A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Greed 100%. Religious extremism only hurts a minority. The people trapped in the cults, the family members of the 50's dad hitting them with the bible, victims of crusade/jihad style atrocities etc.
Which is awful but manageable.
Greed is definitely, definitely definitely going to end our entire species, probably only a couple generations away.
This question is separating one and the other - both are bad - but I think religious extremism is powered by extreme greed causing extreme poverty and vulnerability.
So actually, maybe I do have the answer. Get rid of extreme greed, and religion does not go extreme.
Even the crackpots calling for genocide won't get a voice.
Correct me if I'm wrong but even Hitler employed the tactic of blaming the Jews for the poverty (and other things) in Germany. But in reality it was the Great Depression. Germany was one of three nations that had the highest unemployment in the (western) world.
Yes, Nazism wasn't a religion but a cult. But religions can involve a god, many gods, or idolise an object or a person. Hitler was it. He was like a war god.
Exactly what I was thinking. Selflessness = solution to everything.
Both religious extremism and greed are superstructural, not the base. Leftists target the base, as the superstructure is shaped by the base and in turn reinforces the base. Move onto socialism and communism, and the oppressive superstructural elements of today will also fade.
Is one not the result of the other?
Some folks might be on some prosperity gospel bullshit, but I don't think Elon, Zuck, et. al. believe in a power above themselces.
The other uses the one as their main tool for spreading propoganda no?
Greed causes way, way more suffering in the world.
Greed.
Religuous extremism is already on its way down and unlikely to ever go up again.
both both is good
The priority for me is any authoritarianism. Authoritarianism by itself is extremist; wanting a world liberated of that is not.
Surveillance capitalism, religious fundamentalism, it's all the same to me: they seek to control people and the flow of good life standards, away from the masses, towards their leaders.
Surveillance capitalism does so by selling your private data to the highest bidder, and these will use it to spy on you, bribing, harassing, and corrupting lawmakers into creating a surveillance state - a perfect recipe for authoritarianism to pop its head up. They direct attention away from the oligarchs so that we do not combat them.
Religious fundamentalism sells your personhood to the strongest converters, to those that strip you of autonomy; such groups thus also spy on you. They always look for the downtrodden, weakest and most vulnerable, to direct their hatred for their current situation away from the true source -- oligarchs.
So for me, I'd say there is no difference and this question is meaningless: it's asking for the difference between a golden apple/window and a golden cross. At the end of day, both cannot be eaten, but all buy it up blindly.
To be clear, all states are authoritarian. Since states are an extension of the ruling class, it's better for the working class to have that authority, at least until classes are gradually abolished and all property sublimated into common ownership, at which point the state withers away as it has nothing else to uphold.
I do not for a second trust the state to wither away when a vanguard party is in power. I'd rather skip that phase entirely before it can corrupt politicians.
Sure, gradual withering would be nice, and ideal; but is there any socialist state that ever actually turned communist? in that there's no significant bureaucracy, no surveillance, where there's no democratic centralism*, and where workplace democracy is everywhere?
* western parties also do this, called party whips.
The state withering isn't a deliberate thing, and it has never been so. The state withers with respect to property sublimation into common ownership. Even into communism, as a stateless society, administration and planning will still exist. On an extreme length of time, these will fade into habit, but as a state is chiefly an instrument of class oppression, without class distinctions there is no class to oppress.
When people say that the state can be abolished on an immediate scale, they are speaking of a different concept entirely. Anarchists wish for full decentralization and horizontalism, while Marxists advocate for full collectivization and planning. In the eyes of the Marxist, anarchists would retain class as ownership is local, and this basis will give rise to the state and capitalism to re-emerge.
So, to answer your question, no, no socialist society has made it to the fully global, collectivized, classless society. That's a bit like asking if a baseball player grew up to become a baseball team by themselves, that's the wrong question. The correct question would be have socialists maintained socialism, and managed to provide dramatic improvements for their people because of it? And the answer to that, is yes.
Side note, whips are a form of party discipline, but not the same as democratic centralism, where there is diverse discussion but unity in action.
Except that with anarchocommunism, there is no class to speak of, as ownership is not private, but common; and neither transferrable (to the next generation) nor accumulatable.
If a larger whole - which is far stronger than an individual -, can decide for the person, then the state and correspondingly, capitalism will return, because they can override the individual, while not giving them an option to do otherwise.
Henceforth there absolutely can be repression without class distinction. If anyone ever has more power than others, and can misuse it, you bet some will.
I do think that some societies have achieved collectivisation and classlessness, such as the Zapatists. They have managed to do so without getting vertically organised - an incredible accomplishment.
And no: my question centered around the abolition of class and the state, which together would constitute communism for me. But the harsh reality is that without abolition of capitalism and all authority, socialism will never achieve free communism; oligarchs will either try their hardest to regress it into a free market, or use the power to repress. While building enough homes and raising life standards is good, it is not satisfactory enough when there's no possibility for criticism after decisions have been taken. What freedom, what socialism is there, when one cannot criticise and be a free queer?
Your metaphor thus wouldn't hold exactly; a better analogy would be that of the baseball player not using his prowess to harass other teammates into giving him gifts and doing as he says; and instead, the baseball player actually cooperates with everyone, sharing equally; because if he does so, so too will he receive equal positiveness back.
So, I'm inclined to beg to differ. Regression and repression is the mantra of an authoritarian. I reject the chances of such a path and prefer a direct path to communism.
Whips are indeed the same: as in parties often discussion is still permissible, but when it comes to votes, the whip forces aside freedom of decision. I view it as a tool of authoritarianism.
What would be most ideal, is to make the 'equilibrium' situation as close to anarchocommunism as possible, if not the same. The more attractive for oligarchs to give up their wealth and class distinction altogether, the better.
Anarcho-communism repeats petite bourgeois class relations, wishing each cell/commune/etc to be equivalent worker/owners while rejecting collectivized global ownership. As each cell has different resources and geography, each will have greater or lesser development, giving rise to further social striation.
Having individuals not capable of going against the collective interests of humanity isn't a bad thing. Capitalism cannot return from a fully collectivized global economy without ecological disaster or something equivalent.
The Zapatistas explicitly reject the anarchist label, and still have class, for what it's worth. Zapatismo is its own thing, and while they reference anarchism and Marxism-Leninism in their founding, they prefer their own terminology as it is the basis of a decolonial struggle.
Your insistence that any and all leadership will always revert to capitalism or private interests being upheld isn't true. It isn't backed up by historical evidence, nor theoretical, it depends on an idealist notion of matter having an inherent "corrupting" quality.
All AES states wish to spread socialism, but all exist under siege and threat from capitalism. Simply "sharing" will not spread socialism and result in communism, that completely erases the millitant role of capitalist nations against socialist states.
Ultimately, there is no direct path to communism. One cannot abolish the state and class without collectivizing all property globally, and this cannot happen without building it. There is no A to Z shortcut. Anarchism itself isn't the same as the Marxist conception of communism, it's based on individualism and horizontalism, rather than collectivization and democratization.
Democratic Centralism is a critical tool for practice, any group that cannot act in a unified manner and allows itself to fall into factionalism will fracture and buckle, failing to meaningfully challenge capitalism. Even some anarchist orgs are adopting democratic centralism as a matter of practicality.
Capitalists will not willingly give up their privledged positions, socialism has only truly come about in a lasting fashion through revolution.
Having individuals not capable of going against the collective interests of humanity isn't a bad thing.
Until that "collective interests" becomes an authoritarian force. I think you don't understand me. I reject seeking to achieve communism through a dictatorship; it can only be done fully democratically, through and by the people; not through any vanguard.
Anarchism isn't per se based around individualism - it is based around the rejection of the state altogether. Anarchocollectivism exists; but I do not subscribe to that school of thought.
You also say that it's not rooted in historical evidence etc. that any and all leadership will *always* revert to capitalism or private interests being upheld... one would have to be more than blind to not see it; the Soviet Union and the PRC for example, are perfect examples of state bureaucracy. What communism, when Stalin murdered critics such as Trotsky simply because they didn't fit his agenda? What non-capitalism when wages still exist? Or let's look to social democracy, which is still susceptible to capitalist meddling, as with the murder of Olof Palme? Or to look at the dozens of coups by the capitalist US?
The facts are crystal clear: blindness for the bad side of leadership is blindness away from communism.
Zapatists also do not reject anarchism - they're literally named after one and in contrast to marxists-leninists and adjacents, actually uphold the freedom of communism.
Democratic centralism is a tool for dictators. Point said. It is an attempt to establish and reinforce a state, and so I reject it.
There also, in fact is a direct path to communism. That is; setting up grassroots organisations, working together with each other. Giveaway stores, federation among all who adhere to a gift economy and workplace democracy model, and so on. When a tailor gives a farmer clothes, and the farmer the tailor clothes; and so on. It's a simplified explanation, but Kropotkin's good material to read.
Capitalists will not give up their position willingly, that is true; they will do what seems most advantageous or prestigious to them, is what I perceive. When we change the system to change what is advantageous to them, they are also forced to change along or perish.
I understand what you're saying, I just reject it. You put the role of the individual over the collective in rejecting a socialist state as a method of reaching collectivized ownership, and conflate democracy with dictatorship without basis.
The vanguard exists whether formalized or not, all it is is the most advanced politically of the revolutionary class. As there is a difference between a first year medical student and a seasoned surgeon, there will always be differences in political skill among the people. The advantage of formalizing the most advanced is that it becomes visible, democratizable, and accountable, rather than shadowy and elitist.
We can learn a lot from the experience of the feminist movement in structure, actually, where the initial rejection of formalized structures resulted in counter-productiveness. Jo Freeman's The Tyranny of Structurelessness is an excellent overview of this.
Democratic Centralism just means individuals are beholden to the collective decisions of the group, and are expected to uphold them. It's the best tool for using the working class's best advantage, our numbers, into one aligned spear, rather than a formless blob lashing out in different directions. An example of the benefits of aligning is the LGBTQ+ movement, the TERFs end up being less effective because fighting for the liberation of all unites greater forces, and that's ignoring the evils of transphobia.
I understand where you're coming from, I used to be an anarchist myself. I suggest you actually make it an effort to engage with Marxism-Leninism and the theory and practice of Marxist-Leninists. If you want a place to start, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Edit: saw your addendum on the USSR and PRC. Both are excellent examples of the working class in power achieving dramatic results and improving the lives of the working class. Tripling of literacy rates, doubling of life expectancies, achieving dramatic improvements in science and well-being, fighting sexism and racism.
As for Trotsky, he was assassinated because he was organizing terrorist groups against the USSR after being bitter that his suicidal plan of Permanent Revolution, that saw the peasantry as an enemy of the proletariat, lost out democratically to Socialism in One Country. It wasn't because he was just a critic, he was a traitor and a terrorist.
The Zapatistas do reject the western label of anarchist. They have horizontalist structures but reject western labelling.
The EZLN and its larger populist body the FZLN are NOT Anarchist. Nor do we intend to be, nor should we be.
Over the past 500 years, we have been subjected to a brutal system of exploitation and degradation few in North America have ever experienced.
It is apparent from your condescending language and arrogant short-sightedness that you understand very little about Mexican History or Mexicans in general.
Our struggle was raging before anarchism was even a word, much less an ideology with newspapers and disciples. Our struggle is older than Bakunin or Kropotkin. We are not willing to lower our history to meet some narrow ideology exported from the same countries we fought against in our Wars for independence. The struggle in Mexico, Zapatista and otherwise, is a product of our histories and our cultures and cannot be bent and manipulated to fit someone else’s formula, much less a formula not at all informed about our people, our country or our histories. We as a movement are not anarchist.
We see narrow-minded ideologies like anarchism... as tools to pull apart Mexicans into more easily exploitable groups.
But what really enraged [us is] the familiar old face of colonialism shining through your good intentions. Once again we Mexicans [find ourselves put into a position where we] are not as good as the all knowing North American Imperialist who thinks himself more aware, more intelligent and more sophisticated politically than the dumb Mexican. This attitude, though hidden behind thin veils of objectivity, is the same attitude that we have been dealing with for 500 years, where someone else in some other country from some other culture thinks they know what is best for us more than we do ourselves.
Once again, the anarchists in North America know better than us about how to wage a struggle we have been engaged in since 300 years before their country was founded and can therefore, even think about using us as a means to “advance their project.” That is the same exact attitude Capitalists and Empires have been using to exploit and degrade Mexico and the rest of the third world for the past five hundred years.
Even though [you talk] a lot about revolution, the attitudes and ideas held by [you] are no different than those held by Cortes, Monroe or any other corporate imperialist bastard you can think of. Your intervention is not wanted nor are we a “project” for some high-minded North Americans to profit off.
So long as North American anarchists hold and espouse colonialist belief systems they will forever find themselves without allies in the third world. The peasants in Bolivia and Ecuador, no matter how closely in conformity with your rigid ideology, will not appreciate your condescending colonial attitudes anymore than would the freedom fighters in Papua New Guinea or anywhere else in the world.
Colonialism is one of the many enemies we are fighting in this world and so long as North Americans reinforce colonial thought patterns in their “revolutionary” struggles, they will never be on the side of any anti-colonial struggle anywhere. We in the Zapatista struggle have... asked the world to... respect the historical context we are in and think about the actions we do to pull ourselves from under the boots of oppression.
Mutual Aid is a good thing, but it does not create a fully collectivized and planned economy.
No, you appear not to understand it fully. It is true that I put the role of the individual as more important, but in a way where the individual helps the collective.
Under capitalism, the individual is motivated to profit at the expense of others; whereas with anarchocommunism, the individual is motivated to work together.
I reject the state because it will lead to tyranny. You presume that I conflate democracy with dictatorship, but that is not the case; for me, workplace democracy is crucial.
You also understand what I mean by 'vanguard'; an organised group that is led, as opposing to federated and decentralised, where no one leads.
When we formalise the most advanced, then we create a new class. Which fails the entire point of communism! You might say formalising it helps; but I disagree with that. Here we for example do not log peoples' races or religions; because we believe these to be counterproductive, as they are only ever used by fascists to segregate and create new classes. The lack of logging has resulted in that people do not as much feel animosity for each other based on race or religion; and that we cooperate more together. Indeed, it would be more classless.
Democratic Centralism just means individuals are beholden to the collective decisions of the group, and are expected to uphold them.
Yeah, and when a majority votes for abolishing my rights, I sure as hell ain't gonna uphold that. Democratic centralism, whips, all that can kiss my sorry ass. Screw that shit. It is authoritarian, period. There's no "just" there; you are goodmouthing it. When they silence criticism, we become blind.
An example of the benefits of aligning is the LGBTQ+ movement, the TERFs end up being less effective because fighting for the liberation of all unites greater forces, and that's ignoring the evils of transphobia.
Except that in that case, there is no overarching group that enforces shutting down other opinions; the rejection of transphobia has grown through discussion and cooperation. Take blocking users, for example; it's something you can do without a larger collective forcing it on you. Sure, there's defederation as well, but you can always make an alt.
Edit: saw your addendum on the USSR and PRC. Both are excellent examples of the working class in power achieving dramatic results and improving the lives of the working class. Tripling of literacy rates, doubling of life expectancies, achieving dramatic improvements in science and well-being, fighting sexism and racism.
While these indeed do occur and have their merits, you should also not discard that millions of people still died under these regimes, just as with capitalism. And that dissidence was repressed; criticise the party, and you're gone. We can have improvement without authoritarianism.
What improvement in wellbeing is there then, when one cannot criticise? What improvement in fighting sexism is there, when queers were not allowed to be themselves in the USSR (and you can die for it in today's mafia Russia) and even up to today, in the PRC, cannot do so?
What improvements in fighting racism, when Russification displaced a ton of people and hampered the Baltics' selfdetermination, under an agenda of repression and ethnic cleansing? Indeed the US has far more of these problems; but it would be foolish to not also acknowledge the terribility of authoritarianism!
When I speak of communism, I speak of true liberation, not establishing yet another tyranny.
You're goodmouthing Trotsky's assassination. I know enough. I have one word of advice: stop and think about what you're doing: should people be murdered at all? Thanks for the good discussion, but I've no need for talk like this. The whole "he was organising terrorism against Stalin" is literally a lie that Stalin spread himself. He lied also about who killed Trotsky, saying it was another Trotskyist, when he gave the order himself.
Come back to me when you don't just criticise capitalism, but all forms of authoritarianism, totalitarian communism such as that of the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC included. We share the same fight, but that doesn't mean you have to lick the authoritarian boot.
I understand perfectly well, again, I'm a former anarchist. We've both read a lot of the same anarchist theory, the difference is that I've rejected it as I've read it and also read Marxist-Leninist theory.
My critique of anarchism is the same as it has been for centuries for Marxists, cooperative ownership as opposed to collectivized ownership gives rise to social striation on the basis of different geography and production, which gives rise to capitalism. The state doesn't give rise to capitalism, capitalism gives rise to the state.
You keep saying you reject workers states because they lead to "tyrannny," without justifying your claim, and further go on to say democratic centralism is dictatorship. How is workplace democracy to function if the outcomes are not binding? Any useful applications of democracy must be binding, otherwise nothing gets done.
As for your point against vanguards as being a class, this is wrong, flat-out. Vanguards are subsections of the revolutionary class, not a class in and of themselves, as they are formed from the working class, elected by it, and hold the same relations to production. A manager is not a class in capitalism, but a subsection of the proletariat.
Your argument against democratic centralism is an argument against democracy. Minority rights are absolutely crucial to a functioning democracy, but thay's fully compatible with democratic centralism.
TERFs are less effective than unified, intersectional groups. I recommend reading Leslie Feinberg's Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue.
The struggles faced by socialist states were real, yes, but it is a good thing to suppress fascists, Tsarists, imperialists, and terrorists. This is a fact of life, if you do not stamp out fascism, it will stamp you out. The USSR was more progressive on queer rights than western countries. Alexandra Kollontai was a bisexual woman and one of the most important figures in early socialist society. The GDR was giving state-run gender affirming care. Queer rights in the PRC are rapidly improving, one of their most beloved celebrities, Xin Jing, is a transwoman, and Cuba's family code is among the most progressive in the world. Socialism enabled this.
"Russification" wasn't really a problem. The USSR took national liberation very seriously. The fact that they established common methods of writing for communication existed alongside national autonomy in the various SSRs and SFSRs. You can read testemonials from various travelers to the USSR like Paul Robeson:
In Russia I felt for the first time like a full human being. No color prejudice like in Mississippi, no color prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being.
And yes, killing Trotsky, who was organizing terrorist attacks on Soviet citizens and government officials, was a good thing. Killing terrorists that threaten your people and Nazis is a necessary function of society.
Also, can't help but notice you ignored that the Zapatistas despise being called by western labeling like "anarchists," did you miss that part?
I'm not going to apologize for being a Marxist, nor for advocating for socialism as a means to eventually erase the state and thus any speak of authoritarianism. I will not be an enemy of existing socialism or of the working class of those countries.
I will not be an enemy of existing socialism or of the working class of those countries.
You already are, auth
Nope, socialism is popular in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. The people like their system, and support their governments. Calling me "auth" for supporting them is a bit silly.
I would rather religion doesn't exist any more, not just religious 'extremism', that sounds very subjective
