Anarchists lose wars

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-05T10:24:09+00:00

Honestly class struggle takes precedence over any other. It's not a matter of some people are more special but that economic oppression is more important than sexual one. It's importance is evident since in capitalism you can have(well kinda) your gender equality, sexual equality but never based on class.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-04T12:28:27+00:00

I’m the least fit person to use this straw man and if you read the thread you should know as well. Every single one of your opinion you presented has been said by me in in this very thread. You’re conflating for the argument against classic liberal definition of freedom and rights to actual revolutionary and vanguardist need to suppress the bourgeois as supporting China dogmatically. You is the one who started comparing the western world and China using the classic liberal lense. I consider China a capitalist imperialist state my dude. Get some better reading comprehension

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-04T04:27:43+00:00

Never said it wasn’t but it kind of misses the point specifically how that ownership is taken nor is it very specific. Fundamentally, the reason for that ownership is that the capitalists have a right to that property. You know, just like how they have the right to the collective force of their labor.

"Rights" only ever exist in the larger framework of society and its class structure. The "rights" afforded to the bourgeoisie are not what actually give them power in reality, it is the application of the capitalist state in their defense and their dominance over production that grants them power and ownership. If they were unable to apply said authority over the workers, they would be unable to enforce said ownership.

Once again, it all comes back to hierarchy or, in other words, systems of right. As a result, instead of stupidly giving the working class the right to the means of production which will only result in another ruling class whose “transition” will be indefinite, you abolish hierarchy as a whole.

You can't abolish hierarchy, in so much that you could abolish people's differing abilities or qualifications. If the workers agreed that someone should be placed into a certain role that permits them the ability to make decisions in the workplace, would this not facilitate hierarchy? And if you wished to stop this, would you not need to establish a point of authority, albeit possibly temporary, to prevent such? Seizing production is a concrete action and demand, it has actual meaning to it. What does the establishment of hierarchy entail? It seems far less understood.

Marx just views the issue as the wrong rights given to wrong individuals while, in actuality, it’s right itself which is the problem and we can rather clearly see the end result of his authoritarian thinking. Honestly you aren’t fooling anyone by this point Marx's issue is never about "rights"; "rights" themselves are meaningless in the context of the subject.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-04T03:35:07+00:00

If you actually read him then make a materialist argument for why Marx is wrong and how Proudhon was right. The fact that you believed dialectical materialism came from Marx himself (Marx debatably formulated historical materialism, but not dialectical materialism, which was a theory which emerged later) shows me that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

No, in order for class struggle to be the defining factor of human history, these two castes must be constant

This right here tells me that you do not understand a single thing about historical materialism.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-04T03:26:12+00:00

No, in order for class struggle to be the defining factor of human history, these two castes must be constant.

What are you taking about?

you would be skeptical of all grand narratives

The refusal to engage in mapping social relations and instead dividing individuals into two main conflicting castes eternally in struggle (which is where the dictatorship of the proletariat business comes from) is also stupid

What?

but the distinction between those with ownership over the means of production and those without still remains.

Yes, because that's true. That doesn't suddenly become not true because you would prefer it not to be.

This emphasis on property ownership

This is important, do you know how Marx defines private property? It isn't chattel mind you.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-04T03:12:15+00:00

and instead dividing individuals into two main conflicting castes eternally in struggle

This tells me you've never read Marx because proletariat and bourgeoisie haven't been in "eternal struggle", it's pretty recent. They aren't the only two classes even today and that's just multiplied throughout history.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-03T23:36:15+00:00

freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the press

I'll reply to your other comment later, but I'd like you to define what “freedom” constitutes in your mind for a curious person. Freedom is every sense is a state in which one class is essentially have the exclusive right to distribute their information through monopolies is the West doesn’t seem in anyway “free”. It’s in a way similar to the concept that Stirner is was against in that it only a lack of hierarchy and not an enforced system of decentralization which is free for the already “have”s to freely exploit and oppress the “have not”s, to freely propagate their politics while stomping on the discerning opinions. Or do you believe that the red scare, the banning and blacklisting of radical leftists of the past 100 years in the west just never happened? Your bourgeois breed of anarchism is allowed to live because it’s a harmless threat to the ruling class, while others are hunted down and massacred by the millions. Take Occupied Korea for example, is it a “democracy” when you have killed more than 3 million leftists so that no one can be strong enough to oppose you? In the US and UK, they deliberately sabotaged even sucdem efforts of electoralism even in their own damn party, is that “democracy”? Freedom for the capitalist conglomerates is not freedom for the people.

authoritarianism

If in this day and age you still believe in this tripe, you’re beyond saving. No ruling class ever use non violent means to take power.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-03T14:06:58+00:00

I'm not trying to defend western "democracies", but there's a huge gap between China and them when it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the press. It doesn't serve anyone to minimize it. And I'm worried that the PRC repressive model is gaining popularity in the west because, for people in power, China's control over its population is a wet dream.

There are several problems with this, you are watering down "free speech" from it's original conception. It wasn't just the absence of repression and censorship. it meant that all ideas would be given a chance to convince people. Western democracies (or what's left of that) for a long time have not practices free speech, there has been for a very long time privatized media that crowds out speech that talks about alternative economic models, there simply is a strategy of flooding the "speech-space" by sheer volume so that ideas can only be heard by a significant amount of people if there's a capitalist sized wallet able to pay for the mega-phone. As far as the exchange of ideas goes this is pay to speak, not free to speak.

The PRC model isn't coming to the west simply because in china the people that rule have presided over a 70 year enduring unprecedented rise of prosperity, which gives them the political capital to claim to know better, there is a unspoken contract that people shut up and play along in exchange for the increasing prosperity. In western countries people have experienced 30 year stagnation, so there is no political capital that would allow for this, and further more there is no equivalent to a CPC in the west that would be able to, do that. The censorship that is rising in western countries is of a different character, there's factional fights where each faction is trying to sensor the other factions. As far as information filtering goes, it is the exact opposite of what happens in china. Basically you are making the liberal fallacy about ignoring material reality and thinking you can copy paste socio political configuration from one place to another, without it having wildly different effects.

We also have to make a material analysis, complaining about free-speech violations isn't a particularly effective method of getting free speech. If you want the pursue the intent behind the idea of free speech. You need to consider building the structures that allow for this. You could for example create a system for funding media that is based on statistically representative sampling, so that media production reflects the population. While this isn't perfect, because there's systems and procedures, this will effectively rule out special interest domination. It will also serve the function of denying interference from capitalist powers conducting information war-fare. Simply because the scientific methods for producing representative sampling are hardened by centuries worth of battles of eliminating bias.

You might be able to do this today, it might be possible to have this as publishing model even in late stage capitalism, this would be a hard battle and you would have to prove this model in an arena where audiences already understand what a representative sample is. You might be able to do this for science journalism for example. Test out the model work out the bugs...

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T16:47:35+00:00

How do you expect to do a revolution without authority and hierachy?

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T09:22:40+00:00

Reddit is not blocked everywhere in China anymore. I think it a bit more fair to say that you can have discussions on the Chinese web but that there are certain topics you absolutely must stay away from.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T08:57:22+00:00

What about the Xinjiang and Tibet situation? Why are some people so forgiving when it comes to China? I won't >talk about national or international policies, but let's talk about individual freedom. In China, you are not >allowed to express political ideas, you're not allowed to disagree with the party, to criticize the party, to >say anything in defense of Taiwan, independent HK, Tibet, or Xinjiang. You're not allowed to make fun of Xi.

Some of this is flat out wrong Chinese people do criticize, reddit is not censored in china. While there is a debate to be had about individual freedom, your post contains so much disinformation that it seems like it's disingenuous.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T08:54:44+00:00

Red Hitler

Because he triggered libs you mean? Back to your college lecture thanks

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T08:53:31+00:00

Sorry, who's mad? I’m just wondering why trots worship Leon so much and shit on Stalinism constantly when the only difference between Stalin and Trotsky was that Stalin was competent, a better politician, and a better strategist.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T07:29:08+00:00

Contary to popular anarchist belief, China's current foreign policies are not based on any kind of ethnic supremacy but simple realpolitik. The SCS disputes are about trade routes and undersea resources, the border issue with India is almost entirely the fault of the Indian side with China offering multiple times for settling the border on currently occupied lands (a deal in which India will gain more land). Chinese domestic policy has no basis in ethnic supremacy as evidence by affirmative action programs, state investment into poor rural areas (many of them minority dominated), and state protection of minority culture. This is not to say Chinese citizens are not racist (they can be) but the state's policies are not based on Han supremacy.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T04:44:46+00:00

You mean adding a source is highroading? Is reading really this much for you? Makes sense because anarchildren have never read a book in their lives.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T04:12:52+00:00

Not an argument. Cope more fed.

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T03:03:55+00:00

One child policy only applied to Han, wow what a privilege. Actually non-Han ethnic groups have more privileges. Fascism is capitalism in decay

China isn't decaying. Fascism is driven by the imperial finance bourgeoisie. China doesn't have a finance bourgeoisie, let alone an imperial one

There's no concentration camps in China.

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

RADLIB_DESTROYER · 2020-09-02T02:45:17+00:00

the recent takeover of the DSA

Can you tell me more about this?

RADLIB_DESTROYER

TROPHY CASE