Infighting
-
The nice thing about the two party system is that there is no one else to vote for. Its how we got here. But at least we will have a chance of putting someone who has an idea how to run a country in charge
You should try the every time somebody gets unhappy they splinter off and form their own party political system. It essentially amounts to the two-party system in any case but provides more entertainment.
-
If you're throwing the word "liberals" around, you're an authoritarian, which is no better than being a fascist.
This is why I can't stand Tankies and establishment Democrats. You can't claim to be a champion of human rights, while simultaneously supporting the governments that egregiously violate peoples' human rights. Complete and utter hypocrites.
Edit: See what I mean? All of you suck.
Perhaps you should broaden your horizons somewhat. Tankies are an international group whereas democrats only exist in the US, so you can't really compare the two. For one thing, they have different ultimate goals and motivations.
-
"poor management" is one hell of a way to put it.
I mean, even the Holocaust could also be said to boil down to poor management if we're just doing shitty arguments.
-
You should try the every time somebody gets unhappy they splinter off and form their own party political system. It essentially amounts to the two-party system in any case but provides more entertainment.
Such an american comment. So indoctrinated into the two-party system that it's impossible to even imagine anything else.
Have you heard of the concept of coalitions?
-
Well, up front, it's nice that you at least cleared up that you don't consider Marxism to be socialist. I disagree with that, of course, but now that we've established that your definition of socialism is exclusionary of Marxism, then that does at least mean we can have a consistent conversation.
As for delegates vs. representatives, the PRC's democracy extends beyond simply voting for candidates and representatives. I already explained that each rung makes decisions for that which their area needs, and elect from among themselves delegates that they can recall. People's integration into politics isn't relegated to simple elections, but consensus building, feedback, drafts of policy, etc.
As for ownership, your argument was that politicians are literally owners of publicly owned industry, which isn't how public ownership works anywhere. Even if the PRC is centrally planned for the majority of its large firms and key industries, that doesn't mean those large firms and key industries are run for profit, personal enrichment of capitalists, participate in markets, etc. There's nothing at all resembling capitalism there, so state capitalism is an absurdity. I gave clear examples of capitalist systems with heavy state involvement, like Singapore, that better fit "state capitalism."
Either way, this will be my last comment too. Have a good one!
-
Again, I'm aware of the anarchist critique, I used to be an anarchist myself, I just firmly disagree with it.
-
Again, I'm aware of the anarchist critique, I used to be an anarchist myself, I just firmly disagree with it.
yes, well, if u had watched it, u wouldve noticed its not about the anarchist critique.
-
Such an american comment. So indoctrinated into the two-party system that it's impossible to even imagine anything else.
Have you heard of the concept of coalitions?
Americans informally create coalitions. That's why you hear the term "caucus" a lot more often, like Bernie Sanders "caucusing" with Democrats. Many libertarians may not like Trump and the fascist Republicans, but they still caucus together. The problem with caucusing with Democratic party is that they sideline the left, especially Bernie Sanders, in favour of more corporate friendly candidates. As for the Republican party, well the right always act right and value group cohesion and appeasing the rich more, even if they become fascist.
Caucusing is hardly working and here is the hard to swallow pill for Americans: organise grassroots campaigns and plant actual progressives into primaries. Americans used to be good at doing that. That's how they got the Roosevelts, ended the first Gilded Age, and third party candidates being elected more. The duopoly system became entrenched sometime after the early 1900's, probably when Theodore Roosevelt ran third party and split the vote of progressives, which handed the presidency to the racist Woodrow Wilson.
-
Leninism, Anarcho-primitivism and Social democracy (for example) are not different approaches to “leftism” that ultimately want the same things; they are completely separate ideologies that naturally come into conflict.
In a fascist dictatorship, they have a lot more in common than opposition. What's more, there's ample room for compromise when members of these caucuses are able to communicate and collaborate freely.
The biggest hurdle to Left Unity I consistently see is Liberal Wreckers stepping in to insist any one ascendant philosophy is unserious and counterproductive, right before they form a coalition with corporationists and fascists.
you should give up the idea that all “leftists” are somehow natural allies
There's a material basis of alliance that stems from the communities that form the base of each faction.
The idea that a Social Democrat like Lulu or Sheinbaum can't form coalition with Anarcho-Prim native people in the rural Brazilian/Southern Mexican territories is demonstrably untrue.
The idea that a Leninist like Castro or Mandela couldn't lead a popular Socialist revolution in Cuba or South Africa is demonstrably untrue.
The idea that Bookchin-style Eco-socialists can't find allies in Xi's China or among the Maoist factions of North India is demonstrably untrue.
It takes work and it takes the right historical moment, but not everything has to end like the Spanish Civil War. Left Alliance isn't some impossible dream.
In a fascist dictatorship, they have a lot more in common than opposition.
But if the dictatorship is a communist one they have more in common with the nazis! Or if your country is invaded by Russia you might find yourself fighting side by side with the Azov battalion.
There are libertarians who genuinely care about free speech and might make useful allies on those issues.
Just because someone is the enemy of your enemy, or an occasionally useful ally, doesn't mean you want to unify with them.
-
[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing]
I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing]
Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing]
Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]
[a confused nazi asks]
Why… why are they still arguing?
Infighting | The Bad Website
Infighting - A comic on The Bad Website
The Bad Website (thebad.website)
Why are you all trying to have a serious discussion under a comic strip?
-
yes, well, if u had watched it, u wouldve noticed its not about the anarchist critique.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I did watch it, just posting a 4 minute video from an anarchist YouTuber doesn't mean I immediately need to agree with it. Anark coats it as a Marxist critique, but it's thoroughly an anarchist critique attempting to claim higher and universal legitimacy by invoking Marx and Engels, but what Marx and Engels described as state capitalism was Bismarck's Germany, which had the large firms and key industries absolutely privately owned with minor exceptions like railways.
The state in Bismarck's Germany played a hand in directing the private economy, while retaining class relations. It wasn't because they had a state, it's because the base of production was capitalism, subject to the M-C...P...C'-M' circuit. Anark's critique is ignorant at best to dishonest at worst. Here's Engels directly speaking about it:
For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the State has become economically inevitable, only then — even if it is the State of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism. If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.
Instead, what needs to happen is proletarian revolution, and gradual appropriation of property into the hands of the new, proletarian state, until all property is collectivized and the proletarian state is no more:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific inefficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
So yes, I did watch it. It's one of those videos that only really makes sense to people that haven't put in the time to take Marxism seriously, and just want to quotegrab Marx and Engels to give their points higher legitimacy. Even Anark's examples of Chile and Yugoslavia were more market-focused and less collectivized, Yugoslavia in particular relied on IMF loans to keep going. Anark's mislabling of socialism as intrinsically worker-ownership and not collectivized ownership pretty much leaves only anarchism and anarchist adjacent ideologies as socialist. And, the USSR and PRC, Cuba, etc. do have worker democracy:
I'm sorry I took your video seriously, I guess? I dunno, were you just wanting me to concede the point outright?
-
I did watch it, just posting a 4 minute video from an anarchist YouTuber doesn't mean I immediately need to agree with it. Anark coats it as a Marxist critique, but it's thoroughly an anarchist critique attempting to claim higher and universal legitimacy by invoking Marx and Engels, but what Marx and Engels described as state capitalism was Bismarck's Germany, which had the large firms and key industries absolutely privately owned with minor exceptions like railways.
The state in Bismarck's Germany played a hand in directing the private economy, while retaining class relations. It wasn't because they had a state, it's because the base of production was capitalism, subject to the M-C...P...C'-M' circuit. Anark's critique is ignorant at best to dishonest at worst. Here's Engels directly speaking about it:
For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the State has become economically inevitable, only then — even if it is the State of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism. If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.
Instead, what needs to happen is proletarian revolution, and gradual appropriation of property into the hands of the new, proletarian state, until all property is collectivized and the proletarian state is no more:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific inefficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
So yes, I did watch it. It's one of those videos that only really makes sense to people that haven't put in the time to take Marxism seriously, and just want to quotegrab Marx and Engels to give their points higher legitimacy. Even Anark's examples of Chile and Yugoslavia were more market-focused and less collectivized, Yugoslavia in particular relied on IMF loans to keep going. Anark's mislabling of socialism as intrinsically worker-ownership and not collectivized ownership pretty much leaves only anarchism and anarchist adjacent ideologies as socialist. And, the USSR and PRC, Cuba, etc. do have worker democracy:
I'm sorry I took your video seriously, I guess? I dunno, were you just wanting me to concede the point outright?
im sorry to hear that after all of this u continue to claim the state is an extension of its people, and continue to mix representation and delegation. or for that matter, the myth of the state abolishing itself, which has no basis in reality.
ill give up on explaining this to u now.
just one small thing: its spelled Bismarck, not Bismark. -
im sorry to hear that after all of this u continue to claim the state is an extension of its people, and continue to mix representation and delegation. or for that matter, the myth of the state abolishing itself, which has no basis in reality.
ill give up on explaining this to u now.
just one small thing: its spelled Bismarck, not Bismark.wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, after all of this I hold to the Marxist understanding, you haven't offered any compelling reason to abandon it, and have, to the contrary, shown a poor understanding of Marxism on both your's and Anark's parts. I'll correct a few of your misclaims about my stance here, though, for any popping in afterwards:
The state is an extension not of its people. The state is an extension of the ruling class, and the ruling class is determined by the base mode of production. A bourgeois state is one where private property is the base mode of production, and a proletarian state is one in which collectivized ownership is the base mode of production. As all property gets collectivized, class disappears, and so too does the need to oppress other classes, as everyone has equal ownership, leaving only instruments like social planning, administration, management, etc in place. That's the economic and historical basis of the elimination of the state.
As for delegates vs representatives, I understand the difference you claim they have, I just don't hold them as foundationally different to the point that one or the other invalidates the entire social basis of production.
Thanks for the Birmarck correction. Doesn't invalidate my points, but I'll make the correction regardless. If you have more questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.
-
[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing]
I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing]
Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing]
Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]
[a confused nazi asks]
Why… why are they still arguing?
Infighting | The Bad Website
Infighting - A comic on The Bad Website
The Bad Website (thebad.website)
Now make a comic about the redfascists shooting anarchists, or the (I am assuming leftcom) shooting anarchists.
-
Americans informally create coalitions. That's why you hear the term "caucus" a lot more often, like Bernie Sanders "caucusing" with Democrats. Many libertarians may not like Trump and the fascist Republicans, but they still caucus together. The problem with caucusing with Democratic party is that they sideline the left, especially Bernie Sanders, in favour of more corporate friendly candidates. As for the Republican party, well the right always act right and value group cohesion and appeasing the rich more, even if they become fascist.
Caucusing is hardly working and here is the hard to swallow pill for Americans: organise grassroots campaigns and plant actual progressives into primaries. Americans used to be good at doing that. That's how they got the Roosevelts, ended the first Gilded Age, and third party candidates being elected more. The duopoly system became entrenched sometime after the early 1900's, probably when Theodore Roosevelt ran third party and split the vote of progressives, which handed the presidency to the racist Woodrow Wilson.
Caucausing isn't really comparable to coalitions in my opinion, because all the formalisms are missing.
Bernie Sanders has no actual power within the party, no matter how many people voted Democrats because of him.
Compare the situation to an actual multi-party system with coalitions. Sanders would have his own party and there would be 1-3 other parties that are currently part of the Democratic party. Each of these parties would collect separate vote shares which would lead to some of these parties being larger and others smaller. Voters would have to choice to express which exact political direction they prefer instead of just having a binary choice.
After the election, coalitions would be formed. These coalitions wouldn't have to be along the current party lines, but e.g. moderate republicans and moderate democrats could form a coalition with eachother. This way, coalition-based multi-party systems tend towards moderate compromises, while two-party systems tend towards extremism.
In a multi-party system centrists represent reason and compromise, whereas in a two-party system they represent boring blandness.
In a coalition, each of the coalition partners hold power, because everyone of them can end the coalition. This means, more compromise is necessary and someone like Sanders cannot just be ignored for decades.
-
This is why far "left" and "right" are itself misguided labels. It's more like far opposite on the other end where they meet.
Horsehoe theory is misguided itself, it was pitched purely to distance liberalism from fascism when historically they are linked, and to demonize those who support collectivization over privatization. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
-
Why are you all trying to have a serious discussion under a comic strip?
Where else should we have a serious discussion?
-
im sorry to hear that after all of this u continue to claim the state is an extension of its people, and continue to mix representation and delegation. or for that matter, the myth of the state abolishing itself, which has no basis in reality.
ill give up on explaining this to u now.
just one small thing: its spelled Bismarck, not Bismark.I've never seen such unjustified condescension, my god.
-
This is why far "left" and "right" are itself misguided labels. It's more like far opposite on the other end where they meet.
For almost all of human history, the current center of the the western Overton window would have been considered far, far left. Does that mean that monarchism and feudalism is the true center, and liberalism is actually the same as being to the far right of monarchism?
-
In a fascist dictatorship, they have a lot more in common than opposition.
But if the dictatorship is a communist one they have more in common with the nazis! Or if your country is invaded by Russia you might find yourself fighting side by side with the Azov battalion.
There are libertarians who genuinely care about free speech and might make useful allies on those issues.
Just because someone is the enemy of your enemy, or an occasionally useful ally, doesn't mean you want to unify with them.
the dictatorship is a communist one
A dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the bourgeois are actually the same thing, you idiot, you imbecile.
