• 3 Posts
  • 123 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: January 15th, 2024
  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.nettoMemes@lemmy.ml•Communism 📈
    4·
    14 days ago

    Engels was using the most useful interpretation of authority. “Structural monopolization of power” is still the imposition of the will of one class over another, anarchists still attempt to structurally oppress the bourgeoisie.

    As I said in the other thread: you don’t engage with anything I write. You just claim “no” and don’t explain any logical errors in my statement. You’re just restating your claim and dump an unhealthy amount of text in order to make yourself feel smart.

    Collectivization, ie equal ownership across all of society globally

    Not a realistic model of the world. The sphere o| influence ends at some point. There’s no reason that I should have a say on what a bakery on the other side of the world should bake. Not even in a “communist” society.

    A horizontalist society necessarily contradicts the role of higher levels of administration […]

    Strawman. Administration/expertise is not authority.

    essentially petite bourgeois cooperative

    You claim that without backing up why it would be petit bourgeoise

    You might not have used Lenin’s buzzwords, but you’re an authoritarian Marxist. Not every Marxist is authoritarian.

    As for your last point, socialism is not communism. […]

    Another non-sequitur infodump. Also, I reject your teleological notion of “early hunter-gatherers”. Also also: This mode of “pure” relations of production that you try to swipe under the rug has been the norm for about 99% of humanity’s existence.

  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.nettoMemes@lemmy.ml•Communism 📈
    3·
    14 days ago

    the most useful definition of authority is the imposition of the will of one class over another

    No, that’s Engels’ lackluster definition (actually, Engels’ definition was worse, since he claimed that laws of physics were “authority”. Authority is structural monopolization of power. What you’re describing is more on the line of “violence”.

    even anarchists must be authoritarian towards capitalists.

    Only with a wrong understanding of “authority”.

    The argument between Marxists and anarchists is one of collectivization vs horizontalism

    Those concepts are not contradictory. You can’t “horizontalize” something without collectivizing it.

    but in both cases you can’t eliminate class overnight, and as such the working class must oppress the capitalist class to keep it in check.

    The moment the capitalist class can be “oppressed”, it seizes to be the capitalist class.

    Marxists would argue that the system, even if horizontal, would still be considered a state assuming class isn’t abolished

    How such a “horizontal state” would be possible with classes is something no Marxist has ever been able to explain to me. Also, you’re not speaking on behalf of all Marxists. Just MLs, maybe.

    and class cannot be abolished entirely without full collectivization of property globally.

    I’ll go tell all those socialist regions that just abolished the bourgeoisie within their regions. /s