Worst leftist arguments?

[fa2991]

There are a few that piss me off. For example when people get angry when someone uses the word "communist" to describe the USSR, etc. and explains that "Communism has no state or currency, so THERE!" as though there's a communist party in the world that would make a nation communist right away if they won power.

[zimmerwald1915]

Are we talking about arguments used by "leftists" against other "leftists" or by "leftists" to convince non-"leftists"?

[fa2991]

Either one.

[Jazzhands]

MLs:

pretty much anything a Hoxhaist says, however rational, gets twisted and distorted around their insane Mccarthyistic "anti-revisionist" paranoia until you either are falling out of your chair laughing or banging your head against a desk in frustration because these people aren't even on the same level of reality.

"But Stalin only killed 100,000-or-whatever people!" That's still a big fucking number, and it doesn't excuse or justify what killings actually happened.

"we should defend North Korea because they're struggling against imperialism and if you don't defend them you must work for the CIA!!" False dichotomy, lesser of two evils, baseless accusations, the list goes on and on. Also, I will remind you that you support the cartoonish dictatorship that built this.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/11/ryugyong-hotel-lg.jpg

Anarchists: "Lenin was a traitor to the revolution cuz Kronstadt." Kronstadt was bad, yes. But Lenin led the revolution. It'd be like calling Mao a traitor to the CPC.

Trots: "Stalin was responsible for the party dictatorship but Lenin wasn't!" One party state. Created by Lenin. Not Stalin.

[DaComm]

Capitalist: "I deserve the money because I built the commodity with my bare machines!" Do I even need to explain the idiocy of this?

[Jazzratt]

Capitalist: "I deserve the money because I built the commodity with my bare machines!" Do I even need to explain the idiocy of this? I don't think you quite grasped the concept of this thread.

[ContrarianLemming]

Kronstadt

need I say more?

[Os Cangaceiros]

lol kronstadt whoz with me?

[ContrarianLemming]

lol kronstadt whoz with me?

oh, and Mackno

MACHNO!

and for ML's

HIERARCHY = EFFICIANCY!

[Rusty Shackleford]

i support the slaughtering of all anarchists who supported the kkkron$tadt mutiny.


my name is napoleon and i hate anarchists.

[communard71]

That Trotsky would have been just as bad as Stalin, maybe even worse. I hate that one.

[fa2991]

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/11/ryugyong-hotel-lg.jpg

That's either the worst building ever or the best roller coaster.

[Kuppo Shakur]

People are inherently good.

[Bright Banana Beard]

omg! they're having a revolution right now, therefore it's proletarian of the dictatorship!!!1! *mouth foam*

[Nolan]

"ML's think hierarchy just magically translates into efficiency!"

[NoOneIsIllegal]

guns are bad, mkay?
- liberals

[M-26-7]

The worst leftist argument, hands down, is to justify all the shit done in the name of socialism by attempting to show that said shit is marginally less shitty than all the shit done in the name of capitalism (and imperialism, etc.). As if working people are really going to stick their necks out and spend their energy fighting for a marginally less shitty world.

[BeerShaman]

oh, and Mackno

MACHNO!

and for ML's

HIERARCHY = EFFICIANCY!
What about Machno?

[Rusty Shackleford]

What about Machno?
Makhno
Machno
Macho
Machismo
Anarchism = machismo
:D

[Invincible Summer]

Not really an argument, but I'm getting tired of communists making Nostradamus-like predictions about what a communist society "will be like." I mean, basic organization and structure, sure, but going into "There will be no peanut allergies! The removal of bourgeois snack production will ensure this!" is a bit much

[Jazzratt]

Not really an argument, but I'm getting tired of communists making Nostradamus-like predictions about what a communist society "will be like." I mean, basic organization and structure, sure, but going into "There will be no peanut allergies! The removal of bourgeois snack production will ensure this!" is a bit much On a similar, slightly offtopic, note I really hate people you're arguing with who expect you to do this. I've been asked to make all sorts of utterly inane predictions on how xyz specific industry is going to work.

[ed miliband]

On a similar, slightly offtopic, note I really hate people you're arguing with who expect you to do this. I've been asked to make all sorts of utterly inane predictions on how xyz specific industry is going to work.

Especially if the person you're arguing with accuses you of being utopian because you don't have a clear blueprint for how everything will be.

[Rusty Shackleford]

last 3 posts are the best in this thread.

there is no telling of the future. only an understanding of past examples of socialist construction and a theoretical framework for the future built off of the analysis of those past examples of socialist construction.

[Jazzratt]

Seriously you haven't lived until you've tried to explain to someone that just because you don't have a plan for how babysitting will work (fucking seriously) it's not inevitable that your entire system will collapse.

[Quail]

Not really an argument, but I'm getting tired of communists making Nostradamus-like predictions about what a communist society "will be like." I mean, basic organization and structure, sure, but going into "There will be no peanut allergies! The removal of bourgeois snack production will ensure this!" is a bit much

I hate this one too. I think it's especially stupid when people think that either communism or technology will solve ALL our problems MAGICALLY.

[Rusty Shackleford]

a lord asks a rising entrepeneur in 1745

"hey man, seems like you have a pretty out there idea. i mean, how can society go on if god is not inherently part of government? and isnt this deal of trading land and military support among other things a pretty nifty idea? its been working for us for a millenia"

"well, it is something new, so it will seem radical."

"whats it called again?"

"capitalism"

"so, how will road making work?"

"dude, its not like we have actually achieved capitalism, how am i supposed to know?"

"ha! i knew it, you capitalists are all fools if you cant even figure out how roads will be built if you fools ever got power."

and the rest is history. capitalists got power, and roads were still built.

now its our turn.

and no, i dont know how specifically roads will be built in the future.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Makhno
Machno
Macho
Machismo
Anarchism = machismo
:D
I'm an anarchist and I make Judy Garland look butch.

[manic expression]

Also, I will remind you that you support the cartoonish dictatorship that built this.
Ironically, this is one of the worst arguments I've heard in a long time. You oppose the DPRK because you don't like their architecture. How deep. By the same token, do you support the Roman Empire because the Pantheon is really nice?

I hear bad leftist arguments all the time, but if pacifism counts among the left, that would probably take the cake IMO.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was surprised that this thread was not begun by Thomas Sankara. Oh well, I suppose that it's a tribute of sorts?

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm an anarchist and I make Judy Garland look butch.
Caption: " You what? Me, Butch? How..."
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/JudyGarland_WOZ.jpg

[Il Medico]

I think the stalinist number crunching is perhaps the most cringe worthy.

[gorillafuck]

if pacifism counts among the left, that would probably take the cake IMO.
I wish I could thank this.

All my leftist friends (except a couple self identified communists) consider non-violence and pacifism to be a core aspect of leftism. It's shit.

[Queercommie Girl]

Trots: "Stalin was responsible for the party dictatorship but Lenin wasn't!" One party state. Created by Lenin. Not Stalin.


Actually this doesn't follow logically: an "one party state" isn't necessarily a dictatorship. What if it is an "one party state" that is also thoroughly democratic in the direct sense?

[Queercommie Girl]

I wish I could thank this.

All my leftist friends (except a couple self identified communists) consider non-violence and pacifism to be a core aspect of leftism. It's shit.

Pacifism is the core of leftism in the sense that we do not think violence is a good thing intrinsically, or that there will be any kind of significant violence after a successful revolution. But we are clearly not pacifists when it comes to fighting for the revolution itself.

Apart from Tankies, leftists generally do not glorify war. That's more of a hawkish right-wing trait.

[Jazzhands]

Ironically, this is one of the worst arguments I've heard in a long time. You oppose the DPRK because you don't like their architecture.

Do you even know the history of that building? It's the Ryugyong Hotel. It was supposed to convince the West that North Korea is a good place for people to go on vacation. So they used funds provided generously by the Soviet Union to relieve their famine/Western aggression problem-to build what would have been the tallest hotel in the world instead of addressing the fuckton of problems the DPRK constantly faces.

But due to the collapse of the USSR, the fact that the elevator shafts would be unsafe to use because of the generally low quality of construction and the concrete which probably made it unsafe to stand within walking distance of that thing, the project was abandoned. Now they had this depressing, grey concrete monster towering over the city like a supervillain headquarters.

They are so embarassed by this that they're even going to great lengths to photoshop it out of the skyline when they put it on postcards.

Anyway, I posted that in the first place as evidence of

1. How cartoonish and supervillainy Kim Jong Il is.

2. How hilarious North Korea is primarily because of #1.

3. How they are choosing to do shit like this when they have constant food problems and threats from the US.

[AK]

That Trotsky would have been just as bad as Stalin, maybe even worse. I hate that one.
No, there's actually a fair bit of truth to that.

[manic expression]

Do you even know the history of that building? It's the Ryugyong Hotel. It was supposed to convince the West that North Korea is a good place for people to go on vacation. So they used funds provided generously by the Soviet Union to relieve their famine/Western aggression problem-to build what would have been the tallest hotel in the world instead of addressing the fuckton of problems the DPRK constantly faces.

But due to the collapse of the USSR, the fact that the elevator shafts would be unsafe to use because of the generally low quality of construction and the concrete which probably made it unsafe to stand within walking distance of that thing, the project was abandoned. Now they had this depressing, grey concrete monster towering over the city like a supervillain headquarters.

They are so embarassed by this that they're even going to great lengths to photoshop it out of the skyline when they put it on postcards.
Construction began in 1987, and they could hardly have predicted that the USSR was going to fall a few years later. Yes, that's so their fault, and it would be a great thing to post in "Worst leftist arguments".

By the way, why is it any more of a "supervillain headquarters" than, say, the Transamerica Pyramid, the Space Needle (which was actually depicted as Dr. Evil's secret lair) or the Cathedral of Learning? Go on, architecture critic, make the case.


Anyway, I posted that in the first place as evidence of

1. How cartoonish and supervillainy Kim Jong Il is.

2. How hilarious North Korea is primarily because of #1.

3. How they are choosing to do shit like this when they have constant food problems and threats from the US.
Why is it "cartoonish"? Do North Koreans walk off cliffs and only fall when they realize they're not standing on anything? Is the ACME brand popular there?

But anyway, they stopped building in 1992 and diverted resources to other matters. The famines began 1992-1994. They largely ended by 2002. Construction on the hotel didn't resume until 2008.

But thanks again for posting this in "Worst leftist arguments".

[gorillafuck]

No, there's actually a fair bit of truth to that.
As if anarchists would not have been authoritarian at all.:rolleyes:

Anarchists arguing that they would not have been authoritarian during a civil war and the aftermath of it is a pretty bad leftist argument. Less authoritarian maybe (probably without absurd "misappropriation of socialist property" laws), but they obviously would have been authoritarian.

This goes alongside the idea that the existence of a revolution is justification for any and every policy (which is an argument put forward by the ML's who are caricatures of themselves) as far as some of the worst leftist arguments go.


Pacifism is the core of leftism in the sense that we do not think violence is a good thing intrinsically, or that there will be any kind of significant violence after a successful revolution. But we are clearly not pacifists when it comes to fighting for the revolution itself.

Apart from Tankies, leftists generally do not glorify war. That's more of a hawkish right-wing trait.
Agreed, but pacifism as a plan for the way forward is ridiculous. It also amounts to class collaborationism in real life.

[AK]

As if anarchists would not have been authoritarian at all.:rolleyes:

Anarchists arguing that they would not have been authoritarian during a civil war and the aftermath of it is a pretty bad leftist argument. Less authoritarian maybe (probably without absurd "misappropriation of socialist property" laws), but they obviously would have been authoritarian.
I was referring to the fact that Trotsky had the potential to be as bad a ruler as Stalin due to the fact that the same system that allowed Stalin to assume power could have allowed Trotsky to do so as well.

[fa2991]

I was referring to the fact that Trotsky had the potential to be as bad a ruler as Stalin due to the fact that the same system that allowed Stalin to assume power could have allowed Trotsky to do so as well.

Trotsky would have militarily intervened to prevent the rise of European fascism, though, which is a big plus.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Caption: " You what? Me, Butch? How..."
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/JudyGarland_WOZ.jpg

I am so far over the rainbow the blue birds are trying to catch up to me.

I do find it tragic though, because I'm so femme that lesbians tend to assume I'm straight:crying:, they're only half right.:p

[Wanted Man]

"Only global proletarian revolution can solve <highly specific issue X>."

About some popular frontist initiative that's bound to fail: "Well, if you don't like it, why don't you come up with something better?"

"Trade unions/student unions/etc. are reformist, therefore they are bad and nothing should ever be done with them."

"Antifas are just a bunch of idiots looking for a brawl."

"Football/TV/games/etc. are bourgeois indulgences that we should stay away from."

"Leadership is wrong."

Etc., etc...

[synthesis]

There are a lot of posts in this thread I wish I could thank.

I get slightly annoyed when people "blame" capitalism for specific things that precede the development of the capitalist mode of production by thousands of years, or clearly don't understand what "bourgeois" actually means. "Pontius Pilate was a capitalist pig!"

[gorillafuck]

I was referring to the fact that Trotsky had the potential to be as bad a ruler as Stalin due to the fact that the same system that allowed Stalin to assume power could have allowed Trotsky to do so as well.
And I was referring to the fact that a lot of anarchists seem to think the Russian anarchists would have been somehow non-authoritarian, when the main anarchist who actually did anything substantial in Russia, being Nestor Makhno, was obviously "authoritarian" (but don't get me wrong, I personally think that both the Bolsheviks and the followers of Makhno would have both greatly benefited if they tolerated and worked together with eachother). But he was an "authoritarian".

Oh, and this one is really stupid: "The oppression of women will whither away with the end of capitalism".

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh, and this one is really stupid: "The oppression of women will whither away with the end of capitalism".


Actually the end of class society would provide the objective conditions for sexism, racism and homophobia/transphobia to wither away, but it won't happen automatically.

One needs to think about where racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia originated from in the first place, it's not just "a fact of human nature" like some bourgeois intellectuals claim.

[gorillafuck]

Actually the end of class society would provide the objective conditions for sexism, racism and homophobia/transphobia to wither away, but it won't happen automatically.

One needs to think about where racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia originated from in the first place, it's not just "a fact of human nature" like some bourgeois intellectuals claim.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that organizing against sexism etc. isn't necessary because since when capitalism ends those things will go away too.

[revolution inaction]

And I was referring to the fact that a lot of anarchists seem to think the Russian anarchists would have been somehow non-authoritarian, when the main anarchist who actually did anything substantial in Russia, being Nestor Makhno, was obviously "authoritarian" (but don't get me wrong, I personally think that both the Bolsheviks and the followers of Makhno would have both greatly benefited if they tolerated and worked together with eachother). But he was an "authoritarian".


in what way was he authoritarian? this isnot the "killing people is authoritarian" shit againis it?
and he was in the Ukraine not Russia, and there was a lot of other anarchists involved in the same movenmt as him, he was far from the only one, just the most famous one.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that organizing against sexism etc. isn't necessary because since when capitalism ends those things will go away too.

Of course, which is why I emphasised that the abolishment of class society is an objective pre-requisite of the elimination of racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, but not a subjective pre-requisite.

No form of oppression would ever go away without people consciously and directly struggling against it, that's an universal truth.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Here are my personal favorites:

1. "Capitalism is wrong because it's driven by greed." Capitalism isn't just the symptom of an attitude problem! Rather, it's a whole system driven by the actual requirement that a capitalist class pursue profit, and thus exploit others, or go under. This in turn does a lot to create a culture of greed by making greed a necessity. It might indeed almost be more correct to reverse the quoted formulation and say that 'greed is driven by capitalism'!

2. "Arrogant Westerner, how dare you criticize X pseudo-socialist regime/party/person just because their politics are completely wrong! You just don't understand their conditions." Conditions merely contextualize the matter; they don't justify objectively wrong politics.

[gorillafuck]

in what way was he authoritarian? this isnot the "killing people is authoritarian" shit againis it?
and he was in the Ukraine not Russia, and there was a lot of other anarchists involved in the same movenmt as him, he was far from the only one, just the most famous one.
My bad, I knew he was in Ukraine. Brain cramp.

And do you think that organizing a territory along the lines that a revolutionary army wants and suppressing capitalists is not using authoritarianism against counter-revolution? Hate to break it to you, but there was quite a lot of force used against capitalists and counter-revolutionaries in the free territory of Ukraine. It wasn't a bastion of free speech and voluntaryism (though the army was democratic).

[revolution inaction]

My bad, I knew he was in Ukraine. Brain cramp.

And do you think that organizing a territory along the lines that a revolutionary army wants and suppressing capitalists is not using authoritarianism against counter-revolution? Hate to break it to you, but there was quite a lot of force used against capitalists and counter-revolutionaries in the free territory of Ukraine. It wasn't a bastion of free speech and voluntaryism (though the army was democratic).

i strongly approve of the use of force against capitalist in a revolutionary situation, and i couldn't take seriously and anarchist that did not. I don't see anything authoritarian about it though.

[Pavlov's House Party]

i strongly approve of the use of force against capitalist in a revolutionary situation, and i couldn't take seriously and anarchist that did not. I don't see anything authoritarian about it though.

the use of force in a revolution is the most authoritarian act one can use. in doing so you are forcing the ideals of your revolution on those who oppose it with arms backing it.

[revolution inaction]

the use of force in a revolution is the most authoritarian act one can use. in doing so you are forcing the ideals of your revolution on those who oppose it with arms backing it.

whats authoritarian about that? :confused:

[4 Leaf Clover]

anarchists

"we should overthrow everything , becacause we want communism tomorrow"

[Kuppo Shakur]

anarchists

"we should overthrow everything , becacause we want communism tomorrow"
I've never heard an anarchist say that.

[Zanthorus]

though the army was democratic

And based on forced conscription.

[bricolage]

"we should overthrow everything , becacause we want communism tomorrow"
I'm down.

[fa2991]

anarchists

"we should overthrow everything , becacause we want communism tomorrow"

Leninists:

"We shouldn't give workers any power because we don't want communism at all." :thumbup1:

(EDIT: Before anyone complains - it's a joke.)

[Apoi_Viitor]

anarchists

"we should overthrow everything , becacause we want communism tomorrow"

I'm 100% guilty of that argument. I don't think millions need to perish in gulags to achieve communism.

Also, I'll add some of my own:

"At least in North Korea basic food / health care is provided". - No rebuttal necessary.
"(In defense of Mao) Well, the British killed millions if Indians". - So, does that make the millions that were killed under Mao nonexistent?
"Anarchists want to abolish the state over-night."
"The US is just as totalitarian as Maoist China".

I could probably right hundreds of these, because virtually every argument North Korean apologists give is unequivocally stupid. Similarly, I don't understand why people follow and admire Mao, who was probably the greatest mass-murderer to ever live. To me, admiration for a man who enacted policies which probably led to the death of 10-40 million innocent workers, doesn't seem to resound with Marxism's call for the emancipation of the working class.


Leninists:

"We shouldn't give workers any power because we don't want communism at all." :thumbup1:

(EDIT: Before anyone complains - it's a joke.)

As I see it, that's really the base for democratic centralism, just Leninists use deceitful language to cover it up. One-party rule is based around the cynical idea that workers are too stupid to organize themselves, and therefore they need glorious Kim to tell them how to live. Really, workers are like kids, who always have to be looked after, lest they do something stupid like 'run out in the middle of the street'.

[Pavlov's House Party]

whats authoritarian about that? :confused:

because the workers are forcing their agenda on the opposing classes through force. it is authoritarian in almost every sense of the word.

[gorillafuck]

And based on forced conscription.
Yep.


whats authoritarian about that?:confused:
Are you serious?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Yep.


Are you serious?

Not that I'm opposed to violence in revolution, but he has a point. Violence is power and "authoritarian". Although to envision a society without coercion or power, would be utopian. The rich aren't just going to give up their luxurious existence peacefully, I think some degree of power and oppression would be necessary.

[fa2991]

I'm generally annoyed by any argument for anarchism that is based mostly or solely on questions of individual autonomy.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm generally annoyed by any argument for anarchism that is based mostly or solely on questions of individual autonomy.

why?

[Rusty Shackleford]

why?
probably because if the main argument for anarchism is individual autonomy, it probably loses its interest in working class unity among other things.

thats my take on it and i actually agree with fa2991.

[GPDP]

"Jesus was a socialist!"

It's not even an argument. It's just a random-ass assertion with the purpose of trying to paint Jesus as a socialist (which is just wrong) in an effort to convince right-wing Christians to adopt Socialism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is slightly off-topic, and perhaps a little dickish of me to say, but I really hate over-enthusiastic leftists. Like, the type of clowns who post threads about "what job should I get to help the revolution?", and post tons of YouTube videos about whatever their pet cause is, and regularly drop the word "comrade" casually, and like to pretend that they're still living circa 1917.

Of course, if you're actually doing stuff "in the real world", then it's all cool and the gang, but the left's own brand of "internet warrior" is perhaps the most annoying in existence.

[Agnapostate]

The phrase "after the revolution."


And do you think that organizing a territory along the lines that a revolutionary army wants and suppressing capitalists is not using authoritarianism against counter-revolution?

Authoritarian? It's a means that serves as a reduction of an authoritarian end by ensuring the enactment of a libertarian paradigm. It's similar to the entire doctrine of law enforcement being based on violent crime reduction by physically restraining and imprisoning offenders. I understand the argument, which has been made by Robert Dahl:


Suppose, for example, that people in a state of nature find that one of the persons in their vicinity is a wrongdoer who simply will not refrain from doing serious harm to others. Despite the best efforts of his associates, neither reason, argument, persuasion, public opinion, nor the final sanction of social ostracism dissuades him from doing harm. His associates finally conclude that he will persist in harming others unless he is forcibly restrained or threatened with severe harm (that is, coerced). In the extreme case, such a recalcitrant wrongdoer might use weapons to appropriate another's goods, commit rape, enslave another person, engage in torture, and so on. Now if recalcitrant wrongdoers were to exist in a society without a state, then a dilemma would arise for all those who believe that coercion must not be permitted because it is intrinsically bad: whether or not the wrongdoers were coercively restrained, coercion would be employed - either by the wrongdoers or by those who restrained them.

The problem is that I don't see this absolutist deontological approach promoted by anarchists in concrete descriptions of anti-aggression tactics; most revert to a consequentialist, utilitarian approach, which I believe is the logical culmination of ethical analysis. It's the traditional clichced association of anarchism with utopianism that causes detractors to demand adherence to perfectionist standards that they wouldn't submit themselves to. So long as humanity remains flawed, so will any form of social organization that humanity adopts.

[Agnapostate]

Also, the application (often to oneself) of the description "revolutionary" to people in Memphis to go to a rally and hand out flyers.

[AK]

This is slightly off-topic, and perhaps a little dickish of me to say, but I really hate over-enthusiastic leftists. Like, the type of clowns who post threads about "what job should I get to help the revolution?", and post tons of YouTube videos about whatever their pet cause is, and regularly drop the word "comrade" casually, and like to pretend that they're still living circa 1917.
Agreed, comrade.


Of course, if you're actually doing stuff "in the real world", then it's all cool and the gang, but the left's own brand of "internet warrior" is perhaps the most annoying in existence.
Good points, comrade!

[revolution inaction]

because the workers are forcing their agenda on the opposing classes through force. it is authoritarian in almost every sense of the word.

i don't see anything authoritarian about taking back what is ours, if it is then to fight back when attacked is authoritarian, and i think everyone can see how ridicules that would be.

[revolution inaction]

Are you serious?

yes, there is nothing inherently authoritarian about violence

[AK]

whats authoritarian about that? :confused:
I swear there was an Engels quote on this, either that or I'm delusional. It is an authoritarian act because revolution is the full imposition of one class' will over another.

[fa2991]

I swear there was an Engels quote on this, either that or I'm delusional. It is an authoritarian act because revolution is the full imposition of one class' will over another.

You're thinking of Mao's quote about how "Revolution is not writing a book...", or perhaps the opening bits from Engels' "On Authority."


why?

Appeals to individual autonomy characterize the most childish, individualistic segment of anarchism that manifests as such ideologies as primitivism, post-left anarchism, etc. Usually how much an anarchist says "Hey, stop oppressing me, bro! I'm autonomous!" is directly proportional to how stupid their political philosophy is.

[revolution inaction]

I swear there was an Engels quote on this, either that or I'm delusional. It is an authoritarian act because revolution is the full imposition of one class' will over another.

i've read it and i don't find it convincing

[Pavlov's House Party]

yes, there is nothing inherently authoritarian about violence

no, but the use of violence to impose the will of one or more classes on the others is authoritarian. i honestly don't know how you can't understand this.

[AK]

i've read it and i don't find it convincing
It's not a matter of "being convinced". It's inescapable truth. If the bourgeoisie impose their will on us, it is authoritarian. The will of the entire class is being imposed on us. Now when we try the same thing with proletarian revolution, it is actually even more authoritarian because we are removing them from the position of ruling class. Unless of course you would call such an action "libertarian" or "anti-authoritarian".

[revolution inaction]

It's not a matter of "being convinced". It's inescapable truth. If the bourgeoisie impose their will on us, it is authoritarian. The will of the entire class is being imposed on us. Now when we try the same thing with proletarian revolution, it is actually even more authoritarian because we are removing them from the position of ruling class. Unless of course you would call such an action "libertarian" or "anti-authoritarian".



the bourgeoisie have power over the proletariat
the proletariat remove that power from the bourgeoisie
the bourgeoisie and the proloteriat ceases to exist
the situation changes from one where a small part of the population had authority over the majority to one where no group has authority over another
thus authority revolution is anti authoritarian
therefore Engels was wrong

[revolution inaction]

no, but the use of violence to impose the will of one or more classes on the others is authoritarian. i honestly don't know how you can't understand this.

if that is authoritarian, then to destroy the system of one class imposing its will on another must be anti authoritarian

[Agnapostate]

It's certainly anti-authoritarian, if one adheres to the consequentialist view that the ends justify the means, as I do. I've not seen anyone adhere to this absolutist and inevitably paradoxical view that Dahl explicitly mentioned and others seem to imply is held by anarchists. It's another matter of alleged splits between tendencies created only by semantics, apparently. It leads one to wonder how many rifts would be sealed if everyone used what we agreed was value-neutral language.

[fa2991]

Forcing people to do things against their will with the threat or use of violence is the definition of authority.

Capitalists & their minions will not voluntarily surrender their rule. Ergo...

[AK]

the bourgeoisie have power over the proletariat
the proletariat remove that power from the bourgeoisie
the bourgeoisie and the proloteriat ceases to exist
the situation changes from one where a small part of the population had authority over the majority to one where no group has authority over another
thus authority revolution is anti authoritarian
therefore Engels was wrong


I'm talking about revolution; the process of one class overthrowing another. That is an authoritarian action. The authoritarian nature of it has no reference to the egalitarian society that an explicitly communist revolution creates.

[Raúl Duke]

Worst leftist arguments?

To me it is that which appeals solely to rising living standards or, even worse, rising GDP/development standards.

Socialism is not solely about rising living standards but who is in control.

Basically, something like this and variations of this:


The worst leftist argument, hands down, is to justify all the shit done in the name of socialism by attempting to show that said shit is marginally less shitty than all the shit done in the name of capitalism (and imperialism, etc.). As if working people are really going to stick their necks out and spend their energy fighting for a marginally less shitty world.

[fa2991]

The worst leftist argument, hands down, is to justify all the shit done in the name of socialism by attempting to show that said shit is marginally less shitty than all the shit done in the name of capitalism (and imperialism, etc.). As if working people are really going to stick their necks out and spend their energy fighting for a marginally less shitty world.

I recognize this post. Was it you who said that?

[Apoi_Viitor]

To me it is that which appeals solely to rising living standards or, even worse, rising GDP/development standards.

Socialism is not solely about rising living standards but who is in control.

Basically, something like this and variations of this:

The worst leftist argument, hands down, is to justify all the shit done in the name of socialism by attempting to show that said shit is marginally less shitty than all the shit done in the name of capitalism (and imperialism, etc.). As if working people are really going to stick their necks out and spend their energy fighting for a marginally less shitty world.


:thumbup1:

[revolution inaction]

I'm talking about revolution; the process of one class overthrowing another. That is an authoritarian action. The authoritarian nature of it has no reference to the egalitarian society that an explicitly communist revolution creates.

it's not authoritarian because the violence carried out by anarchists during a revolution is in defence of the egalitarian society.

[bricolage]

I throw rocks at authority

[AK]

it's not authoritarian because the violence carried out by anarchists during a revolution is in defence of the egalitarian society.
The means to achieve the egalitarian society (forcible seizure of the means of production and violently resisting bourgeois reaction) are authoritarian, though.

[bailey_187]

Anything that critices capitalism from an environmental point or anti-consumerist point.

[Queercommie Girl]

Anything that critices capitalism from an environmental point or anti-consumerist point.

Anti-consumerism maybe, but what exactly is wrong with environmentalism?

[Quail]

Anything that critices capitalism from an environmental point or anti-consumerist point.

But capitalism does destroy the environment, so I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out :confused:

[revolution inaction]

The means to achieve the egalitarian society (forcible seizure of the means of production and violently resisting bourgeois reaction) are authoritarian, though.

I don't see how. unless you define violence as inherently authoritarian?

[fa2991]

Anti-consumerism maybe, but what exactly is wrong with environmentalism?

It ignores the human toll capitalism takes. It's the lowest way to sympathize with proletarians - "Oh, no! Capitalism might melt the ice caps and somehow affect my own life!"

[AK]

I don't see how. unless you define violence as inherently authoritarian?
I'm getting nowhere with you. Revolution (the overthrow of one class by another) is an inherently authoritarian act because the entire overthrowing class is imposing its will on the other class. I don't see how such things as expropriation are libertarian or anti-authoritarian in nature, unless you lack the ability to see that there are means to an end, and they are authoritarian - no matter what class it is undertaking those means.

[revolution inaction]

I'm getting nowhere with you. Revolution (the overthrow of one class by another) is an inherently authoritarian act because the entire overthrowing class is imposing its will on the other class. I don't see how such things as expropriation are libertarian or anti-authoritarian in nature, unless you lack the ability to see that there are means to an end, and they are authoritarian - no matter what class it is undertaking those means.

the bourgeoisie is imposing its will on the proletariat all the time, expropriation prevents them doing this, so it is libertarian. its not about us forcing them to do something, its about us no longer accepting a situation where we are forced to do what they want.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's the difference between "to force" to "to force not to force".

[manic expression]

the bourgeoisie is imposing its will on the proletariat all the time, expropriation prevents them doing this, so it is libertarian. its not about us forcing them to do something, its about us no longer accepting a situation where we are forced to do what they want.
If someone has a lot of shoes under their control (let's say more than enough shoes for everyone) and everyone else has no shoes, and you threaten the shoe-owner with a baseball bat and then divide the shoes to everyone equally...you are imposing YOUR will (if not the will of everyone who doesn't have shoes) upon the shoe-owner. That is force.

As Iseul said, the situation you have in mind is "to force not to force", but that is still force.

According to your logic, you might as well say that war isn't violent if a cause is justified. No, violence is violence, force is force. Just because your force is justified doesn't make it something other than force.

[Quail]

It ignores the human toll capitalism takes. It's the lowest way to sympathize with proletarians - "Oh, no! Capitalism might melt the ice caps and somehow affect my own life!"

That is true, but you can be critical of both aspects of capitalism, the human toll and the environmental toll. Environmental problems will affect humans, but not as immediately and directly as exploitation does, and although environmentalism isn't tied to the working class, future sustainability is something that leftists should be thinking about. As long as a person's only criticism of capitalism isn't the environmental problems, I see no problem with taking them into consideration.

[revolution inaction]

If someone has a lot of shoes under their control (let's say more than enough shoes for everyone) and everyone else has no shoes, and you threaten the shoe-owner with a baseball bat and then divide the shoes to everyone equally...you are imposing YOUR will (if not the will of everyone who doesn't have shoes) upon the shoe-owner. That is force.

As Iseul said, the situation you have in mind is "to force not to force", but that is still force.

According to your logic, you might as well say that war isn't violent if a cause is justified. No, violence is violence, force is force. Just because your force is justified doesn't make it something other than force.

i have never denied it is force, it obviously is, i just don't think that force is automatically authoritarian.

[gorillafuck]

i have never denied it is force, it obviously is, i just don't think that force is automatically authoritarian.
Using force as a form of repression to repress a certain segment of society (the bourgeois) is obviously a form of authoritarianism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

i have never denied it is force, it obviously is, i just don't think that force is automatically authoritarian.

then what to you, is authoritarian?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm 100% guilty of that argument. I don't think millions need to perish in gulags to achieve communism.

Also, I'll add some of my own:

"At least in North Korea basic food / health care is provided". - No rebuttal necessary.
"(In defense of Mao) Well, the British killed millions if Indians". - So, does that make the millions that were killed under Mao nonexistent?
"Anarchists want to abolish the state over-night."
"The US is just as totalitarian as Maoist China".

I could probably right hundreds of these, because virtually every argument North Korean apologists give is unequivocally stupid. Similarly, I don't understand why people follow and admire Mao, who was probably the greatest mass-murderer to ever live. To me, admiration for a man who enacted policies which probably led to the death of 10-40 million innocent workers, doesn't seem to resound with Marxism's call for the emancipation of the working class.



As I see it, that's really the base for democratic centralism, just Leninists use deceitful language to cover it up. One-party rule is based around the cynical idea that workers are too stupid to organize themselves, and therefore they need glorious Kim to tell them how to live. Really, workers are like kids, who always have to be looked after, lest they do something stupid like 'run out in the middle of the street'.
Kim Jong Il is now a rapper who goes by the name Il Kim

[Pavlov's House Party]

i have never denied it is force, it obviously is, i just don't think that force is automatically authoritarian.

holy hell, it's like trying to argue with a fuckin brick wall

[revolution inaction]

then what to you, is authoritarian?

well i don't normally quote the dictionary, but this time it seems like a good place to start.



au·thor·i·tar·i·an
 
 /əˌθɔrɪˈtɛəriən, əˌθɒr-/ Show Spelled[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
–noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.


doesn't mention force or violence


holy hell, it's like trying to argue with a fuckin brick wall

how am i supposed to respond to some one who completely ignores what i said, and starts arguing about something else?