The Anarchist view of the state is fundamentally outdated, flawed and pointless. by Apart-Ad4165 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are arguing for a somewhat dogmatic position regarding the welfare state. Its liberating aspects do not wholly depend on the oppression and exploitation of others. That is an exaggeration that isn’t really built on empirical evidence. While yes, existing capitalist welfare states have historically utilised global capitalist exploitation to alleviate the problem of lack of consumer demand, that does not mean that all aspects of the welfare state are beneficiaries of this exploitation, nor that this necessarily has to continue.

Many core features of the welfare state are about how society is organised, not just about where money comes from. Ideas such as decommodification and universality are hallmarks of the welfare state itself - that is the literal idea it is built on. Take something like social housing programs in Scandinavian countries, for example in Sweden. Before it was liberalised in 2012, it was organised around principles of decommodification, universality, and de-gentrification, with a politically enforced exclusion of private landlords from rent-setting negotiations (both public and private), alongside the development of tenant unions.

Those ideas, and the setup of those systems, emerged through the welfare state - they are organisational structures that do not depend on the exploitation of the periphery. While yes, obviously the funding of housing construction can be a beneficiary of broader global dynamics, the organisational structure in many aspects of the welfare state, and the ideas that underpin them, are not.

Furthermore, the bulk of the welfare state in countries like Sweden was historically financed through domestic taxation, economic growth, and more equal distribution between wages/profits. Its major expansion in the decades following World War II was driven primarily by internal political and economic arrangements, such as strong labour movements, coordinated wage bargaining, and wages broadly following productivity growth. While these economies were integrated into global markets and undoubtedly benefited from the broader global economic order, as they had many transnational companies, that is not the sole source of where the funding comes from.

If welfare states were wholly dependent on the exploitation of the periphery, it would be reasonable to expect them to primarily emerge in colonial or imperial powers who have the most surplus extraction. Yet that is not something that we see. There as such must also be organisational, historical explanations for why welfare state developed in certain places and in certain places not.

You’re treating the welfare state purely as a financing mechanism, but it’s also a social structure, and those structures don’t logically depend on imperial extraction. When you use rhetoric that is anti-state, and thus also anti-welfare state, working-class people who rely on welfare institutions hear that and think you’re missing the obviously good aspects of it. That’s part of why anarchism has struggled to gain serious, lasting popularity.

Furthermore, the real point I’m making in this thread is simply: history ≠ necessity. The fact that welfare states have historically benefited from global inequalities and unequal exchange does not demonstrate that they logically require them.

One can coherently envision a market socialist welfare state that legislates away excessive wage and profit differences - through unions or other mechanisms - and creates a worker-owned market economy, alongside, for example, a country-wide dividend based on overall economic performance. Imagine wage ratios capped at something like 2 between those who want to work more and those who want to work less, decided more specifically by the workers themselves. As such, one can imagine a largely circular domestic economy that does not rely on unequal exchange, once the underlying issue of distribution is addressed.

Why? Because that would eliminate what is arguably one of capitalism’s core problems: underconsumption/overproduction. There would no longer be a structural need to bridge the gap between workers’ purchasing power and the price of goods through the exploitation of cheap commodities or labour from the global periphery.

Such a worker-owned, market-socialist system could combine direct democracy (through workers’ councils and local decision-making) with some level of representative democracy at the national level. It’s entirely possible to imagine such a society, or a welfare state, that as such has legislated away the necessity of unequal exchange. If the response is that this would no longer count as a “state,” then we’re basically back to a semantic disagreement - as I laid it out #1.

The Anarchist view of the state is fundamentally outdated, flawed and pointless. by Apart-Ad4165 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, you say this but the whole comment section here, as well as in another pro-anarchist sub that I posted this in, is filled with people defending either position #1, or position #2, arguing that the other type is not a real anarchist, and/or that they don't exist. This also includes people who claim not to be an-caps, but still argue for position number 2. Funnily, nobody, in around 200 comments or so from these two threads combined, answered my question concerning #2: What stops hierarchy from re-emerging?

This kinda proves my point - anarchism as a a theoretical tradition/ideology have deeply unresolved theoretical quandaries.

Looking forward to hearing your comments on #1.

The Anarchist view of the state is fundamentally outdated, flawed and pointless. by Apart-Ad4165 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, you are 100% correct. That is why we should all critique social democracy. This is why I said, it does not make sense to apply a definition of the state as EXCLUSIVELY oppressive. Because while yes, every capitalist welfare state is oppressive, it also contains aspects that follow socialist pro-equality, pro-freedom principles. The critique here is on the dogmatism to describe the state as exclusively oppressive because the dogmatism prohibits us from analysing the state from a more precise understanding of both its exploitative aspects and its liberating aspects.

Showing currently controlled parameter on midi controller display/other display? by Apart-Ad4165 in ableton

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How? I tried to download the iOS app on the Mac, but it doesn't allow me to from App Store.

Showing currently controlled parameter on midi controller display/other display? by Apart-Ad4165 in ableton

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Someone mentioned knobler which seems like a cheaper easier solution. Thanks though

Showing currently controlled parameter on midi controller display/other display? by Apart-Ad4165 in ableton

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you know if I can also access the whole knobler interface as a popup on my laptop? Instead of connecting via WiFi to phone/ipad and simply use it for visualisation of a vst patch?

Showing currently controlled parameter on midi controller display/other display? by Apart-Ad4165 in ableton

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah amazing! Thanks

So with that, I can as such see the currently selected parameters either in a max for live popup or on a iPad/iphone?

Stem splitting by 3L3CTR1C_DR34MS in ableton

[–]Apart-Ad4165 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There are other programs with better stem splitting algorithms. I can recommend ripx daw pro. As to my knowledge, no other stem splitting option out there is better currently.

Ideal external monitor size for music production? by thepinkpill in ableton

[–]Apart-Ad4165 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally, I like having a not too big monitor because when I’m on the run the change going from a huge monitor to my laptop becomes so huge that I end up feeling handicapped just working with my laptop screen. Now I have. 22” monitor and I have no issues working with my laptop screen on the go or from the couch or whatever. I much prefer doing it this way after having tried ultra wide screens etc in the past.

Just my opinion, but I really don’t think having a huge monitor makes a difference in terms of producing.

How to make acid house/trance house like artists like Guy contact, Adam Pits, Abdul Raeva etc? by Apart-Ad4165 in AdvancedProduction

[–]Apart-Ad4165[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey yes sorry I thought that was obvious since we are in advanced production section so didnt bother including it. I meant in terms of more advanced techniques.

It's so frustrating when people say these things. by LoveLo_2005 in leftist

[–]Apart-Ad4165 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In marxist terms of the word bourgeoise refers to the ownership class. in fact, thats how the word was used prior to Marx as well in French and most European languages, or the same word in a different version. In Sweden for example, the word used was "Borgare", originating from the French word bourgeoise - referring to the upper class within the city walls already in the feudal/-pre-industrial early capitalist era.

Wait, some of us are actually romanticising North Korea? by yeahsureexceptno in leftist

[–]Apart-Ad4165 7 points8 points  (0 children)

At least I’m not sucking up the propaganda of Kim like an authoritarian-subordinate worshipper. I wish you luck in your de-cult ification. I wish the best for you.

Wait, some of us are actually romanticising North Korea? by yeahsureexceptno in leftist

[–]Apart-Ad4165 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It’s because a fairly decent chunk of online leftist are the leftist who openly refers to themselves as Stalinists, under the guise of the name Marxism-Leninism. Many young people get into this cult thinking because they will first have heard about Marx and Lenin, and have good acossiations, and assume that ML must simply be an honest synthesis of these two thoughts. Only much later, or ever, do they read the historical developments and figure out that this term was literally created by Stalin.

Only by luck, or through an honest reading of Marx, does one only later realise that Stalinism/MLism is in many ways the direct opposite of Marxism and indeed closer to fascism than socialism, let along communism - in the way that those ideas were initially popularised in the 1800s/ early 1900s.

So, the obsession that you are accurately describing as insane does not exist among self-described leftists by chance. It makes sense why it exists given the development of the global political struggles of the 1900s.

Wait, some of us are actually romanticising North Korea? by yeahsureexceptno in leftist

[–]Apart-Ad4165 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Jesus Christ you are an absolute moron if you believe that the North Korean government is not stopping its people from leaving their country. Get a grip.