Can you name a large scale anarchist project with better rights than Cuba or Vietnam?
I’ll save you the effort: nah. Catalonia had concentration camps and “free” Ukraine was a bandit dictatorship that empowered kulaks to do pogroms. And they both got crushed partially due to a lack of centralization, and a lack of collaboration with and alienation from popular fronts.
“Tankies” as you put it, are the actual leftists advancing liberation, and not just jerking themselves off about how left they are, which is easy to do when their ideology remains only theoretical. When the rubber hits the road, anarchists fall somewhere between the brutality of socialist projects and capitalism.
As Trotsky said “anarchism is a rain coat that leaks only while it is wet”
Imprecise definition aside, revolutions have to be able to defend themselves, and it could be argued Catalonia and Ukraine started in much better material positions and ended up falling apart because of problems with their political/economic structure, while the semi-centralized democracy and rationalized economy of the USSR allowed them to succeed in defending itself from the Nazis (but not, ultimately, from the US empire, however Vietnam, Cuba, laos, and China succeeded, and the DPRK partially succeeded)
I don’t believe in rights. at least, there’s no such thing as an inalienable right, since governments can and do take them away. I’m not even sure how to begin to answer your question given that I think that you’re talking about fictions. sort of like asking me which anarchist society had the most thetans, or protection spirits.
I didn’t think that I’d have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure. but I guess it’s true that some people still side with the wrong people at the second international.
Not even positive rights? You’re literally like “authority means it is by definition a class society” and you don’t believe in rights? How do you square that circle?
It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don’t want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.
I didn’t think that I’d have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure.
And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.
Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state? You know, that thing that socialists and anarchists both do, that involves hierarchy in repressing right wing elements? That socialists actually acknowledge the evil of, as opposed to pretending like they’re not doing a transitional state?
Or do you have a new super special plan to do classless society day one? If so I’d love to hear it.
nothing like moving the goalposts to end the workday.
i’m opposed to prefigurative theories of revolution. we don’t know what society will look like in every corner of the world without oppression. we do know what oppression is, and we can fight it.
we do know what oppression is, and we can fight it.
You’re against concentration of power. Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?
Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?
you’re going to need to define revolution and success and concentration, and at this point, we might as well just lay our cards on the table. you believe it’s only practical to have a transitional state. i have a suspicion about anything that even smells like a state. we will not reconcile this in !memes today.
i don’t think i’m misrepresenting your position. i feel i understand it, and i disagree about the practicality of setting up a system of oppression to end oppression.
I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh. And they absolutely had authority. Hell, they had concentration camps.
It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don’t want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.
that’s not what you proposed to use as a metric. i’m not sure how to quantify them and, frankly, or what a good measure would be, i guess.
i do know that i don’t trust anyone else to decide how i keep myself fed and safe. given the choice in constructing a revolution, i would empower individuals to a maximum degree and destroy concentrations of power wherever they’re found.
one has nothing to do with the other, except that hierarchies sometimes pretend to respect (or grant)rights, but the fact that they have the discretion means the rights, themselves, are fictions.
No. There’s a spectrum of both communism and anarchism, their intersection tends to be known as anarcho-communism. An example of non-anarchist communism is vanguardist communism, which is inherently authoritarian (and anti-anarchist).
They’re analogous to the far right is the main thing. Anarchism/communism/etc. is the gateway to such views. Most lefists don’t go that far (good) but some do. Same thing with the far right, they start off as libertarian, ancap, or run of the mill conservatives etc. and end up going into cuckoo land after they watch too much cable news and facebook conspiracies.
In the USA, we have an environment where it’s far easier and more beneficial to those in power to co-opt people into right wing extremism than left wing extremism, hence the outsized representation. You can definitely find countries where the opposite is true, it’s a fairly big issue in south american and southeast asian nations. What’s interesting to me is that the end goals are nearly the same, which is to implement an authoritarian state where there is a powerful insular ingroup that can exploit the masses to their benefit.
the end goals are nearly the same, which is to implement an authoritarian state
first, a bit of snark: there is a cure for political illiteracy.
then, a rebuttal: communism is a stateless classless moneyless society. there is no such thing as a communist state. for many anarchists, this is indistinguishable from anarchism.
The far lefists aren’t commies though, that’s my point. They play like they are, but really they’re just authoritarian fascists. Commies are just regular leftists, and marxist schools of thought are a totally reasonable worldview to carry even if I don’t agree with some points of it.
if you’re not building a classless stateless society, you’re not a leftist. I’d be just as offended about being called a liberal as being called a tankie. statism is bad.
Statelessness is the end goal of communism, yes. I have met so-called communists that think strongarm authoritarianism is the way to get there, and for some reason believe that those authoritarians would willingly give up their power once they’ve achieved a position where they could implement said stateless society. This is basically what happened in the USSR and China, and is decidedly not the path Marx himself proposed for achieving it. A stateless communist society in Marxist thought is simply the natural progression after late stage capitalist societies, which is not a step you can simply skip over.
I don’t necessarily agree with the idea, but I think it’s important to be educated on a wide variety of schools of political thought.
What’s interesting to me is that the end goals are nearly the same, which is to implement an authoritarian state where there is a powerful insular ingroup that can exploit the masses to their benefit.
Unlike centrist liberals, who want to create a non hierarchical, stateless society with no exploitation or in groups…
Nowhere did I claim such a thing. Some leftist groups want the whole stateless thing. Go even further left into crazy land though and you run into strongarm authoritarianism.
I’d call myself a liberal in the modern sense, I certainly don’t believe that large scale stateless societies are viable but there are definitely things we can learn from ideologies further to the left than what I subscribe to.
Authoritarianism is by definition illiberal and anyone who is authoritarian or supports authoritarianism is not liberal no matter what they claim to be. Centrism is also a meme, anyone who claims to be a centrist is usually just a stan for authoritarians in disguise.
The core tenant of liberalism is respect for the autonomy and civil liberties of the individual and consent of the governed to the rules of the government through the machinations of democracy. Any system claiming to be liberal without subscribing to that is a farce.
The same could be said of the “far left”. They claim to be leftists, and they might have started out as such, but they have stepped out into crazy land and end up supporting things antithetical to the ideologies they claim to subscribe to.
Authoritarianism is by definition illiberal and anyone who is authoritarian or supports authoritarianism is not liberal no matter what they claim to be. Centrism is also a meme, anyone who claims to be a centrist is usually just a stan for authoritarians in disguise.
Ok, but now you’re just fiddling with semantics so that your thesis is tautologically true. Sure, if you redefine your terms in a circular way so that authoritarianism means iliberalism and iliberalism means authoritarianism, then obviously its true, but it’s not very meaningful. It also doesn’t really make sense in regards to your original argument that the extremes of left and right are authoritarian, because, by your definition of liberal there is not now and never as been a liberal society. The USA incarcerates a volume of people that dwarfs any of the called ‘authoritarian’ nations, comparable to the Soviet Gulag system at the height of the purges. It also summarily executes people for minor crimes all the time. It frequently overthrows governments and engages in mass killings, including currently committing a genocide. Beyond that, it unilaterally deprives its people of access to the Earths commons using unilateral and lethal force, as well as hording vast quantities of stolen wealth from its rightful owners and using that wealth to oppress them. Other ‘liberal’ countries may not go to the same level, but they all do the same things. They have all been authoritarian and thus not liberal, which would make liberalism an extremist left wing ideology.
The core tenant of liberalism is respect for the autonomy and civil liberties of the individual and consent of the governed to the rules of the government through the machinations of democracy.
That’s all the tenants of leftism, including the ‘extreme’ leftism you call ‘crazy land’. You’re also leaving out the important caveats: autonomy as defined by liberals (So not, for example, autonomy to freely roam the earth and make use of its commons without interruption), civil liberties as defined by liberals (so not, for example, the liberty to make use of the means of production as you like), and consent of the governed as defined by liberals (so not, for example, the ability to ignore the degrees of government that you do not consent to).
The same could be said of the “far left”. They claim to be leftists, and they might have started out as such, but they have stepped out into crazy land and end up supporting things antithetical to the ideologies they claim to subscribe to.
Are you willing to apply this standard to ‘moderate’ liberals; are you willing to extend it to yourself? Will you declare anyone who shows even critical support for existing failed attempts at liberalism (which is all of them, by your definition), as having “stepped out into crazy land and end up supporting things antithetical to the ideologies they claim to subscribe to.”? Do you condemn people who support George Washington the same way as you do people who support Lenin? Do you condemn people who support Lincoln the same way as you do people who support Castro? Do you condemn people who support Churchill the same as people who support Pol Pot? Do you condemn the French Revolution and the American Revolution the same as the Russian and Chinese?
Because if not, I can only conclude that it’s not ‘authoritarianism’ that you consider “crazy land”; it’s just political heterodoxy in general.
This entire discussion is about semantics, so I see no issue with getting fiddly with it. As for authoritarianism being illiberal, I don’t see how that is tautological. Authoritarianism is when the government or ruler has absolute control and has no obligation to accept input from the populace over which they rule. This violates the consent aspect of liberalism. These are commonly accepted definitions, not stuff I just made up. They’re mutually exclusive concepts and absolute versions of either cannot coexist.
And yes, I do think there has never been a truly liberal society, just as there has never been a truly communist society or any other -ist or -ism based society. They are concepts we can strive for, but adhering perfectly to the academic definition of any of these concepts is not realistic. I think the USA is fundemantally illiberal in many regards, and we would do well to strive to correct those aspects.
As for the definitions of those specific aspects of liberalism, yes, of course it is those aspects defined under the framework of liberalism. It would just take thousands of words to provide the entire context and it’s not super important here. You seem to understand that these words have different definitions in different frameworks, and I’m sure anyone discussing political ideology in this level of depth is also aware of that.
When I’m talking about the extremist sides of the spectrum, far left and far right, I am referring to those who tread into territory where their ideology becomes ostensibly dangerous. The most common version of this is directly supporting things like oppressive authoritarian rulers and population cleansing, There are absolutely people on both the left and the right who would see those as acceptable means to their end of implementing their preferred ideology. Right wingers who want to ethnically cleanse populations they see as problematic or inferior are no better than the far leftists who want to guillotine whoever they decide is the bougouise. This is the crazy land I’m talking about. Not being in crazy land means trying your best to not support awful shit, making sure you are picking the least bad feasible options in your current situation, and revising your positions and who you support when evidence indicates that the bad outweighs the good.
And yes, I actually do have a lot of issues with the French and American revolutions, and I do not think Churchill was a particularly good guy. I don’t think they are the same as the Russian and Chinese revolutions. They all resulted in regimes of varying levels of “bad”, but the Chinese and Russian versions resulted in higher death tolls and much more unhealthy systems coming out the other side (in my subjective opinion).
I think to cover the rest of your points, there are degrees here and the real world doesn’t function in absolutes as I mentioned in the second paragraph. I don’t have time to respond to every comparison you mentioned, but Washington vs Lenin for example: Washington did not have secret police killing dissidents by the thousands. Lenin did. Washington did not implement policy that resulted in mass famines resulting in the deaths of millions, Lenin did. Washington did support slavery and ethnic cleansing of Native American populations, and it irritates me greatly that this gets glossed over. Lenin did not. Which one of those guys is worse depends on your subjective values, but for me, I’d say Lenin is the worse guy.
I’m tired and it’s almost 3am so hopefully all that makes sense.
This entire discussion is about semantics, so I see no issue with getting fiddly with it.
My point is you are redefining words as you go, which is pointless.
for authoritarianism being illiberal, I don’t see how that is tautological
Because you have defined it tautologically.
Authoritarianism is when the government or ruler has absolute control and has no obligation to accept input from the populace over which they rule
Which doesn’t apply to any of these ‘far left extremist’ projects you’re talking about.
And yes, I do think there has never been a truly liberal society, just as there has never been a truly communist society or any other -ist or -ism based society. They are concepts we can strive for, but adhering perfectly to the academic definition of any of these concepts is not realistic. I think the USA is fundemantally illiberal in many regards, and we would do well to strive to correct those aspects.
Then how can you say you are anything but a leftwing extremist yourself?
As for the definitions of those specific aspects of liberalism, yes, of course it is those aspects defined under the framework of liberalism. It would just take thousands of words to provide the entire context and it’s not super important here.
It’s extremely important; it’s essentially you saying “It’s not authoritarianism when we do it!”
When I’m talking about the extremist sides of the spectrum, far left and far right, I am referring to those who tread into territory where their ideology becomes ostensibly dangerous. The most common version of this is directly supporting things like oppressive authoritarian rulers and population cleansing, There are absolutely people on both the left and the right who would see those as acceptable means to their end of implementing their preferred ideology. Right wingers who want to ethnically cleanse populations they see as problematic or inferior are no better than the far leftists who want to guillotine whoever they decide is the bourgeois.
And this is the crux of my point; you say this like the center of the spectrum, and liberals, aren’t dangerous; aren’t perfectly happy to support authoritarian rulers and populations cleansing, who see genocidal violence acceptable means to their ends of maintaining their preferred ideology. In fact, in our current world, the overwhelming majority of violence and suffering is caused by moderates and liberals. You need to examine your blind spot here, and stop acting like the moderate position is somehow pacifism.
And yes, I actually do have a lot of issues with the French and American revolutions, and I do not think Churchill was a particularly good guy.
So no, you don’t hold liberals to the same standard you hold leftists, you instead hold a massive, systematic double standard.
I don’t think they are the same as the Russian and Chinese revolutions.
And there it is, right here, the deep seated double standard. Like I said; you don’t hate authoritarianism, you hate political heterodoxy.
but the Chinese and Russian versions resulted in higher death tolls and much more unhealthy systems coming out the other side (in my subjective opinion).
Death tolls are not subject to “subjective opinions”; you’re just wrong
Which one of those guys is worse depends on your subjective values, but for me, I’d say Lenin is the worse guy.
And that says a fuckload about how fucking evil your subjective values are.
See, this is why I loath liberals, in some ways more than fascists; at least fascists are open about their evil. You don’t actually hold principles you apply consistently, you don’t actually believe in all that shit about autonomy and liberty. They’re all just a smoke screen to justify ruthlessly crushing any oppositions: martial law, torture, murder, genocide, chattel slavery; these are all perfectly forgivable in defense of liberalism, at worst they’ll get you called “not a great guy”, but you certainly won’t be called “a dangerous authoritarian in crazy land” and you will always, always, be certain that you will be considered better than any leftist leader.
I seriously cannot get over saying chattel slavery and genocide are better than Lenin, or that Churchhill; a man who genocided millions of people and proudly presided over the most brutal empire in history, is better than the Russian revolution.
They’re analogous to the far right is the main thing. Anarchism/communism/etc. is the gateway to such views. Most lefists don’t go that far (good) but some do. Same thing with the far right, they start off as libertarian, ancap, or run of the mill conservatives etc. and end up going into cuckoo land after they watch too much cable news and facebook conspiracies.
i don’t think there is a reputable source to substantiate this.
I don’t know of any particular sources but I do have anecdotes of watching friends and family fall into these traps on both ends of the spectrum. A couple of my leftist friends have started treading dangerously close to some pretty sour viewpoints. I mostly see it as pro-accelerationism, everything I don’t like is capitalism/neoliberalism/western values, and are totally blind to the influence propaganda has on them and the weak points in their own ideologies.
On the right, I’ve watched several of my family members go down the fox news alt right rabbit hole and end up at similarly dumb viewpoints. They also want a revolution, except everything they don’t like is liberals/communism/woke etc. They are also totally blind to the influence of propaganda and the weak points in their ideologies. The media machine in the US is set up to make this pipeline far more efficient than the leftist version.
They mostly don’t like the same things, but they’re pulling in opposite directions, and each is convinced that when the revolution comes, their side is the one that will win out, when in reality, we’ll probably just end up with the same shit, different coat of paint.
Me? I think there’s concepts we can borrow from many ideologies that can help us solve specific problems and bring about incremental change until we reach true propserity. The socialists and commies get some stuff right, so do the libertarians, the anarchists, the ancaps, etc. The only thing I think will definitely not help is tearing it all down. There is no silver bullet, it’s all just problems that are met with ever improving solutions. Sometimes we take two steps forward one step back, but I don’t think anyone can deny that the world at large is better off now than when it was almost completely ruled by monarchy, bloody violence, and slavery a few hundred years back.
Exactly this. I’ve been calling them the “burn it down” group. It’s not a fun ideology… sure they don’t have a lot of power today, but that’s how these things work. If they have power it’s too late. It’s worth knowing that this is a growing movement with real people. They are my cousins, coworkers and a few of my friends lol. Not just a social media rhetoric or scare tactic.
I don’t consider tankies leftists. I’m an anarchist. I consider myself far left.
Can you name a large scale anarchist project with better rights than Cuba or Vietnam?
I’ll save you the effort: nah. Catalonia had concentration camps and “free” Ukraine was a bandit dictatorship that empowered kulaks to do pogroms. And they both got crushed partially due to a lack of centralization, and a lack of collaboration with and alienation from popular fronts.
“Tankies” as you put it, are the actual leftists advancing liberation, and not just jerking themselves off about how left they are, which is easy to do when their ideology remains only theoretical. When the rubber hits the road, anarchists fall somewhere between the brutality of socialist projects and capitalism.
As Trotsky said “anarchism is a rain coat that leaks only while it is wet”
being invaded by imperialists is not an indictment of a society or its structure.
Imprecise definition aside, revolutions have to be able to defend themselves, and it could be argued Catalonia and Ukraine started in much better material positions and ended up falling apart because of problems with their political/economic structure, while the semi-centralized democracy and rationalized economy of the USSR allowed them to succeed in defending itself from the Nazis (but not, ultimately, from the US empire, however Vietnam, Cuba, laos, and China succeeded, and the DPRK partially succeeded)
I don’t believe in rights. at least, there’s no such thing as an inalienable right, since governments can and do take them away. I’m not even sure how to begin to answer your question given that I think that you’re talking about fictions. sort of like asking me which anarchist society had the most thetans, or protection spirits.
I didn’t think that I’d have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure. but I guess it’s true that some people still side with the wrong people at the second international.
Not even positive rights? You’re literally like “authority means it is by definition a class society” and you don’t believe in rights? How do you square that circle?
It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don’t want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.
And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.
Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state? You know, that thing that socialists and anarchists both do, that involves hierarchy in repressing right wing elements? That socialists actually acknowledge the evil of, as opposed to pretending like they’re not doing a transitional state?
Or do you have a new super special plan to do classless society day one? If so I’d love to hear it.
it’s not new. gallianists have been at it for a century.
Sorry, I set the bar too low.
Feasible plans for a classless society day one.
How far have they gotten in that century? Because honestly the whole “at it for a century” thing reeks of failure.
nothing like moving the goalposts to end the workday.
i’m opposed to prefigurative theories of revolution. we don’t know what society will look like in every corner of the world without oppression. we do know what oppression is, and we can fight it.
You’re against concentration of power. Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?
It seems like you want to fight and lose.
you’re going to need to define revolution and success and concentration, and at this point, we might as well just lay our cards on the table. you believe it’s only practical to have a transitional state. i have a suspicion about anything that even smells like a state. we will not reconcile this in !memes today.
i don’t think i’m misrepresenting your position. i feel i understand it, and i disagree about the practicality of setting up a system of oppression to end oppression.
they got the fucking arch duke (and dozens of other heads of state). they blew up wallstreet. i think these are pretty big accomplishments.
Oh, wow, so they killed some people and bombed wall street.
How successful was that in achieving their political objectives?
very. they inspired millions, which was the goal of those actions.
right
no
yes. it’s why we split at the second international. i wish you all would give up on the transitional state.
Can you name a large scale anarchist project that wouldn’t qualify as a transitional state?
this is a setup for a no-true-scotsman. i’ll talk to you about anarchist societies, but i won’t let you define them out of existence.
Sorry, are you saying there haven’t been any large scale anarchist projects?
i’m saying until you define “large scale” you gave your self enough wiggle room to push every scotsman into the sea.
we all know about the bootmaker, but i would say if there is an oppressive hierarchy, it’s not anarchist.
I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh. And they absolutely had authority. Hell, they had concentration camps.
no. we should judge people by their actions. we should judge ideologies by their propositions.
Okay, I see. If we are judging ideologies purely by “wouldn’t it be nice if” then anarchism is clearly superior.
Well, on second though, no. “wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t get defeated by fascists” certainly has a pretty nice ring to it…
you almost got me
i’m not saying i have a good plan. i’m saying i am suspicious of any plan that concentrates power, and i believe my suspicion is warranted.
you don’t get to define what i am.
And you don’t get to no true Scotsman away the Catalonian or Ukrainian anarchists, who did large scale anarchist projects.
if you have cops, you’re not a fucking anarchist society. this shouldn’t be hard to understand.
that’s not what you proposed to use as a metric. i’m not sure how to quantify them and, frankly, or what a good measure would be, i guess.
i do know that i don’t trust anyone else to decide how i keep myself fed and safe. given the choice in constructing a revolution, i would empower individuals to a maximum degree and destroy concentrations of power wherever they’re found.
Thats some right libertarian hyper-individualist hogwash. Stop being alienated from your fellow workers.
So, let’s say the workers form Soviets. Those Soviets have to be destroyed, right?
it is going to depend, isn’t it? are the soviets operated with consent and consensus?
i already explained i have no illusions that i can dictate what it’s going to look like after the revolution. i do know what i won’t tolerate.
So? It’s not like you’ve got consensus authority to destroy them. Though it does sound like you would try to anyway
Is this material to whether the soviet is concentrating power? Either way you have a small group of people making legislative and executive actions.
a system that operates with consent and consensus has no authority.
i have no problem working with my neighbors. i have big problems with someone tellingme how we should do that.
You don’t seem to have any problems telling them how they should do it though.
if we’re working together I’m going to say how I think we should work.
one has nothing to do with the other, except that hierarchies sometimes pretend to respect (or grant)rights, but the fact that they have the discretion means the rights, themselves, are fictions.
Just like there are many brands of far right (nazis, religious fanatic), there are many brands of far-left - anarcho-socialists, communists etc.
anarchism and communism are the same thing.
No. There’s a spectrum of both communism and anarchism, their intersection tends to be known as anarcho-communism. An example of non-anarchist communism is vanguardist communism, which is inherently authoritarian (and anti-anarchist).
a communist society is classless, moneyless and stateless. anything else isn’t communism.
So? That doesn’t automatically make communists into anarchists (nor vice-versa for that matter).
I would disagree. clearly I do.
Well, I think we’re at an impasse, let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that. Hope you have a decent day, fellow Lemming :)
They’re analogous to the far right is the main thing. Anarchism/communism/etc. is the gateway to such views. Most lefists don’t go that far (good) but some do. Same thing with the far right, they start off as libertarian, ancap, or run of the mill conservatives etc. and end up going into cuckoo land after they watch too much cable news and facebook conspiracies.
In the USA, we have an environment where it’s far easier and more beneficial to those in power to co-opt people into right wing extremism than left wing extremism, hence the outsized representation. You can definitely find countries where the opposite is true, it’s a fairly big issue in south american and southeast asian nations. What’s interesting to me is that the end goals are nearly the same, which is to implement an authoritarian state where there is a powerful insular ingroup that can exploit the masses to their benefit.
first, a bit of snark: there is a cure for political illiteracy.
then, a rebuttal: communism is a stateless classless moneyless society. there is no such thing as a communist state. for many anarchists, this is indistinguishable from anarchism.
The far lefists aren’t commies though, that’s my point. They play like they are, but really they’re just authoritarian fascists. Commies are just regular leftists, and marxist schools of thought are a totally reasonable worldview to carry even if I don’t agree with some points of it.
if you’re not building a classless stateless society, you’re not a leftist. I’d be just as offended about being called a liberal as being called a tankie. statism is bad.
Statelessness is the end goal of communism, yes. I have met so-called communists that think strongarm authoritarianism is the way to get there, and for some reason believe that those authoritarians would willingly give up their power once they’ve achieved a position where they could implement said stateless society. This is basically what happened in the USSR and China, and is decidedly not the path Marx himself proposed for achieving it. A stateless communist society in Marxist thought is simply the natural progression after late stage capitalist societies, which is not a step you can simply skip over.
I don’t necessarily agree with the idea, but I think it’s important to be educated on a wide variety of schools of political thought.
Unlike centrist liberals, who want to create a non hierarchical, stateless society with no exploitation or in groups…
Nowhere did I claim such a thing. Some leftist groups want the whole stateless thing. Go even further left into crazy land though and you run into strongarm authoritarianism.
I’d call myself a liberal in the modern sense, I certainly don’t believe that large scale stateless societies are viable but there are definitely things we can learn from ideologies further to the left than what I subscribe to.
All leftists want the the stateless thing.
Liberals and centrists also do the “strongarm authoritarian” thing all the fucking time.
Authoritarianism is by definition illiberal and anyone who is authoritarian or supports authoritarianism is not liberal no matter what they claim to be. Centrism is also a meme, anyone who claims to be a centrist is usually just a stan for authoritarians in disguise.
The core tenant of liberalism is respect for the autonomy and civil liberties of the individual and consent of the governed to the rules of the government through the machinations of democracy. Any system claiming to be liberal without subscribing to that is a farce.
The same could be said of the “far left”. They claim to be leftists, and they might have started out as such, but they have stepped out into crazy land and end up supporting things antithetical to the ideologies they claim to subscribe to.
Ok, but now you’re just fiddling with semantics so that your thesis is tautologically true. Sure, if you redefine your terms in a circular way so that authoritarianism means iliberalism and iliberalism means authoritarianism, then obviously its true, but it’s not very meaningful. It also doesn’t really make sense in regards to your original argument that the extremes of left and right are authoritarian, because, by your definition of liberal there is not now and never as been a liberal society. The USA incarcerates a volume of people that dwarfs any of the called ‘authoritarian’ nations, comparable to the Soviet Gulag system at the height of the purges. It also summarily executes people for minor crimes all the time. It frequently overthrows governments and engages in mass killings, including currently committing a genocide. Beyond that, it unilaterally deprives its people of access to the Earths commons using unilateral and lethal force, as well as hording vast quantities of stolen wealth from its rightful owners and using that wealth to oppress them. Other ‘liberal’ countries may not go to the same level, but they all do the same things. They have all been authoritarian and thus not liberal, which would make liberalism an extremist left wing ideology.
That’s all the tenants of leftism, including the ‘extreme’ leftism you call ‘crazy land’. You’re also leaving out the important caveats: autonomy as defined by liberals (So not, for example, autonomy to freely roam the earth and make use of its commons without interruption), civil liberties as defined by liberals (so not, for example, the liberty to make use of the means of production as you like), and consent of the governed as defined by liberals (so not, for example, the ability to ignore the degrees of government that you do not consent to).
Are you willing to apply this standard to ‘moderate’ liberals; are you willing to extend it to yourself? Will you declare anyone who shows even critical support for existing failed attempts at liberalism (which is all of them, by your definition), as having “stepped out into crazy land and end up supporting things antithetical to the ideologies they claim to subscribe to.”? Do you condemn people who support George Washington the same way as you do people who support Lenin? Do you condemn people who support Lincoln the same way as you do people who support Castro? Do you condemn people who support Churchill the same as people who support Pol Pot? Do you condemn the French Revolution and the American Revolution the same as the Russian and Chinese?
Because if not, I can only conclude that it’s not ‘authoritarianism’ that you consider “crazy land”; it’s just political heterodoxy in general.
This entire discussion is about semantics, so I see no issue with getting fiddly with it. As for authoritarianism being illiberal, I don’t see how that is tautological. Authoritarianism is when the government or ruler has absolute control and has no obligation to accept input from the populace over which they rule. This violates the consent aspect of liberalism. These are commonly accepted definitions, not stuff I just made up. They’re mutually exclusive concepts and absolute versions of either cannot coexist.
And yes, I do think there has never been a truly liberal society, just as there has never been a truly communist society or any other -ist or -ism based society. They are concepts we can strive for, but adhering perfectly to the academic definition of any of these concepts is not realistic. I think the USA is fundemantally illiberal in many regards, and we would do well to strive to correct those aspects.
As for the definitions of those specific aspects of liberalism, yes, of course it is those aspects defined under the framework of liberalism. It would just take thousands of words to provide the entire context and it’s not super important here. You seem to understand that these words have different definitions in different frameworks, and I’m sure anyone discussing political ideology in this level of depth is also aware of that.
When I’m talking about the extremist sides of the spectrum, far left and far right, I am referring to those who tread into territory where their ideology becomes ostensibly dangerous. The most common version of this is directly supporting things like oppressive authoritarian rulers and population cleansing, There are absolutely people on both the left and the right who would see those as acceptable means to their end of implementing their preferred ideology. Right wingers who want to ethnically cleanse populations they see as problematic or inferior are no better than the far leftists who want to guillotine whoever they decide is the bougouise. This is the crazy land I’m talking about. Not being in crazy land means trying your best to not support awful shit, making sure you are picking the least bad feasible options in your current situation, and revising your positions and who you support when evidence indicates that the bad outweighs the good.
And yes, I actually do have a lot of issues with the French and American revolutions, and I do not think Churchill was a particularly good guy. I don’t think they are the same as the Russian and Chinese revolutions. They all resulted in regimes of varying levels of “bad”, but the Chinese and Russian versions resulted in higher death tolls and much more unhealthy systems coming out the other side (in my subjective opinion).
I think to cover the rest of your points, there are degrees here and the real world doesn’t function in absolutes as I mentioned in the second paragraph. I don’t have time to respond to every comparison you mentioned, but Washington vs Lenin for example: Washington did not have secret police killing dissidents by the thousands. Lenin did. Washington did not implement policy that resulted in mass famines resulting in the deaths of millions, Lenin did. Washington did support slavery and ethnic cleansing of Native American populations, and it irritates me greatly that this gets glossed over. Lenin did not. Which one of those guys is worse depends on your subjective values, but for me, I’d say Lenin is the worse guy.
I’m tired and it’s almost 3am so hopefully all that makes sense.
My point is you are redefining words as you go, which is pointless.
Because you have defined it tautologically.
Which doesn’t apply to any of these ‘far left extremist’ projects you’re talking about.
Then how can you say you are anything but a leftwing extremist yourself?
It’s extremely important; it’s essentially you saying “It’s not authoritarianism when we do it!”
And this is the crux of my point; you say this like the center of the spectrum, and liberals, aren’t dangerous; aren’t perfectly happy to support authoritarian rulers and populations cleansing, who see genocidal violence acceptable means to their ends of maintaining their preferred ideology. In fact, in our current world, the overwhelming majority of violence and suffering is caused by moderates and liberals. You need to examine your blind spot here, and stop acting like the moderate position is somehow pacifism.
So no, you don’t hold liberals to the same standard you hold leftists, you instead hold a massive, systematic double standard.
And there it is, right here, the deep seated double standard. Like I said; you don’t hate authoritarianism, you hate political heterodoxy.
Death tolls are not subject to “subjective opinions”; you’re just wrong
And that says a fuckload about how fucking evil your subjective values are.
See, this is why I loath liberals, in some ways more than fascists; at least fascists are open about their evil. You don’t actually hold principles you apply consistently, you don’t actually believe in all that shit about autonomy and liberty. They’re all just a smoke screen to justify ruthlessly crushing any oppositions: martial law, torture, murder, genocide, chattel slavery; these are all perfectly forgivable in defense of liberalism, at worst they’ll get you called “not a great guy”, but you certainly won’t be called “a dangerous authoritarian in crazy land” and you will always, always, be certain that you will be considered better than any leftist leader.
I seriously cannot get over saying chattel slavery and genocide are better than Lenin, or that Churchhill; a man who genocided millions of people and proudly presided over the most brutal empire in history, is better than the Russian revolution.
i don’t think there is a reputable source to substantiate this.
I don’t know of any particular sources but I do have anecdotes of watching friends and family fall into these traps on both ends of the spectrum. A couple of my leftist friends have started treading dangerously close to some pretty sour viewpoints. I mostly see it as pro-accelerationism, everything I don’t like is capitalism/neoliberalism/western values, and are totally blind to the influence propaganda has on them and the weak points in their own ideologies.
On the right, I’ve watched several of my family members go down the fox news alt right rabbit hole and end up at similarly dumb viewpoints. They also want a revolution, except everything they don’t like is liberals/communism/woke etc. They are also totally blind to the influence of propaganda and the weak points in their ideologies. The media machine in the US is set up to make this pipeline far more efficient than the leftist version.
They mostly don’t like the same things, but they’re pulling in opposite directions, and each is convinced that when the revolution comes, their side is the one that will win out, when in reality, we’ll probably just end up with the same shit, different coat of paint.
Me? I think there’s concepts we can borrow from many ideologies that can help us solve specific problems and bring about incremental change until we reach true propserity. The socialists and commies get some stuff right, so do the libertarians, the anarchists, the ancaps, etc. The only thing I think will definitely not help is tearing it all down. There is no silver bullet, it’s all just problems that are met with ever improving solutions. Sometimes we take two steps forward one step back, but I don’t think anyone can deny that the world at large is better off now than when it was almost completely ruled by monarchy, bloody violence, and slavery a few hundred years back.
Exactly this. I’ve been calling them the “burn it down” group. It’s not a fun ideology… sure they don’t have a lot of power today, but that’s how these things work. If they have power it’s too late. It’s worth knowing that this is a growing movement with real people. They are my cousins, coworkers and a few of my friends lol. Not just a social media rhetoric or scare tactic.