The documentaries i linked at the end of my second post show it best, lol. Let me link them again ( you will need to enable subtitles for Buhay Komunista, the first link )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zgs6y8JS98

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBpGU9ykl9c

If you do not want to watch documentaries, it is also outlined here https://www.reddit.com/r/RevPH/wiki/index and you can ask people on that subreddit, many of whom are involved in the movement on the ground, what they do, what they are fighting for, etc. I assure you none of them are interested in murdering anarchists or teaming up with fascists.

Also if you look here http://www.redspark.nu/en/category/peoples-war/philippines/ there is a lot of news articles from the party and organizations associated with it, and on the actions carried out by the party, by the NPA (New Peoples Army), the NDFP (National Democratic Front of the Philippines), and by mass organizations (feminist orgs, workers orgs, farmers orgs, student orgs, christians for national liberation orgs, etc etc )

Also of special note is that most if not all genuine modern communist movements, the leader isn't really in any prominent position in the media or has any real special authority, and they change often and in the philippines in particular here there's no personality cults, as far as i know. Nor india or turkey. The party there in the philippines has split and reconstituted itself multiple times over issues of opportunism and counter-revolution - which certainly shows it is messy, yes, as is class struggle and as is life, but shows genuine commitment to revolution also that it has not degenerated into a counter-revolutionary party

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote (edited )

In fact, let us go further back and somewhat briefly take from this text - An investigation into the peasant movement in Hunan by Mao

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm#s8

the methods used by the peasants to hit the landlords politically are as follows:

....

"Crowning" the landlords and parading them through the villages..

Locking up the landlords in the county jail..

"Banishment". The peasants have no desire to banish the most notorious criminals among the local tyrants and evil gentry, but would rather arrest or execute them. Afraid of being arrested or executed, they run away. In counties where the peasant movement is well developed, almost all the important local tyrants and evil gentry have fled, and this amounts to banishment...

Execution. This is confined to the worst local tyrants and evil gentry and is carried out by the peasants jointly with other sections of the people.

Taking over these old armed forces is one way in which the peasants are building up their own armed forces. A new way is through the setting up of spear corps under the peasant associations. The spears have pointed, double-edged blades mounted on long shafts, and there are now 100,000 of these weapons in the county of Hsianghsiang alone. Other counties like Hsiangtan, ... have 70,000-80,000, or 50,000-60.000. or 30,000-40,000 each. Every county where there is a peasant movement has a rapidly growing spear corps. These peasants thus armed form an "irregular household militia". This multitude equipped with spears, which is larger than the old armed forces mentioned above, is a new-born armed power the mere sight of which makes the local tyrants and evil gentry tremble. The revolutionary authorities in Hunan should see to it that it is built up on a really extensive scale among the more than twenty million peasants in the seventy-five counties of the province, that every peasant, whether young or in his prime, possesses a spear, and that no restrictions are imposed as though a spear were something dreadful. Anyone who is scared at the sight of the spear corps is indeed a weakling! Only the local tyrants and evil gentry are frightened of them, but no revolutionaries should take fright.

This all sounds terribly like a dictatorship of the exploited over the exploiters, does it not? What is your opposition to this? Who is being ruled here? Who's rule are you opposing?

also here on the work of the communists in the philippines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBpGU9ykl9c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zgs6y8JS98

far from ML(M)s "wanting" to be ruled - the aim is to make the entirety of the oppressed classes into rulers to eliminate the rulers, to take up the gun to abolish the gun.

2

LostYonder wrote

The idea that "the aim is to make the entirety of the oppressed classes into rulers to eliminate the rulers" is utterly nonsensical - create rulers to get rid of rulers??? how can that make any logical sense?

As far as I know about Chinese history, Maoist China was extremely oppressive to everyone - peasant and bourgeoisie alike. Even party members lived in such a state of fear and surveillance, that one could hardly call it revolutionary.

With a large leap into the abyss one might argue, as you seem to, that such oppression was required to do away with the bourgeois tendencies in society and was perhaps a better alternative than had things continued under the KMT, but given the nature of China today it obviously failed in doing away with the bourgeoisie. The rule of the oppressed became just another system of oppressive rulers that did not do away with capitalism.

In short, the failure of Maoist China was its reproduction of the bourgeois state, not its erasure, it just created new rulers/oppressors.

I was in Maoist China, I've seen it first hand. There was nothing communist about it.

Like the liberal state, the ML(M) state is a mechanism of advancing and protecting the interests of a few over the many. Both imagine anarchy is their antithesis, their greatest fear. Liberalism counters it by meaningless reforms to foster greater "inclusion", making people believe they have a stake in the state. ML(M)ism counters it through enforced conversion, surveillance, and fear.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Don't confuse direct action by the people for the Lenin/Stalin/Mao dictatorship personality cult.

Those 3 were rulers. Peasants killing their rulers does not make the peasants rulers.

That's like saying we're rulers for fighting back when cops beat us.

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Don't confuse your great man theory with communism, a society based on the rule of the masses.

What does that make the peasants if not masters of their own society?

If you do infact, enforce your rule over cops, you do become a ruler - no longer do the police have authority over you, you have authority over them. The aim is to eliminate the police so that there is no need for authority. But eliminating police is not as simple as throwing rocks at them and declaring communism.

4

Defasher wrote

I'm not critiquing communism, I'm critiquing vertical hierarchy.

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

this does not even necessarily exist in maoist oriented mass organizations such as those run by peasants in revolutionary communist movements today - the organisations themselves are autonomous except for being under the political leadership of the communist party - which itself must keep itself and be kept at the level, guidance, oversight, i.e proletarian outlook of the broad masses

certainly a certain amount of hierarchy exists, but ultimately to be entirely against hierarchy is nothing more than petit-bourgeois individualism and wastes more time than it saves, and will not result in better decisions 9/10 times. This shit is time-sensitive and what we do is proven to work efficiently and is being improved upon constantly.

Of note here is the mass-line and cultural revolution and the overall focus of Maoism on the masses - we have learned from the commandist style of the past and attempted to rectify this.

2

Defasher wrote

If there are no rulers in your ideology then idk what you're defending exactly.

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

defending society from the capitalists who would seek to reassert themselves, is what. they still exist and will not vanish of their own accord.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

You don't need rulers to organise militias to kill capitalist counterrevs. Anarchists don't oppose organisations, we just arrange them so that no one is all powerful.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

If you drive police out of an area - you have enforced your dominance over said police - How is there not authority involved if the police are not allowed, are not able to enter the neighborhood in question?

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

But you must necessarily whether explicitly in writing or non-verbally set laws against fascism, against racism, against rapists, etc. Otherwise nothing has really improved.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

it's the same thing, lol. whether the death penalty against rapists is a rule or a law makes no difference, in both cases the rapist ends up dead

1

happysmash27 wrote

Anarchist, why do you have such a liberal conception of the state and why do you not recognize that any anarchist society, by necessity, will require organizations that will, whether you call them state orgs or not, suppress the exploiting classes of the old society?

I don't think one would need to do that if they just use a lot of micronations; I'm personally planning a place where if it ever is taken over by capitalists, one can just fork and split away.

3

sudo wrote

M-L here. None of us want to be "ruled." I want to have a say in the way the government is run.

8

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

sudo wrote

If you have a sufficient say in how a democracy is run, then you aren't being ruled.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

sudo wrote

There is no system where everyone can get what they want, because people's opinions will naturally conflict. So, someone is not going to have their way. And even if you choose to take no action when people disagree, that's still a choice to leave things the way they are, which will lead to someone not having their way anyways.

Besides, the US is a bourgeois democracy, so the people only have a choice between capitalist A and capitalist B. People are being ruled, but it's by the bourgeoisie, not by the system of democracy itself.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

sudo wrote

People can have their way and have differing opinions without controlling each other, by way of anarchy.

On some things, but on some things it will be if one person has their way, someone else will not, and vice versa. For example, a city decides it needs a new power plant. Some people want a coal power plant, but others want a solar power plant, because they don't want to contribute to climate change. Since neither side can get the other to agree, your logically bankrupt system decides to build both a coal and a solar power plant, to try to please everyone. Besides the problem of wasting resources by building two power plants where only one was needed, the solar power plant people did not get what they wanted, because the coal plant was built, and is contributing to climate change. Sometimes, saying "we'll do both" doesn't work, because what one person wants is for another person to not get what they want (and in this hypothetical case, they were justified in wanting that). Conflict is inevitable - some people will not get what they want. So, by your definition, that means every system, even anarchy, will end up with someone being "ruled."

What's the difference between choosing capitalist A or B and communist A or B?

The communists have the interests of the proletariat at heart, while the capitalists have the interests of the bourgeoisie at heart. The communists will make decisions which are far better for the vast majority of the people, and they would listen to what the people want. The situation isn't even close.

The communists are directly controlling the economy while the capitalists are doing it indirectly and discreetly? I don't like either situation, because both are fundamentally the same.

The major difference isn't control of the economy, it's the way in which things are produced. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie own the means of production, and they extract surplus value from the proletariat. Under communism, the workers collectively own their means of production, and they are not exploited. Overproduction due to an unplanned economy is just one of the problems with capitalism. Planning the economy is a good thing, because it prevents over or underproduction. Once again, not even remotely the same thing.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

sudo wrote

I don't like that example, for the only reason fossil fuel industries exist is capitalism, and it should be obvious that it is something anarchists are against.

I don't see why that invalidates the example. Not everyone living in an anarchist society would be an anarchist (at least, not for several decades after the revolution). There are some people who have swallowed capitalist propaganda that renewable energy isn't feasible, or is too unreliable, who would want a coal power plant. You'd have to deal with them in this scenario. If your answer is "Fuck them, they're wrong" (which I would agree with), then you'd be """ruling""" them.

But for the point as a whole, that people will not get their way in regards to building and development, this would be much less of a problem in a non-gentrifying, non-consumerist, non-progress oriented society where people have total freedom of movement, and where building is oriented toward need rather than profit. Those who wish to live in a less populated are can move to one, as well as vice versa.

I just chose building and development as an example, to illustrate a point - there are some situations where the desires of one group of people conflict with the desires of another group, such that if one group gets what they want, the other group will not get what they want. In this case, it wouldn't be solved by the coal power plant people moving somewhere else and building a coal power plant, because it would still be contributing to climate change, meaning the solar people would not have what they want (no polluting power plants anywhere). Plus, if people have to move somewhere else every time they disagree over something non-trivial, you're going to end up with lots of tiny towns with not enough people do to anything meaningful, because people disagree so damn often.

...so if people oppose building something in a specific place, you have to face them directly and consensus is forced.

Consensus is forced?! Dear me, that sounds a lot like someone's being ruled!

Whether they supposedly have the proletarian interests at heart or not doesn't matter when democracy is inherently not representative.

Not representative as in direct democracy, or not representative as in the will of the people isn't being represented?

It abstracts a divisive construct called politics and puts it primarily into the hands of power, something which attracts people who desire it, which is more often than not "bad" people.

Then make it so that all representatives are subject to recall. That way, if they abuse their power, the people can kick them out.

Authority ostracizes those who can do it harm and who do not abide it, which includes vagabonds for example, a lifestyle which will always be criminalized and oppressed by states due to the severe threat it poses.

Capitalist authority does that. In the case of communist authority, it would ostracize people like fascists, because they are actually evil fuckers who would do harm to everyone else. Also, I don't think vagabonds are a good example of people who could do harm to capitalists, because they never actually do anything to try to remove capitalists from power. I'd use revolutionary leftists as an example here.

I care less about a majority than I do every person.

Like I said before, the wants of every person cannot be accounted for, because some of their wants conflict.

The situation is of course close, only small aspects of a wide system are changed, namely economic ones.

No, the changes are massive.

Whether its a few rich people or a few not-rich people (bureaucracy) controlling the economy, it's mostly the same. The underlying political structure is largely indifferent.

The change is massive. The political structure (a democratic republic) is mostly the same, but in the communist case, the candidates for political office will actually have the interests of the masses at heart, so it makes a huge difference.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

10

Defasher wrote (edited )

How were Lenin and Mao not rulers?

1

[deleted] wrote

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

sudo wrote

You mean this part?

Engels expounds the same ideas in much greater detail and still more popularly. First of all he ridicules the muddled ideas of the Proudhonists, who call themselves "anti-authoritarians", i.e., repudiated all authority, all subordination, all power. Take a factory, a railway, a ship on the high seas, said Engels: is it not clear that not one of these complex technical establishments, based on the use of machinery and the systematic co-operation of many people, could function without a certain amount of subordination and, consequently, without a certain amount of authority or power?

"... When I counter the most rabid anti-authoritarians with these arguments, they only answer they can give me is the following: Oh, that's true, except that here it is not a question of authority with which we vest our delegates, but of a commission! These people imagine they can change a thing by changing its name...."

Having thus shown that authority and autonomy are relative terms, that the sphere of their application varies with the various phases of social development, that it is absurd to take them as absolutes, and adding that the sphere of application of machinery and large-scale production is steadily expanding, Engels passes from the general discussion of authority to the question of the state.

"Had the autonomists," he wrote, "contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction." (p.39)

I don't see what's wrong with that. Engels pretty much summed up everything that I think is wrong with anarchism.