on authority is only a counter to anyone who wants to abolish all forms of authority. If an anarchist believed in elected foremans for factories for example then on authority would not apply to what they believe
it’s not really a counterargument against anarchism but against the stupidest subsection of anarchism imaginable
So do people really think politics will be over once people’s economic needs are met?
One of the biggest historical arguments on the left from all sides is against the idea of Utopianism. There are huge, obvious problems with capitalism that can be fixed, but they’re not the end of it. Where we go from there is almost anyone’s guess.
The immediate problem we have is that the 1% own everything and control everything. And, if they own everything and control everything we don’t really have democracy, do we. That’s what people are saying about contradictions. If we can somehow make it so the people own everything and control everything, we’ll be several steps ahead.
But why trust a system that says “don’t worry, we’ll get there eventually” when other systems say the exact same thing?
Fascists talk of utopia, why not believe them?
Because they look at the contradictions and blame them on things like some ethnic group ruining everything. Labor movements have actually traditionally done a lot of that, but fascists solely want to blame regular working class people for the issues that capitalism wrought. (And exterminate them.) And again, we try to avoid talks of utopia. We just want to move on from capitalism.
And while you may say something that sounds rational, it may not sound as rational to everyone, especially if they are seeped in a lot of racist propaganda.
How do you deprogram someone who has been told their entire life that Jews and immigrants are the real problem that Jews and immigrants aren’t?
Hell if I know.
If you want to see some of the most disturbing shit ever recorded about that. CW I don’t have all the Hexbear features, it’s the act of killing. It’s a doc where they interview people who murdered about a million suspected communists in Indonesia and then had some of the people who did it put on a production about it: https://www.nipissingu.ca/library/video-streaming-nipissing/humanities-and-social-sciences-videos/act-killing
Also, these guys are still walking around and are deeply embedded into local politics.
Do you have a lot of experience with life in a world where everyone’s “economic needs” are met
No, but I’ve got a lot of experience with retired people on pensions that like to rule their HOA’s with an iron fist. I’ve also got enough experience with people who don’t want people to choose their own pronouns, which isn’t an economic decision.
those people are still living within a capitalist society
But do you think fascists won’t fasch just because there isn’t money in it?
i don’t think you understand how either capitalism or fascism works
Fascism isn’t an economic system, but a political system that was one of the first political systems of the modern era to attempt to create an unequal society without a unifying monarch. Inherently, it is the ruling class giving rights and privileges to a minority to allow them greater standing over the rest of the population, usually through the trappings of conservatism.
Feel free to correct me where I’m wrong with that understanding.
Facism is essentially capital abandoning liberalism to defend itself in violent reaction to socialism/threat of socialism.
Fascism is an anti-intellectual movement so there’s not much real “theory” but anti-communism is its bedrock belief.
It terms of economics theres really no difference between it and modern neoliberal capitalism
I don’t actually follow your definition at all. I would say that while fascism is not an econimic system itself, that there is no fascism without capitalism
The goal isn’t to “end politics” but to improve people’s lives. If we abolish the existing power structures, new ones will arise to take their place, yes, but those new ones don’t need to be the same as our current ones, just as a capitalist liberal government isn’t the same as a feudal monarchy.
I’m just listening to Engels when I say that.
All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
public functions will lose their political character
That doesn’t mean politics will end, just that administrative functions like constructing and maintaining sewage systems, electrical grids, hospitals, will be cleansed of politics.
But those activities include non-economic politics. For instance, a hospital being allowed to conduct abortions is not within the realm of Marxist theory, but it is a part of politics.
intersectional liberation is necessary to communism, which is itself “the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat”
This is some “Marx never considered X” shit at this point. Its a 200 year long intellectual tradition - it has been considered
If intersectional liberation is necessary, then can you judge communist nations for not abiding by that? If a communist nation doesn’t offer gay marriage or the ability to choose ones gender, by what rights is there to critique this? Can I say a country isn’t truly communist if I can’t get married to someone of my gender?
Some AES do and some don’t. Some haven’t resolved those contradictions yet and they should be criticized for it. That’s why we use the the term Actual Existing Socialism and not True Perfect Socialism.
These countries are socialist projects, projects that fall within the social revolution, to use Engels term. All AES have broadened democracy comparative to before their projects began and work toward the resolving of contradictions. Just because they haven’t been resolved doesn’t mean those projects arent socialist.
