It is true that I haven’t really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don’t want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don’t have the time.
I think you have a point, yes, though I disagree with it personally. That isn’t to take away from your thought process or personal experiences or evaluations. The why of that disagreement takes a good long while to explain adequately, but I’ll do my best.
For starters, though I identify myself chiefly as an anti-sectarian Leftist, I do ultimately find myself agreeing more with Marxism than Anarchism. Just my own personal conclusions after learning and reading theory. I try not to only give Marxist recommendations because a comrade is a comrade, and the reason I am anti-sectarian is because I believe we need to build a mass workers’ movement of any sort before we can get to debating the finer details, though I still agree more with Marxist organizational methods in the short term.
It isn’t as much a concrete point like “having a police”, but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don’t need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it.
This is extremely close to Marx’s Historical Materialism! That’s why I recommended Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, actually. The core concept is that environments shape people, who then reshape their environments, which then reshape the people who again reshape their environments. Very cool to see you get close to it!
So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the “core” of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the “core”. The “core” is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core.
Yes and no. My primary criticism of this section is that it doesn’t specifically analyze how this consolidation happens. It can happen, but may still be designed against. More later.
Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn’t as similar and an “attack” on the “core” isn’t an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven’t paid them.
No real disagreements here. I would say it’s pretty accurate and similar to what other leftists have stated, if in different language.
In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
This is what I tend to take issue with. Under Capitalism, the State is a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie suppresses the Proletariat. This State is weilded by the Bourgeoisie, as the Bourgeoisie have all of the power, thus the will of the few oppresses the many.
However, what happens if the majority democratically operate this State? It has power, yes, but properly designed and democratically operated, it does not necessarily stand to reason that it would result in oppression of the majority like Capitalism. That’s why I asked for specifics, actually!
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it’s people.
Marxists entirely agree with this, but believe that once Capitalism is thoroughly erradicated, there is nothing to protect against, and thus no need for standing armies or other such dangerous elements. Until then, however, some form of State is necessary to protect the revolution, though it must be controlled by the Workers.
Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and “sneaks” exploitation in.
No real “disagreement,” other than I don’t actually believe Capitalism sneaks anything, it just convinces Workers the alternatives are worse.
But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the “core”. (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the “core”) While any liberal state, enables the “core” to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn’t. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the “core” and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the “core” in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by “small” actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables “small” local exploitation.
I am not sure a follow. What is an “authoritarian Communist state” and what is a “liberal Communist state?” How are they mechanically different, other than labels?
I just don’t see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
Marxists and Anarchists both agree that Revolution is necessary.
I don’t see how to escape this shit.
A mass worker movement, comrade!
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
Not stupid at all, in my opinion. There’s a lot of thought there, but I believe this thought could be much sharper and more pointed if you engaged with theory. Even if you disagree with much of it, by connecting your thoughts to the collective works of centuries of leftists and their findings, you can come to find agreement with other leftists and organize.
I think you have done a lot of thinking, but haven’t really engaged much with Marxism or Anarchism with regards to philisophy.
For Marxism, check out Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.
For Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is good.
The “Human Nature” issue is one that every leftist movement has had to engage with and “solve.”
It is true that I haven’t really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don’t want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don’t have the time.
I think you have a point, yes, though I disagree with it personally. That isn’t to take away from your thought process or personal experiences or evaluations. The why of that disagreement takes a good long while to explain adequately, but I’ll do my best.
For starters, though I identify myself chiefly as an anti-sectarian Leftist, I do ultimately find myself agreeing more with Marxism than Anarchism. Just my own personal conclusions after learning and reading theory. I try not to only give Marxist recommendations because a comrade is a comrade, and the reason I am anti-sectarian is because I believe we need to build a mass workers’ movement of any sort before we can get to debating the finer details, though I still agree more with Marxist organizational methods in the short term.
This is extremely close to Marx’s Historical Materialism! That’s why I recommended Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, actually. The core concept is that environments shape people, who then reshape their environments, which then reshape the people who again reshape their environments. Very cool to see you get close to it!
Yes and no. My primary criticism of this section is that it doesn’t specifically analyze how this consolidation happens. It can happen, but may still be designed against. More later.
No real disagreements here. I would say it’s pretty accurate and similar to what other leftists have stated, if in different language.
This is what I tend to take issue with. Under Capitalism, the State is a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie suppresses the Proletariat. This State is weilded by the Bourgeoisie, as the Bourgeoisie have all of the power, thus the will of the few oppresses the many.
However, what happens if the majority democratically operate this State? It has power, yes, but properly designed and democratically operated, it does not necessarily stand to reason that it would result in oppression of the majority like Capitalism. That’s why I asked for specifics, actually!
Marxists entirely agree with this, but believe that once Capitalism is thoroughly erradicated, there is nothing to protect against, and thus no need for standing armies or other such dangerous elements. Until then, however, some form of State is necessary to protect the revolution, though it must be controlled by the Workers.
No real “disagreement,” other than I don’t actually believe Capitalism sneaks anything, it just convinces Workers the alternatives are worse.
I am not sure a follow. What is an “authoritarian Communist state” and what is a “liberal Communist state?” How are they mechanically different, other than labels?
Marxists and Anarchists both agree that Revolution is necessary.
A mass worker movement, comrade!
Not stupid at all, in my opinion. There’s a lot of thought there, but I believe this thought could be much sharper and more pointed if you engaged with theory. Even if you disagree with much of it, by connecting your thoughts to the collective works of centuries of leftists and their findings, you can come to find agreement with other leftists and organize.
Did that answer your questions?