Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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?