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The fundamental problem with this is that any conceits given to the working class can easily be repealed or sabotaged, providing the conservatives a basis for claiming that “it didnt work”, this has happened many times already.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.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !anarchism@lemmy.ml
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator