Going on a diatribe relativizing authoritarianism just because someone said that both the US and your favorite totalitarian hellhole are similarly bad. Who didnt see that coming?
The state is fundamentally an instrument that's used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance.
This guy is really making the anarchist case for us, eh?
But then he goes on to say:
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence.
He already said it earlier: the ruling class. Always, and by definition. The ruling class always controls the institutions of state violence, which the ruling class then uses to maintain its dominance.
If some of the working class become ruling class, they will inevitably and swiftly be corrupted by that power and become just the same as every other ruling class.
Nope - anarchy works great on the "group of friends" level of complexity and collapses pretty much as soon as the group gets large enough where not everyone is friends with each other.
In an ideal world, that would be the best system, where everyone keeps to themselves. It sounds nice and all, but the issue is who is going to enforce that order. What would stop a powerful group from enslaving others or forming an empire? We would need, at minimum, some organized defensive force capable of protecting people and preventing those groups from taking control.
The only system that makes sense to me in a post capitalist world is socialism.
I understand that, but again, how would that work on a larger scale? You need at least a powerful central government(for some time) to suppress the previous ruling class and then reeducate the public. What is done about religion?
It's funny, because Lemmy MLS gets real mad when you point out that they are infested with right wing provocateurs, but they they have yogthos modding a bunch of shit without a lick of irony.
It's also strange how they constantly attack socialists, calling them libs, like 80% of the time and attack actual libs or even the far right not even a quarter a much as they attack socialists.
Two fallacies in just one paragraph. The state does not have a monopoly of legal violence. Other entities are also entitled to legal violence. One example is self-defense, or laws that call for citizens to defend the constitution. I also wonder, what on earth even is legal violence? Police brutality is not legal to start with. This whole concept is thought terminating.
Then this person attacks the distinction of powers. It might be a facade, but it is still a leap to say that there is no difference between overtly controlling everything and gaming the system to extract gain. There is corruption as a crime, with some bad guys ending up in jail by the judicial system. Then there is accepting corruption as part of life and saying that one flavor of corruption is better than the other.
His argument here is "there is no need for guardrails, because everything is doomed to be corrupt, so it is all about which class enjoys the corruption". Well, classes are not inherent in people, and if a "working class corrupted state" enjoys corruption, it is now the ruling class, and it should be taken down too.
In its verbal reduction and cognitive sleigh of hand an we say that this is some authoritarian pattern of thinking itself. The great teacher of which is of course Lenin. "The State and Revolution" has informed both content and form of this argument, but I think is for the better part persuasive fallacy, designed to attack the possibility of anarchist collectivism.
On that account, it is similar to fascism, which was also invented to control the rise of widespread anarchist unions in the 1920s.
21 Comments
rockerface@lemmy.cafe · 8 pts · 3d
Correct, that's why I'm an anarchist.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 7 pts · 3d
This guy is really making the anarchist case for us, eh?
But then he goes on to say:
He already said it earlier: the ruling class. Always, and by definition. The ruling class always controls the institutions of state violence, which the ruling class then uses to maintain its dominance.
If some of the working class become ruling class, they will inevitably and swiftly be corrupted by that power and become just the same as every other ruling class.
Lord743@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I cant make sense of anarchy. Who is going to maintain that order?
rockerface@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 1d
Everyone participating in the society. Just like now, only without dumb hierarchies getting in the way.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
When you hang out with your friends, do you have an established authority that tells everyone what to do?
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Nope - anarchy works great on the "group of friends" level of complexity and collapses pretty much as soon as the group gets large enough where not everyone is friends with each other.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Zapatistas must have way more friends than you then, lol
Lord743@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
In an ideal world, that would be the best system, where everyone keeps to themselves. It sounds nice and all, but the issue is who is going to enforce that order. What would stop a powerful group from enslaving others or forming an empire? We would need, at minimum, some organized defensive force capable of protecting people and preventing those groups from taking control.
The only system that makes sense to me in a post capitalist world is socialism.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
So...when some random dude walks up to you and your friends and says "now you will do what I say", do you do what they say?
Lord743@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I understand that, but again, how would that work on a larger scale? You need at least a powerful central government(for some time) to suppress the previous ruling class and then reeducate the public. What is done about religion?
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Same way you deal with the asshole trying to tell you what to do.
decolo@piefed.social · 4 pts · 3d
If only my buddies had all the guns, things would be a lot better around here!
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
Hey, I just got banned from there for calling it statist propaganda. Apparently that's bigotry, lol.
socsa@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
It's funny, because Lemmy MLS gets real mad when you point out that they are infested with right wing provocateurs, but they they have yogthos modding a bunch of shit without a lick of irony.
TanteRegenbogen@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
It's also strange how they constantly attack socialists, calling them libs, like 80% of the time and attack actual libs or even the far right not even a quarter a much as they attack socialists.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Not that strange...they're both authoritarian.
TanteRegenbogen@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
When you say both, are you including socialists? I don't get the exact meaning of your comment.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Tankies and right wingers? I guess the tankies are "socialist" ish
TanteRegenbogen@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
I asked for clarification since many, if not most socialists deffo arent authoritarian.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Yeah I wasn't exactly clear in my wording.
marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Two fallacies in just one paragraph. The state does not have a monopoly of legal violence. Other entities are also entitled to legal violence. One example is self-defense, or laws that call for citizens to defend the constitution. I also wonder, what on earth even is legal violence? Police brutality is not legal to start with. This whole concept is thought terminating.
Then this person attacks the distinction of powers. It might be a facade, but it is still a leap to say that there is no difference between overtly controlling everything and gaming the system to extract gain. There is corruption as a crime, with some bad guys ending up in jail by the judicial system. Then there is accepting corruption as part of life and saying that one flavor of corruption is better than the other.
His argument here is "there is no need for guardrails, because everything is doomed to be corrupt, so it is all about which class enjoys the corruption". Well, classes are not inherent in people, and if a "working class corrupted state" enjoys corruption, it is now the ruling class, and it should be taken down too.
In its verbal reduction and cognitive sleigh of hand an we say that this is some authoritarian pattern of thinking itself. The great teacher of which is of course Lenin. "The State and Revolution" has informed both content and form of this argument, but I think is for the better part persuasive fallacy, designed to attack the possibility of anarchist collectivism.
On that account, it is similar to fascism, which was also invented to control the rise of widespread anarchist unions in the 1920s.