- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Auction: https://www.sav.com/auctions/details/7073489/hexbear.net
Not sure what will happen, but seems to be a Fediverselore event for sure
Update: post from hexbear admin on chapo.chat: https://chapo.chat/post/4468531
Politics doesn’t exist on a one-dimensional scale you know. These extremely authoritarian branches of leftism are to me just as detestable as right-wing authoritarianists (though clearly one is more of a present threat). But I dislike being associated with those people because they believe they somehow must be similar in ideology to me.
Politics doesn’t really have dimensions to begin with, things like the Political Compass are just abstractions of ideas and positions that attempts (unsuccessfully, IMO) to provide shortcuts to understanding the broader image of a viewpoint.
As an example, Marxism-Leninism and AES states espouse and implement more democratic structures, but harshly oppressed opposition from liberals, monarchists, and fascists. This is certainly “authoritarian,” but I don’t think that’s a bad use of authority. Rather, all systems and positions are “authoritarian” in different directions and towards different groups. You get where this is getting muddy and rather than clarifying, it’s actually adding more confusion?
As a side-note, if you think Communists are “just as detestable” as Nazis, I think you need to look more critically at these movements historically. Blackshirts and Reds is a great comparison of fascism and communism historically, proving them to be completely uncomparable in terms of sheer brutality and who they served, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while taking a critical look at the USSR and why it dissolved.
deleted by creator
Which is why I’m saying it’s nonsense to claim that say a social democrat should not criticise a Marxist-Leninist because it’s “punching left”.
This makes little sense. Apart from extremists most groups and systems do tolerate different opinions and viewpoints, and would even allow change if a majority agrees with it. Authoritarian governments explicitly do not allow this.
There’s a case to be made for suppressing views that are directly harmful to human life. Authoritarian governments suppress viewpoints that may harm or reduce their own power. And much like capital, power has a tendency to accumulate in one place, which is exactly why democratic systems that allow other viewpoints are so important: it decentralizes power. This also deradicalizes extreme elements in government.
Take the Netherlands. There’s been much said about the PVV, the anti-Islam and anti-migration party, coming into power. But because their power is so diluted and shared with other parties with different viewpoints, they’re having to work with three much more moderate parties. As a result:
They’re still twats, but they haven’t made any extreme or radical changes, and they won’t be able to do so either. They had to moderate, and they did (to a point, of course).
History isn’t exactly kind on either movement. The theory is always different from practice unfortunately. I’m not interested in counting skulls, I decide for myself what the boundary is for me to consider acceptable. I don’t care how far beyond that boundary a movement is. I won’t vote for it nor will I cease criticizing it so long as I have alternatives (and thankfully I have plenty). Both Marxism-Leninism as well as Nazism are beyond that boundary for me. Sure, there’s more elements I agree with in ML, but I can find those in other ideologies too. It’s the elements that I heavily disagree with that make me dislike it. I can acknowledge Nazism is worse, but that doesn’t draw me towards ML in any way.
I suppose you could draw a parallel to people who won’t support the democrats over their stance on Gaza having caused a genocide. Sure, republicans are certainly worse, but that won’t make me a cheerleader for Harris. But given that the US has no alternative, I would (begrudgingly) still vote D. Thankfully I live in a country with strong democratic principles, which does provide me with alternatives, so I don’t have to compromise on my principles.
“Punching left” just means antagonizing Socialists. It isn’t about arbitrary spatial coordinates, but is a commonly understood shorthand.
Secondly, systems do not allow themselves to be changed. Feudalism wasn’t voted away, nor is Capitalism. There’s frequently controlled opposition giving the illusion of choice, when no such choice exists in reality. This is a fact that has been understood for centuries.
I don’t think the case that viewpoints like fascism should be allowed makes any sense, and taking the USSR’s example, liberalization killed 7 million people that would not have died otherwise. Rather, if we take Marx’s analysis, centralization of industry and production is inevitable as it advances, ergo it should be democratized as it centralizes. Decentralization doesn’t mean democratization, such analysis would mean Capitalism is more democratic. In reality, centralization and decentralization have nothing to do with how democratic a system is, just how it can be democratized.
As for Marxism-Leninism, you can oppose it without drawing equivalence to the Nazis. Doing as such originated as a form of Nazi apologia and Holocaust minimization, also known as Double Genocide Theory. You likely aren’t intentionally doing that, but the fact remains that this is the origin of such equivalences. Moreover, the bodycount of Western European countries and the US is far higher to begin with, History has been more kind to AES than it has to Capitalism.
I encourage you to read the book I linked.
“Socialist” is an incredibly broad label. To argue that critique on auth-left groups is an attack on socialists is just not meaningful in any way, as it specifically refers to a niche within socialism.
Except that historically speaking they have changed in certain situations. They are rare of course, but it’s certainly not unheard of. The Second Hellenic Republic for example was established via democratic referendum, after which the monarch was peacefully deposed. The idea that all opposition is somehow controlled is fairly ridiculous given an honest reading of many historical events.
There is of course a certain set of safeguards built into almost any system that resists changes. A constitution is a good example. But that too can in most systems be changed. Resistance to change doesn’t mean resistance becomes impossible. Authoritarian governments tend to establish blocks that prevent change, sure. But most democracies would be able to for example remove capitalism if a sufficient majority votes to do so.
There is a level of conflating of ideology and political system that you seem to display, which I suspect is somewhatideologically motivated in your case. Then again, those distinctions are hardly ever really truly clear. One could argue that capitalism is a strictly economic ideology, not a political one. But any system that adopts it also sees effects in the political sphere.
Never argued fascism should be allowed. It’s an ideology that is a clear and present danger to society and human life, so it should in my opinion be banned.
Capitalism by definition centralizes capital as much as possible. This accumulation of wealth leads to an accumulation of power, which has anti-democratic effects (see: the US). Decentralization does not necessarily mean democratization, but centralization does almost always lead to more authoritarianism.
It’s the big stumbling block of communism as well. It attempts to decentralize wealth by spreading it over the population, with the workers owning the means of production. But doing so requires incredible power (to seize and redistribute), which typically ends up with a small group or even a single person. And they rarely relinquish that power (see: the totalitarian leadership of the USSR), which also leads to authoritarianism.
I was very explicit in that I don’t consider them equal. You can compare things without equivocating them. To consider a comparison an equivocation is what people do to silence critique, a tactic which I don’t appreciate. All I’m saying is that both are beyond the boundary of what I in good consciousness can support. I don’t care about counting skulls, I care about the risk that the pile grows. That risk is far greater with Nazism (obligatory: fuck Nazis), but unfortunately also not insignificant enough with Marxism-Leninism either.
Thankfully those aren’t the only two options available.
It is meaningful for punching left to refer to antagonizing Socialists. Marxist-Leninists are by far the most common type of Leftist globally, so pretending that they are just a small niche is very western-centric.
As for fascism, you argued that the Soviets should have allowed more opposition. In the USSR, that opposition consisted of Tsarists, fascists, and liberals, all of which ultimately were responsible for killing millions of citizens of the USSR.
As for centralization, you agree with Marx about it centralizing. However, rather than move forward in time, you try to turn the clock backwards. If centralization is a given, then it should be democratized across the whole of society so that we may continue to increase efficiency in production and work fewer and fewer hours to cover more and more needs and wants.
As for how the USSR was run, this is just generally false. The Soviet method of democracy was in place, and the economy was run and planned by many, many, many people. As a consequence, wealth disparity between the richest and the poorest was around 10 times, as opposed to hundreds to thousands in the Tsarist era or the modern Capitalist era. Some “ruling elite” they turned out to be, looks like they sucked at it. For further reading: Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union.
In your original comment, you expressed equal distaste for Communists and Nazis. Communists have historically had far fewer skulls under their name than liberal regimes or fascist regimes.
Either way, though, what’s your alternative that causes you to break from Marxism? Where is the evidence of its success, and your plan to get there? Genuinely, I am asking honestly.
Totally going to defeat that 400 year dictatorship of capital which has only previously made concessions to workers when there was a tangible alternative system presenting some threat to theirs with an election. Keep it up. Believe in you. <3
Yes, Marxism-Leninism is surely the only alternative out there. I guess all those concessions to social democrats, greens etc… never happened. 🙄