[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1627073937496.png ( 106.41 KB , 720x1498 , authfaggit.png )

 No.396885

>Haha anarchists are so dumb we need hierarchies to establish a society
>oh what humans throughout most of their history have survived through 100s If not thousands of plagues, famines, and geographical disasters while living in disorganized self sufficient tribes? Why does that matter obviously humans arent self preservational
>>

 No.396887

What value to leftism do you think your thread will bring OP? Are you posting it just to feel good about yourself or do you really hope to change something? If its the later, then log off, be smarter than the horde of tanks that will now jump at the bait, and start organizing irl. Elsewise, fuck off.
>>

 No.396889

>let's revert back to a system that sustained less than 1% of the current human population
niqqa do you even understand what civilization is and how we got here
>>

 No.396890

File: 1627074103586.jpg ( 287.23 KB , 1024x768 , vizzion meme 1,2.jpg )

>>

 No.396892

>>396887
What no arguments faggot? Humans haven't needed to have class enforced on themselves to survive and even to this day injustices around the world alleviate themselves through hierarchical societies that create artificial inequality based off a flawed meritocracy
>>

 No.396895

>the point where humanity was most anarchist was also the point where literally everyone was illiterate
OP your thread is shit
>>

 No.396899

>>396895
And your saying that a sizable chunk of this planet isnt still illiterate with most people only being able to read at a fucking grade school level isnt a reality?
>>396889
The introduction of agriculture and the rise of vaccines was the bigger factor behind the rapid expansion in the global population rather than civilization but okay
>>

 No.396901

>>396892
I don't even have an opinion about anything you said. All I see is that you are wasting your breath here since this argument will never change anything. If you believe you are right, go out to the world and do shit that follows your ideas and actually furthers them through collective action instead of having a pointless discussion which will lead you nowhere
>>

 No.396902

>>396885
>oh what humans throughout most of their history have survived through 100s If not thousands of plagues, famines, and geographical disasters while living in disorganized self sufficient tribes?

Said tribes were not disorganized and always had some kind of social hiearchy, whether formal or informal. Yes, this includes pre-agricultural civilization.

Reality is there is no such thing as a hierarchy less society because some human beings will always be more charismatic, more attractive, more manipulative or whatever else and accumulate more social capital which translates to more say in the community and hence more power. The reason why formal hierarchies are necessary along with rules, laws and policies and procedures determining what behavior is/isn't acceptable along with systems of accountability is because when these formal systems don't exist, what you get instead are informal hierachies dominated by typically the most manipulative, narcissistic or opportunistic ruling their social fiefdom as a personal cult with no method for accountability.

Even the worst formal hiearchy is better than the kind of hell which informal hiearchies tend to produce. Don't believe me? Look at any RL anarchist or Maoist "hiearchyless" group. Alternatively, read about the experiences of employees at "hiearchyless" corporations/coops like valve.
>>

 No.396904

>>396899
lmao you're so stupid
>>

 No.396909

>>396902
That seems fair, however I believe hierarchies exist due to humans as a collective believing and enforcing the belief on themselves that they exist
>>396904
You have literally no original arguments to counter my idea
>>

 No.396910

>>

 No.396913

>>396909
Because it's nonsense and it's obvious to everyone here you're a fucking retard out of your depth.
>>

 No.396914

>>396913
>I'm just going to call you stupid instead of explaining why
>>

 No.396916

Anarchists aren't dumb for thinking humans can live without authority. They're dumb for thinking humans can maintain a 21st century first world standard of living without authority.

If you wanna go back to eating nothing but barley stew and dying before you're 40 without running water or electricity or antibiotics, by all means, don't let any of us stop your anarchist utopia.
>>

 No.396917

>>

 No.396919

>>396916
Yes yes faggot because apparently the thousands of years of empires that enforced slavery and caste systems on themselves that ended up producing less technological innovation than the rise of libertarian societies and the age of enlightenment that allowed individuals to deviate and escape societies hierarchies that would go on to produce events like the civil rights movement that has improved the lives of millions were all somehow beaten by liberalism because of the lack of hierarchies. Stfu freedom builds success and a better humanity
>>

 No.396920

>>396919
>the rise of libertarian societies
Rise of liberalism != rise of libertarian societies. There are more laws, regulations, and micromanagement of citizens' lives than there have ever been. Feudal peasants and Roman slaves did not have anywhere near as many laws and customs to remember and obey as your average citizen in a liberal democracy.
>>

 No.396922

>>396902 (You)
To add onto this, Marx's concept of "primitive communism" has been pretty entirely debunked. It was a decent theory for the 19th century but we know both that organized/advanced civilization including permanent human settlements almost certainly existed pre-agricultural revolution, as complex non-agricultural civilizations consisting of many settlements in the 4 figure range and fairly complex economies, organized production, etc. continued to exist up until the last millenium throughout north america and Africa. What's more studies of said pre-agricultural groups including nomadic/hunter gatherer societies show that hiearchies did, and still do exist in these groups, abscence of literacy means that said laws can't exactly be written down but there really is no such thing as a "hiearchyless" group except as a very temporary vaccume state until informal social power accumulates around some individual/group of individuals which is an inevitability.

I suspect people who shill for this informal hiearchy shit are likely sheltered/socially maldeveloped & probably lack theory of mind as they seem to not grasp how social interaction & social power work on a basic level and they also seem to be unable to understand human beings as fundementally seperate agents with different interests, beliefs and motives which can, and often are at odds with each other even in perfect conditions and hence antisocial tendencies/behavior must always be repressed.
>>

 No.396923

>>396920
Are you seriously trying to delude yourself that a citizen today whom has the ability to buy weapons like knives and guns, pay to bribe politicians freely and travel all around the world whenever they want somehow is less free than a slave whom can be killed if they tried to escape their master?
>>

 No.396924

>>396923
I'm saying that civil liberty, as you understand it, has required a vast expansion of the state apparatus and legal system.
You are literally historically illiterate if you think the Roman Empire had a bigger, more all-powerful state than the USA. Most of the Roman Empire literally lived without any form of law enforcement and they could barely even enforce the few laws they DID have in their urban centers.
>>

 No.396927

>>396924
You understand that even to this day the american legal system one of the only functioning ones on the planet is notorious for avoiding enforcing the law on wealthier civilians while shitting on the poor or flat out declaring justice based off gender race religion or sexuality right? Hell that doesnt even fall into the fact that those regulations exist post industrial revolution as liberal societies became more organized with the rise of cartels, trade agreements and criminality
>>

 No.396928

>>396924
I feel like you're not going to understand my meaning, so let me clarify: Yes, people today are freer. And, that freedom has come at the EXPANSION of the state, not its reduction, like anarchists would have you believe would be the case.
>>

 No.396932

>>396923
>>396927
Jesus, nothing you anarchists say is worth one goddamn penny.
>>

 No.396933

>>396928
>by expanding the role of the government people have more freedom
Does this make any coherent sense to you? You said it yourself that ancient rome lived without law enforcement which would imply the entire empire was sustain not through authoritarian measures but rather by the collective of humanity that was apart of that empire collectively agreeing to look out for each other
>>

 No.396934

>>396927
Of course the American legal system doesn't enforce the law for wealthier citizens. It's a government by and for the wealthy. That has nothing to do with the relative power of the American government which, again, is a good contender for the largest and most powerful state in human history, maybe behind the PRC.
>>

 No.396941

>>396928
>Yes, people today are freer

Freedom is a purely subjective, largely emotional concept which has no concrete universal definition.

To a liberal or somebody whose concept of freedom is defined purely in individualistic terms ie by hedonistic consumption & access to luxuries, yes, we are more "free".

Most of humanity doesn't define freedom in these terms though. Communists certainly don't.
>>

 No.396942

>>396933
What I'm saying is that, before the state became all-powerful, tyranny was enforced by more direct relationships.
The slave master and his slave is not a state-citizen relationship and yet it was the bulk of "order" for much of human history. The noble and his serfs is not a state-citizen relationship and yet it was the bulk of order throughout the entire middle ages.
>>

 No.396944

>unironic return to monke
noose yourself anytime
>>

 No.396946

>>396941
I was using his definition for simplicity. I personally don't think "liberty" as an abstract concept is even remotely useful for analyzing or understanding the world, which is why I have no attraction whatsoever to anarchist thinking.
>>

 No.396949

Yet those primitive tribal methods of organization eventually gave way to the hierarchical empires of antiquity because of their contradictions, and also the notion that there was some primitive idealized communism before said hierarchical systems began has been debunked. Even the hunter gatherers and monkeys had inequality and hierarchy. And the groups which most deny that there is hierarchy in their organization are often subjected to the whims of worse informalized forms of hierarchy., that inevitably come into existence.
>>

 No.396950

>>396942
This would imply what I said here >>396909 that these hierarchies are self made and that others can and have the option to believe in them rather the circumstance where they're forced into living beneath their fellow man
>>396946
Liberty is the measurement of how much a single person can execute their ideas for example a man with a gun is more free than a disarmed man as the man with a gun can execute his need to kill or defend himself if he finds himself to be in danger
>>

 No.396952

>>396946
Understood & fair enough.
>>

 No.396955

>>396949
Than what's your objective hierarchy that would prevent the rise of empires feudalism and facist societies that constantly find themselves in complete disorganization every few years to 3 centuries?
>>

 No.396957

>>396885
>tribes
sewer system
>>

 No.396971

In a sense it's kind of sad that all our well-read resident anarchists have turned into tankies overtime and now we are stuck with those vaushite idiots that keep posting this malthusian and liberal trash.
>>

 No.396975

>>396971
>anarchists becoming tankies
Fuck dont most turn into free market neolibs, radicalization on that degree is normally a frequent occurence among teenagers rather than fully informed adults
>>

 No.396984

>>396971
>well-read resident anarchists
You can't have one. They will become Marxists.
>>

 No.396989

>>396887
These types of anarchists literally all they do is try to make themselves feel good because egoism is all they have left.
>>

 No.396994

>>396950
Never ever have a philosophical discussion, you suck and your argument sucks. Jesus Christ hahaha.
>>

 No.397000

>>396971
>>396975

Decent & intelligent anarchists either commit to the movement and take the tanky pill or drop out and become a part of the intelligent & well-read minority of third positionists via the natsyn/national anarchist to neo-fascist pipeline.

The majority end up becoming liberals (With the most successful becoming staffers for some social liberal party) or bottom of the barrel /pol/ retards who screech "I was a communist when I was younger!".
>>

 No.397011

>>397000
"The problems in the struggle against these concepts arise because they seem radical and revolutionary. For many who are influenced by such ideas honestly believe they are the most revolutionary. But when such policies fail–when they do not result in revolutionary victories, those who honestly believe in them face a dilemma. They can go one of three ways. Some give up the struggle. They use many excuses, but in essence they accept the status quo. They move into positions of opportunism. Others, in frustration, move into isolation by accepting the path of anarchism. This path destroys cadre as a meaningful revolutionary force. But most, however, draw the correct conclusions. They move into struggles and movements based on mass concepts. They draw the necessary conclusions that one’s revolutionariness can be measured only in the framework of moving masses into struggle. "

-Gus Hall
>>

 No.397013

>>396971
>kind of sad that all our well-read resident anarchists have turned into tankies
it's called inevitability
>>

 No.397014

>>396902
don't lump in maoists with anarchists on that, i have never heard of maoists rejecting "hierarchy" or even really using the term. are you one of those people who thinks the cultural revolution was an unbridled CHAZesque chaos led by crypto-anarchist student fanatics? because if you are, you've accidentally swallowed anticom propaganda and should read some william hinton
>>

 No.397020

>>397014
No, but the cultural revolution was a petty-bourgeois movement, just like anarchism.

Just read this:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hall/1970/crisis-petty-bourgeois-radicalism.htm
>>

 No.397030

>>397020
this is a preach-to-choir piece. it does not demonstrate its thesis, merely states it and elaborates on its own conclusion. the gpcr was a proletarian movement which incorporated proletarians as well as students, soldiers, and peasants under a proletarian leadership in the form of the left line of the communist party. see, i can assert my narratives as well as you can.
>>

 No.397035

>>397030
You didn't even read it.
>>

 No.397039

>>396885
Your high school clique extrapolated to the whole of society cannot function for long at least. I think with the massive fucking problems we have to solve on a global scale artisnal disaster relief and global warming reversal is not going to cut it.
>>

 No.397041

>>397030
>maoists preferring academes like hinton over working class leaders of the communist movement
Maoism. Is. A. Petty. Bourgeois. Movement.
>>

 No.397049

>>397035
>Throughout its history the Maoist influence has been a petty-bourgeois radical influence. In its basic essence the cultural revolution was propelled by a mass petty-bourgeois radical sweep. This is a special brand of petty-bourgeois radicalism because it takes place in a country that is building socialism. It is a special brand because the leading core of the leadership used it as an instrument in the struggle to stay in power.
implication: the "leading core of leadership" are, despite being communists in the communist party of china, petty-bourgeois radicals. gus hall's loyalty to the soviet union is clear here but he's not really proving his point, is he?
>It is a special brand because in China it was woven into a pattern with bourgeois nationalism.
the bourgeois nationalists got chased off the mainland. what is hall even writing about? cpc under mao, bourgeois nationalist? i think there's a vietcong poster on here who believes that but i don't know of any others.
>Mao’s policies have always been and are today based on mobilizing the non-working class sections. It was the destruction of the organizations and politics based on the working class that were the main objectives of the cultural revolution.
mao's theoretical advancement was in strengthening the class alliance between workers and the other classes in china while maintaining proletarian dictatorship. this follows from lenin, see "two tactics". generally lots of assertions about mao that are typical of brezhnev-era pro-sovietists but nothing very moving to me.

read this instead!
https://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/article/72/CRpaper-Final.pdf
>>

 No.397050

>>397014
Differentiating western post-rim Maoists, ie those who identify with the ridiculous myth that Gonzalo "synthesized" MLM from the majority of Maoists globally who reject this line & Maoism (yes, Maoism, not MZT-ML) as it existed in revolutionary China.

Maoist groups in the US may not in theory reject formal hierarchies, they certainly lack actual concrete organizationation infrustructure outside of PR & as a result their "orgs" quickly turn into degenerate, malicious & highly insular social cliques ran by some dysfunctional arcissist or another before being rammed into the ground.
>>

 No.397060

>>397041
gus hall more like suck ball. leader of the working class more like breeder of your twerking ass. i'm here all year folks
>>397050
everybody here is a bloody expert on how awful them westernmaoist gorgonzoloids are, i know i know. i'm not aware that your criticism is accurate but if it were then it would just be evidence there's something wrong with either the theory or the application. if it's something wrong with the theory, crit the theory. if it's something wrong with application then we can't solve that problem just talking about it here, but it will probably resolve by trial and error if nothing else.
>>

 No.397063

>>397049
>while maintaining proletarian dictatorship

I was going to respond to your remarks, but it's not worth it. There was never a proletarian dictatorship to begin with, but a "democratic people's dictatorship" under Mao's New Democracy. Why do maoists conveniently ignore this?
>>

 No.397067

>>397063
>Why do maoists conveniently ignore this?
Because Maoists refuse to acknowledge that, in many cases, Mao was a literal retard. If you read his work on dialectics you quickly realize that outside the topic of guerilla warfare, he was generally a brainlet of the highest order.
>>

 No.397077

File: 1627079842305.jpg ( 129.53 KB , 1043x731 , 1621172718249.jpg )

keep crying and fuck off back to plebbit
>>

 No.397080

>>397063
that's like saying stalin's ussr wasn't a proletarian dictatorship because it had the nep. i.e. it's false and the justification is also false. new democracy was the period of transition between the conquest of political power in china and the beginning of socialist construction, roughly 1949-1957. in new democracy, the leading class is the proletariat, and all other classes are subordinate partners. if your understanding of new democracy were correct, with the non-proletarian classes dominating the proletariat rather than the inverse, socialist construction would have never begun.
>>

 No.397083

>>397080
So, can you explain to me how New Democracy wasn't just class collaborationism, i.e., something any principled Marxist should be violently opposed to?
>>

 No.397088

>>397083
read "two tactics" by lenin. classes can ally when they have interests in common, that's not "collaborationism", any more than the crossing of the hammer with the sickle means "collaborationism" between workers and peasants.
>>

 No.397091

>>397088
Ok, but how is the bourgeoisie and proletariat "allying" to create socialism not literally opposed to everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin ever wrote on the topic?
>>

 No.397092

>>397067
I'm not a Hoxhaist, but yes, that is true.
>>

 No.397096

>>397091
the bourgeoisie does not ally with the proletariat to create socialism. the national bourgeoisie allies with the proletariat to overthrow a semi-colonial and semi-feudal regime, which makes socialist revolution possible afterward.
>>

 No.397100

>>397096
Oh ok, so the socialist revolution occurred after New Democracy, which you said roughly ended in 1957?
>googles "Chinese Revolution of 1958"
>0 results
Explain yourself, Maoist.
>>

 No.397103

>>396892
I don’t want to see humanity to survive in shitty communes while knowing that we will inevitably get annihilated by random environmental factors my dude. I want humanity to live in plenty and have a chance to experience something new. Not repeating the same destructive cycle that we escaped thousands of years ago through the discovery of agriculture.
As I stated before, anarchist romanticization of hunter gatherer primitive communism is just as dangerous if not more than fascist fantasizing about slave societies. At least fascists don’t want to wipe out 90% of human population just for their version of paradise to work. Plus it wouldn’t work anyway. As history have shown, a better organized fighting force always crush a lesser one. What’s the game plan here? Make everyone in the world establish their own separate commune then suddenly capitalism will fall? That’s as stupid and idealistic as “building socialism in one country”. It’s basically internalizing siege socialism.
>>

 No.397109

>>397077
THE ENDGOAL OF COMMUNISM DESCRIBED BY MARX AND ENGLES THEMSELVES WAS THE ABLOSHMENT OF CLASS MONEY AND THE GOVERNMENT HOLY SHIT YOUR RETARDED
>>

 No.397115

>>397109
Yeah, but it's worth noting that Marx and Engels envisioned the state becoming purely "administrative" in nature, which anarchists would likely still decry as "authoritarian", because anarchists are children.
>>

 No.397117

>>397109
Government =/= State
>>

 No.397119

>>397115
So your saying a smaller government? Yeah libertarians say alot of the same shit when they start talking about the role of the state as government
>>

 No.397125

File: 1627081108296.jpg ( 17.15 KB , 720x480 , 2fqotan.jpg )

>disorganized self sufficient tribes
>disorganized tribes
oxymoron, a cross all the fucking continent from the Siberian waste to African Nile base, they were hierarchies either in form of the respect elder/matriach/ the fucker that remain alive for more than 35 years/Parents i wonder how the fuck people can plan i dunno fucking agriculture without consult the elder, to fucking concept of honoring the ancestor and rite of passage that develop from this basic concept.
>>

 No.397128

File: 1627081156485.jpeg ( 230.37 KB , 640x420 , 1621653753874-2.jpeg )

>>397109
Yes, the ENDgoal when the capitalists are encircled and are no longer a threat to the international communist movement
you absolute fucking child
>>

 No.397129

>>397119
Not "smaller", just different. They theorized (correctly, in my view) that once social classes disappeared, the only concern of the government would be economic coordination and planning and that traditional political and social concerns would reveal their economic nature.
What that would look like is anyone's guess, but I imagine it would be pretty close to the government described in Star Trek.
>>

 No.397131

>>396885
a society without hierarchies is a late stage communist ideology. we aren't cavemen anymore, anarchism would come from advancing through the stage of institutions and bureaucracy, not immediately rejecting it as tyrannical
>>

 No.397132

>>396885
>oh what humans throughout most of their history have survived through 100s
Irrelevant!

The point is not the survival of the human species, the point is the survival of those organisations of the revolution. Only the People's Republic of China survives, the First French Republic is gone and the USSR is gone. And even then, their collapses has led the species itself onto a path of climate extinction, massive pandemics and nuclear imperialism.

Only a good guy with a state can beat a bad guy with a state. And for your concern with human survival, you glaringly ignore how reactionary states have plunged the species dangerously close to extinction of not for revolutionary ones.
>>

 No.397136

Why can't Maoists understand that putting a military tactician in charge of the communist party is not a good idea. If not trotsky, why Mao?
>>

 No.397139

>>397136
Well he was a experienced guerilla leader but was also a theorist that developed his works through the chinese civil war
obviously he deteriated as a communist when he got older
>>

 No.397178

>>397100
the beginning of socialist construction was 1957. like with the nep, another type of transitional stage, no violent uprising is necessary to transfer toward socialism because the communist party already leads. you're what, intentionally misunderstanding me? is my explanation not clear?
>>

 No.397181

>>397178
I'm confused because what you're describing to me, is a peaceful transition from a bourgeois-worker government to a worker government.
You can see why, as a Marxist, I'm skeptical.
>>

 No.397182

>>397132
I remind myself that people like OP come from the same base as the kinds of people who open up cupcake shops in major cities with a business model based on unironic internalization of the just-world fallacy and "We'll tell all of our friends about it!" which end up closing down in 9/10 cases as they completely bungle logistics on every feasible level, having absolutely no grasp on any kind of organizational or management skills.
>>

 No.397185

>>397181
because to describe it as a "bourgeois worker government" is inaccurate. if the vast majority of the government is proletarian but also includes a bourgeois minority, that can transfer peacefully (because the proletariat is already in charge).
>>

 No.397194

>>397185
I see, thanks for the explanation. I'll have to do my own reading, but I appreciate that you responded to my questions.
>>

 No.397306

>>397103
building capitalism in one country sounds more like a realistic idea tbh.

Unique IPs: 21

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome