poVoq
mod
link
fedilink
6
edit-2
8d

No, some aspects of socialism overlap with (left) anarchism, but we do not have silly concepts like a natural progression from socialism to communism like some MLs believe.

Most anarchists believe in the marketplace of ideas, meaning that multiple systems can co-exist in parallel and that over time the ones providing the best conditions will attract the most participants.

@snek_boi
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
8d

Most anarchists believe in the marketplace of ideas, meaning that multiple systems can co-exist in parallel and that over time the ones providing the best conditions will attract the most participants.

This is interesting because it means both that some of the current social arrangements have endured because of their attractiveness and some of them are being tested.

I wonder about the relationship between reflective social truths and broader methodologically valid truths.

For example, a reflective social truth is capitalism’s profit incentive: the social arrangement creates the phenomenon. In other words, people make it true. Conversely, people make it false by not acting out that social arrangement. An example of a broader methodologically valid truth is the existence of Neptune, or the abundance of hydrogen in the universe. These are truths regardless of social arrangements. Of course, broader truths can be changed by social arrangements, as in the case of the capitalocene.

My question, then, is how the marketplace of ideas and their attractiveness relate to reflective social truths and broader truths. Should these two types of truths be dealt with differently? Or are they fundamentally the same? What does methodological validity mean in this marketplace of ideas, if anything? Are there things such as mass delusions?

I like that the view of the marketplace broadly aligns with neoinstitutional views regarding the struggle between groups. It is this struggle that determines social arrangements.

poVoq
mod
link
fedilink
38d

A large body of the theoretical works of Anarchism precisely deals with revealing what you call “broader” truths (and social dynamics) hidden behind “reflective social” truths. “Debt, the first 5000 years” by the Anarchist David Graeber for example deconstructs the “reflective social” truth of money very well and is a highly recommend read.

Personally, I believe a new system can only “win” against capitalism if it is able to deconstruct the hidden false assumptions in it that are essential for it to have become a “reflective social truth”. Marx’s theories of surplus labor and worker alienation are a vital but sadly insufficient part of that.

Soviet Snake
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
8d

Yes and no, according to Marxist theory, socialism or the dictstorship of the proletariat is the previous step where you build and improve your means of production, develop a counter superstructure to the previous capitalist one and fix certain issues regarding social inequalities, before reaching what is known as a classless society, or also called communism, anarchism or anarchocommunism. Anarchism does not agree on this, though, since authority for it is inherently wrong and malign, therefore it calls for a direct transition between capitalism and classless society.

Regarding social democracy, you should be opposed because it is not socialism in any way, social democracy means liberalism which means capitalism, and the bourgeoisie will never achieve anything more than the bare survival of the proletariat.

Also, you may be confusing social democracy witj democratic socialism maybe? They have similar names but different praxis.

social democracy means liberalism which means capitalism

Maybe I’m wrong, iirc social democracy is left of liberalism. Like not left of it by very much, but slightly. And then like Democratic socialism is left of that.

Pardon me, I mean:

Step zero Capitalism

Step one social democracy

Step 2 socialism

Step 3 communism

While social Democrats might not want socialism, just co-op the movement/party / whatever and just transition it to socialism?

Domoŝomo
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
7d

For my understanding of it, social democracy is the idea that the existing capitalist controlled state can be gradually reformed into a worker controlled socialist state. This depends upon the capitialists which control the economy and the state to be willing to surrender their control, that is to say the source of their wealth, their capital. To my knowledge of history, in practice they have not been willing to do this, and frankly this is consistant, as a lot of their ideological literature regards the working class, the masses, the mob, the passive citizen, as subhuman.

The fundamental problem with this is that any conceits given to the working class can easily be repealed or sabotaged, providing the conservatives a basis for claiming that “it didnt work”, this has happened many times already.

The only way to make them surrender power is to leave them with no other option, to seize control and force them, and that. is a dictatorship. of the proletariat.

@NormieGirl@lemmy.perthchat.org
creator
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
7d

The fundamental problem with this is that any conceits given to the working class can easily be repealed or sabotaged, providing the conservatives a basis for claiming that “it didnt work”, this has happened many times already.

Thanks. Povoq vid had a good example of this

poVoq
mod
link
fedilink
18d

As for the other part of your question: social democracy and working though electoral reforms are mostly a scam, for why see this interesting discussion I shared here earlier: https://lemmy.ml/post/383181

Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!

Rules:

  1. Be respectful
  2. Don’t be a nazi
  3. Argue about the point and not the person
  4. This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.

See also:

  • 0 users online
  • 1 user / day
  • 10 users / week
  • 52 users / month
  • 125 users / 6 months
  • 1.52K subscribers
  • 375 Posts
  • 1.52K Comments
  • Modlog