this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
392 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
15549 readers
362 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure bud. Tell yourself that. While the USSR ultimately reached the stateless part, no actual groundwork for socialism was laid so banditry took over once the Bolshevik power structure collapsed. What followed was a free-for-all until the KGB got its shit together and... instituted imperialist nationalist capitalism. That organisation really hasn't changed since the times of the Tsar.
The Bolsheviks did not build resilience against any of that because building a society which is resilient against rule of minority groups seeking to exploit the masses would have undermined their own rule. The whole thing is inherently self-contradicting, Anarchists have been telling that Marx himself long before either of us were born so stop telling us to "read Marx". Rather, you read "On Authority" and identify the strawmen.
"Stateless" doesn't mean "governmentless," though the dissolution of the Socialist system nearly a century after its founding does not mean they never had a Socialist economy. Further, such a system did not "exploit the masses," it achieved massive working class victories such as free healthcare and education, doubled life expectancy, over tripling literacy rates to be higher than the Western world, and democratized the economy.
On Authority doesn't strawman anything.
According to the original socialist "state == hierarchical rule" definition, yes it does. Even Marx, even the Soviets, admitted that and did not confuse "real existing socialism" (sic) with actual communism.
Congratulations, you understand sarcasm.
Irrespective of the veracity of that statement: Not something I said. Not the point.
Maybe you would be able to spot the strawman if you tried less hard to misunderstand my previous post. Something about resilience against something? Necessary preconditions?
You're actually quite far off about Marx and the State, and are presupposing the Anarchist as the "legitimate" and "original." For Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other non-Anarchist Socialists, the state was the tool of class oppression. The goal of Marx and Engels in their analysis was to show that the centralization of Capitalism leads to public ownership and planning, not decentralization. From Engels:
Further along:
Anarchists seek abolition of hierarchy, Marxists seek abolition of classes. You can be an Anarchist, but don't distort Marx to suit your ends.
If there is hierarchy, there are classes.
Curiously, btw, you overlooked this:
No. Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. A manager is not a separate class from the worker, but the business owner is. The Anarchists take issue with hierarchy, not classes, yet a commune in the global context consists of Petite Bourgeoisie, all interested in the success of their commune but not necessarily others. The Marxists take issue with classes, seeking full collective ownership for all of humanity. It's an important distinction that guides philosophy, the Anarchist crituque of Marxism is the preservation of hierarchy while the Marxist critique of Anarchism is the preservation of class distinctions.
I ignored the second part because I didn't think it important to address. I don't care to debate Anarchism with you, just correct your misconceptions with Marxism so if anyone else reads this they won't just go along with what you say.
If there is hierarchy then there are different social relations to the means of production: A worker does not have the same relation to the means of productions as the central committee, and under hierarchy that difference in relation goes beyond the (unavoidable) division of labour (roughly and bluntly, management/organisation vs. pounding metal), but involves difference in power: To counter the worker's organic power over the means of production (being the ones actually operating stuff) the central committee has to furnish means of rule, such as gulags, propaganda, catch 22s, you name it.
The solution to this conundrum is to see that the power of the workers does not have to be countered. That, if the central committee is willing to actually meet the workers at eye level, to listen, this will be reciprocated by the workers valuing the committee’s input, and broader overview of the situation, and also acknowledge necessities imposed by larger factors, based on trust and common interest. Thus the difference in relation to the means of production loses its power dynamic and management vs. pounding metal is no more of a difference than using a machine vs. repairing it. All are workers. Thus, therefore: To abolish class, you have to abolish hierarchy.
And IDGAF about "misconceptions of Marxism", I'm not a history nerd. Marx was wrong a lot, that's the larger issue, the one actually materially relevant.
Not necessarily. Managers are not separate classes from workers, management is a form of labor. Same with econic planning. What you describe as "managers meeting workers at eye level" is what historically has happened in Socialist countries, and is what is advocated by Marxists. You should look into the various democratic structures in AES countries, I can make recommendations for sources if you wish.
Either way, I understand that you don't care to represent Marx or AES accurately, that's why I wanted to correct the clear misconceptions you had. Again, you can be an Anarchist and think Marx wrong while not understanding Marx, that's your right and your ability, I just want to make sure that Marx is being measured by what he actually wrote on his own terms and not as though he were an Anarchist.
Specifically in Russia, yes, that indeed happened. Until the Bolsheviks putsched and took power away from the councils. There was a January revolution and an October counter-revolution.
Originally you wanted to say "Socdems are not socialists", which is how this whole thing started. The point here is that yes, that might be the case, but if you claim that ineffectiveness is something that disqualifies you (because the purpose of a system is what it does) then MLs are even worse off because they're right-out counter-revolutionary. And insofar as modern Marxists don't fall into that category, such as council communists, they're essentially syndicalists. Slightly different theory, same praxis, and definitely "revisionist" in the eyes of MLs.
The strawman in On Authority is Engels completely misrepresenting Anarchist critique of power, in a very comical way: "Oh, you anarchists are complaining that looms force you to pull levers". Ergonomics of levers aside, the critique always was "we don't want you to tell us when to pull the lever and when to take a break". You can make suggestions, you can explain your reasoning, if you do that you have done your job as a manager and things are going to happen like that because they make sense to us, if not, if you demand obedience, then you're a boot in our face and need to fucking go.
Well, since you insist on distorting history, I'll leave you with Soviet Democracy for historical record on the democratic structure of the USSR. The Bolsheviks carried out the revolution and created the first Socialist state. It certainly wasn't Anarchist, but it was Marxist and thus counts as Socialist.
As for MLs being "counter-revolutionary," I don't know how you make the claim that the only Marxists to succeed in revolution are somehow "counter-revolutionary." Seems you have a martyrdom fetish, the second Leftists succeed they cease to be Leftists. Blackshirts and Reds is a good critical account of the USSR.
I have no clue why you think the tiny subsection of western Marxists that make up "council communists," popularized a century ago and promptly abandoned due to having horrible theoretical analysis, are "modern Marxists." Marxism-Leninism is the most common and successful form of Marxism by far and is the guiding ideology of several Socialist states today, like Cuba. Unless you're trying to say that only Westerners can truly understand Marx, and that the millions of Communists in the Global South that have spent their lives building Socialism are simply incapable of grasping Marx, then there's no reason to think council communists are much of anything. Personally, I think we should look to those who actually have succeeded in revolution to see what they have to say.
As for management, management needs authority, to deny that fact is to deny QA workers the ability to exert authority over production if the products are toxic, or to deny the health and safety officials the authority to stop unsafe production, or education officials to maintain standards for engineering education. Relying on every single decision to be democratically held would grind production to a halt in a day and to not do so is to recognize authority as necessary. If you agree that some people should be voted to have this necessary authority, then congrats, you agree with Marxist-Leninists.
I think it's clear enough to anybody else by now that you really have no clue what you're talking about with respect to Marxism, I've made my case so I think we are done here.
It is often said that Anarchists bow, on the matter of boots, to the authority of the bootmaker. But, truth be told: If they make shoddy shoes, no we don't. Good managers don't order people around, they organise. They are servants to the collective project.
Strawman. I don't care how the shoemaker affixes the sole, what matters is that it makes sense in the context of the end-product being a shoe that fits. I may not be able to figure out how to construct a good shoe, but I can judge the result by virtue of having feet. It's the same with management. One problem tankies, particularly of the so common Yankee persuasion, have I think is that corporate culture is so utterly broken in America that they can't even imagine working under good management. Thus you get the slave thinking that the only way out is for themselves to become the master, and then history repeats. The master/slave dialectic is already a diagnosis, building onto it, also as inversion, just further neurosis.
You can deny the power inversion the Bolsheviks caused all you want, how the selection for council positions was done such that an on-paper bottom-up organisation became in practice a top-down one, but it won't change the actual history. The purpose of the system is what it does and what the Bolshevik counter-revolution did was to put people like Stalin and Beria into power, riding on the back of the easily abusable power relations that Lenin created, which I grant at least had ideals. The same power relations which, after the dissolution of the USSR, allowed banditry to fill the power vacuum.
You genuinely believe if you change the name of something, you change it materially. Your admission that there needs to be management is an admission of authority's necessity in controlled contexts. To trust the bootmaking factory to be safe, have controlled QA, to be practicing safe environmental practices, all aspects of mass industry require at some level administration and management. The QA worker must have a backed authority to halt production of boots with toxic materials, the safety workers must have the authority to ensure proper lock-out tag-out is followed, the maintenance workers must be able to have authority to halt production to fix machinery.
Describe how a smart phone would be made in Anarchism, and you'll find you need some form of authority and administration to ensure safety, quality, and coordination of logistics.
It is not that Marxists simply can't imagine a better society. Marxists understand that Capitalist production evolved the way it did, and when you cut out non-productive labor it did so to maximize profits along highly complex production methods. What needs to change is the method of ownership and direction, rather than being at the whim and for the profits of few individuals, production can be owned and run by all for all.
As for the USSR, as you say, the purpose of a system is what it does. It doubled life expectancy from the 30s to the 70s, over tripled literacy rates to be higher than 99%, ended famine, dramatically lowered wealth disparity while improving median wages, democratized the economy, rapidly expanded housing, supported national liberation movements in countries like Palestine, Algeria, Cuba, China, and more. They provided free, high quality education and healthcare. Their presence on the world stage, combined with working class organization internally, was the driving force beyond the major expansions in social safety nets in the 20th century, and after the dissolution of the USSR these have been withering.
No, you don't have to be a Marxist if you don't want to be. No, the USSR was not perfect, and no Marxist claims it to be either. Marxists simply claim that the USSR was the world's first Socialist state, and as such the very real working class victories were due to the working people that built them. I'm going to go ahead and link Blackshirts and Reds again so if you want to read a history book written after the soviet archives opened up, you can.
Doing all of that is in the interest of the workers themselves. Not being hindered by capital or threat of gulag to implement it, they will. The task of a manager is to analyse to give reports, not to direct. The safety worker has authority because people want to be safe.
If you have an actual look of how worplace safety is implemented in countries that actually have a good track record then you'll see the best numbers in those where the shop floor council has the power to stop everything if need be, interest of the bosses be damned, like Germany. Next up are countries where there's an independent public body with that authority, like the US (OSHA). Bottom of the barrel are those where workplace safety is left to the whims of capital or the local party secretary.
Only according to Marx' definition so that's a nothingburger.
...why didn't the USSR change it? Why was everything dictated, top down, by few individuals squirrelling away plenty of money? The corruption problem post-Soviet states have is inherited from the USSR, which normalised profiting off anything that flowed through your station. The higher the station, the greater the profit.
Plenty of states who did that without turning into dictatorships and maybe ask the Ukrainians about famine and who caused it.
No they didn't. You're just rattling down a fanboy list I can't be bothered.
See, you go on to prove my exact point, that QA workers and safety workers need the authority to stop production. You recognize this necessary authority, but then undermine it by saying it's the "will of the workers." If you don't recognize it as authority, then it can be gone against, meaning you have to recognize it as authority. Managers don't just do reports, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Managers are coordinators of production, if you ever step foot in a factory you'll see assembly line leaders and area leaders that help coordinate between each other and solve problems as they arise.
You describe fantastic examples like OSHA, which are necessary authorities, essentially explaining why not all hierarchy and not all authority is necessarilly a bad thing. However, you change the names and bring up non-sequitors like GULAGs and whatnot as though you could have an OSHA that only politely asks a factory producing toxic products to stop. OSHA has power because it is punishable to not do what they say, they have authority.
Finally, saying that Marxism isn't Socialist is very silly, but does indeed go along with you pretending Anarchism is the only form of Socialism, and flip-flopping back and forth on whether or not authority is necessary by trying to change the names of structures we both seem to support materially.
The rest of your comment is anticommunist nonsense that you repeat without any sources, so I'll leave you with some great ones:
Blackshirts and Reds: a fantastic critique of the USSR, analysis of Communism's antagonistic relationship with fascism, and tears down "left" anticommunism.
Is The Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union is a great analysis of how the economy of the Soviet Union functioned.
Russian Justice is a great book on how the law, court, and prison system worked in the early USSR
Soviet Democracy is an explanation and exploration of the Soviet system of democracy, which democratized the economy dramatically, especially in comparison with the Tsarist system and the current Capitalist system
This Soviet World great history book on the early Soviet period.
You're doing the Engels thing. "See, subordinate, you give authority to Bob from safety. Thus, you accept authority, thus, I get to tell you what to do, and I'm telling you to increase production by 200%, skirting safety protocols if need be". It doesn't work like that. Authority, like respect, is earned. A king is not an authority on bootmaking no matter how much power he wields. (Well he could actually be a hobby bootmaker but you get my point).
Proper managers just do reports. Not always the written kind. They're not saying "do this, do that", they're saying "X needs Y, can you supply it, please contact them", they're saying "have a look at this procedure what do you think of it". They're keeping an eye on everything, produce a larger picture and communicate their insights to anyone who should know, or is asking. Their authority comes from good analysis.
You're still equating power and authority. And not just in the "eh those terms have some overlap and speech can get fuzzy", but in your thinking itself, you're not making crucial distinctions: OSHA would not need any power if bosses did not have power over workers, its authority as people knowledgable in matters of work safety is plenty to make the workers listen to them. You do not need to threaten a machinist for them to not put their dick in a vice. You do need to threaten bosses who threaten machinists so that they put their dick in a vice. The necessity to threaten the boss with gulag does only arise because the boss is given the power to threaten the worker with gulag.
https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/this-soviet-world/
That's not how quotas were set in the USSR. An analysis of how implementation came to differ from those kinds of ideal descriptions might be in order. Right-out mandatory if you want to call yourself a materialist.
Do you have stuff on this? Not sources, I'm not asking you to prove you are correct, I was wondering since you said this that you may have something that I can take a look at.
Any anarchist or socdem critique of the USSR. I don't think there's actually much in-depth stuff about this because it amounts to "told you so". Within Marxist theory I guess the Frankfurt school would be worth a look. (Yes, the exact one chuds think rules the world, if only. That is, it's where "Cultural Marxism" points at while ignoring every single thing the Frankfurt school is actually saying.)
You're doing exactly what Engels points out, though. You are trying to change the nature of a thing by changing its name.
OSHA has authority, power, whatever you want to call it to compel unsafe or toxic production to cease. This is necessary, and cannot simply be a request to be denied, as people will work in their own interests and may want to cut corners. You don't need to threaten people not to put their genitals in vices, correct, but you do need to have power over people who are deliberately skirting safety protocol for their own benefit.
This is why this entire conversation has been relatively pointless, it's clear that you certainly have firm beliefs about what you want, you just fundamentally lack the understanding of the Marxist position to its entirety and can only disagree with it by shifting and distorting things or by changing the names of things we agree on. You double down when proven wrong and try to pretend Marxism isn't Socialist.
I think you need to take a step back and read at list a bit of Marx and Engels and read up more on the various AES states if you want to actually come up with sensible critique.
"to compel". That's power. Authority is more like "to convince".
No.
It is not in the interest of workers to cut corners. That interest is coming from somewhere else. That is why OSHA needs power. Without those external interests, all that OSHA needs to do is convince that certain practices are beneficial to the worker's own self-interest. If they are any good at their job, they will be very convincing, they will have much authority.
This is the fundamental stuff that Marx, and by extension many Marxists, miss in their analysis. That's why the revolution failed: Because it was not, systemically, beneficial to the worker, because it was the exchange of one boot for another boot. Advances such as healthcare? Goddammit SocDems caused Germany to introduce universal public healthcare under Monarchism. "We need the dictatorship of the vanguard to introduce these advances" is not an argument, it never has been necessary and with the likes of OSHA: The USSR was not great, not terrible. Bosses could override safety concerns because higher-ups want production quota, and they did. The reason it wasn't terrible is because the people engineering factories cared about that stuff, and worked it into the design.
The same misappreciation btw also extends to histography: "The peasant has no class consciousness". Peasant revolt after constant peasant revolt attested in history would beg to differ.
Okay, so OSHA needs power. If a factory is producing in unsafe conditions or produce toxic or unsafe goods for the public. Not every situation can be solved via "convincing." Depending on OSHA to be "convincing" is silly, all such Utopian formations of societies like the Owenites and Saint-Simon's commune failed for similar reasons.
I think you need to revisit Marxist theory and history, and you honestly should revisit Anarchist theory which today understands the necessity of just hierarchy. The USSR was great, not perfect but absolutely massive for Workers around the world.
Well, you need to convince the KGB to stop enforcing the bosses' commands, taking away the bosses' power, as that is where the necessity for OSHA to have power even arises. Of course, enforcement of power is all the KGB is there for so you have to convince power-hungry authoritarians to stop doing what they do and retire. It'd be in their own interest, but their neuroses doesn't let them see it.
We can talk about the need to coerce to get rid of the KGB to bring about a system that is free from the KGB, we can talk about the need of defences against the resurgence of a KGB while the very notion of ordering people about is not relegated to the history books, but we do not need to even entertain the idea of power being necessary in actually realised socialism as it would be a contradiction in terms.
The necessity for OSHA to have power is that people act in their own self-interest as a rule. Humanity can collectively plan and produce, and eventually as production is improved these measures will not need to be as strict, but they remain a necessity for administration and planning.
Again, it is awfully dishonest to attempt to redefine Socialism as Anarchism.
It is the self-interest of the bosses to ignore safety concerns. It is not, ever, in the interest of workers to ignore safety concerns.
Thus there exist a configuration of society in which OSHA does not require power, and that is when the self-interest of the workers is not infringed upon by other factors. In other words: Socialism.
Because what else would you define socialism as if not a state of things where worker's self-interest is not infringed upon. How can you claim that anything that infringes on worker's righteous self-interest could ever be socialism. "Socialism is when the interests of the working class is infringed upon, and the more its interests get infringed upon, the more socialist it is", or what?
It is absolutely in the interest of workers to ignore safety concerns. They want to go home earlier, they don't care enough, they don't think it's important enough, etc. If you work in the trades, or in factories, or another industrial environment, you can find dozens of safety violations even in a well-kept place. Your following points don't follow because the base is wrong.
Furthermore, identifying Anarchism as the only form of Socialism, is dishonest. Socialism isn't about abolition of hierarchy, Anarchism is specificially. Socialism is an economic mode of production based around collectivization of property, but not necessarily abolition of class or hierarchy. Anarchism seeks to turn everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie out of a desire to eliminate hierarchy, Marxisk seeks to collectivize property equally among everyone out of a desire to eliminate class. Both are Socialist.
Power, authority, hierarchy, whatever you wish to call it, is a tool. The goal of Socialism is the uplifting and abolition of the Proletariat, simple as. It is not about "ceasing to infringe on any other worker's self-interests," such a mischaracterization is idealist. It is not "infringing on worker's interests" for OSHA to be able to shut down unsafe production even if the people there want to keep going, rather, it protects them and the people that could have been hurt.
At the end of the day, by trying to redefine Socialism as Anarchism and say Marxism isn't Socialist, you aren't going to convince anyone. You're not convincing me, and you sure aren't convincing anyone else. You say Marx gets stuff "wrong," but the stuff he supposedly got wrong is all stuff you seemed to have made up. It's silly, and this isn't going anymore.
Disengage.
And why would workers want that? Or, differently put: If they don't care, why are they working in the first place?
Any job worth doing is worth doing right. That's the intrinsic value of work, those things you mentioned only come into play when work is compelled by external factors. Convince people to work instead of compelling them and there will be intrinsic motivation and yes they're going to do it right.
"Marxism isn't proper socialism" is a story as old as Marx, btw. There were always people who disagreed with him, vehemently so, and he didn't found the worker's movement.
A lot of necessary jobs go undone if nobody wants to do them, like garbage disposal, sewer maintenance, etc. The notion that if everyone did only what everyone wanted, at least without moving to the far, far future, that everything necessary for society to function would get done is baseless.
Furthermore, the idea that Marxism isn't Socialist is old, yes. However, Marxism is based on collectivization of property and worker's rights, so it is Socialist. Further, it's by far the most historically relevant and the most relevant at a modern point because there are several Marxist states.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, you're taking a hard-line stance abandoned by most Anarchists a century ago, all you're doing is making Anarchism look silly when there has been advancements in Anarchist theory. Trying to discredit Marxism as validly Socialist and pretending Socialism means Anarchism only further alienates what you're saying from actually convincing anyone.
Do you want to clean your toilet?
There's a large difference between taking care of your personal living space and having communal services, and maintaining sewers and toxic waste is at a far worse level. Legitimately, you're digging a deeper logical hole here.
You'll have plenty of protective equipment. That's not the issue. You'll even have robots.
The issue, I think, is that you don't know what it's like to be part of a tribe, never have felt the solidarity and the motivation to contribute according to your abilities that comes along with it.
I thought you were an Anarchist, why are you requiring society to advance to full automation of dirty jobs before changing the system? What happens between now and that level of automation?
I absolutely know solidarity, I've worked in factories and industrial environments, alongside union members and leaders, and have contributed to my family and community. You're making assumptions about me to try to dig yourself out of a logical hole. You want incredibly advanced technology and people to willingly take dirty jobs, but to not have any formalized administration beyond the informal structures that arise naturally. You want this now, but can't describe how to get there beyond "solidarity."
What you are describing is fantasy. You can't describe how you'd get people to do the unquestionably horrible jobs that are nonetheless necessary without requiring them to be automated. The real issue is that you seem to be detatched from the broad working class and think everyone would magically do what's needed without any administration or direction, this is not even in line with Anarchist thinking.
I suggest reading The Tyranny of Structurelessness, it's the formalizing of structure that provides for actual democracy and collective aggreement, leaving it informal and based on respect leaves it unaccountable.
We already do have robots that clean sewers, cleaning sewers isn't actually the point but doing things "people don't want to" and, duh, what'll happen is inventing all automation that might be necessary, as part of prefiguration.
In the meantime I would much rather have a socdem government than a tankie boot in my face. Ask anyone from a post-soviet country as to why.
No. I'm drawing conclusions from your choice of argument. What, in your mind, and be honest now, is the social standing of people doing such jobs? Are they respected? Do you respect them? Investigate the value attached to those things, and where those judgements really come from. Did you form them yourself, after careful analysis? Do you have them because it is socially expected that you have them? Is it fantasy to value the sewer worker next door more than Elon Musk? Do you think a society, at large, might be capable of doing that?
When the fuck am I supposed to have said that? Did you, *drumroll*, assume?
...ok you got me. I want this now. I also want bedtime to be abolished. But I'm also an adult, old enough to understand that actionism does not lead anywhere as the socio-psychological component of the system is furnished to prompt exactly that unreflected actionism that reinforces it. Your rebellion has been factored into the equation and is being used against your dreams. It is not sufficient to swim against the stream, you have to get out of the river. It's nice here, btw, I have dry socks.
You're running into even more contradictions as we move right along. You'd rather have Capitalism, warts and all, than Socialism. Further still, assuming you're in the Global North, you'd rather perpetuate Imperialism and vast exploitation of the Global South, which is a necessity for Social Democracy in the Global North and perpetuation of Capitalism. Really, this reveals your true intentions, by approving of Social Democracy for as long as "prefiguration" lasts, you approve of the Imperialism it requires to sustain itself. You oppose Socialism more than you oppose Capitalism and Imperialism.
Moreover, this "prefiguration" phase would be be better accomplished in a Socialist state, would it not? Socialism for Marxists is already a transitional phase to Communism, and Marxists want collectivization. Seems you just want to live off of the exploitation of the Global South until they are milked dry, then live in a utopian commune free from struggle, or bad things like pooping.
As for your nonsense notion that I don't "respect" sanitation workers, it's the opposite. I respect them greatly, but I understand that their jobs are extremely dirty and toxic, risk their health and safety, and most do so because they need to make a living. Someone will have to end up doing such work, it is not fully automated, so it is better to have systems like job rotation or lower working hours for the same pay as a form of "hazard adjustment" as is in place in several AES states.
Your last paragraph is just pseudo-intellectual idealist masturbation. It was funny to laugh at, but that's about it.
No. I would rather have liberal democracy than regress to feudalism with a different coat of paint. Actionism is a trap, the system is begging you to oppose it in certain ways because doing so will only reinforce it. If you want to sit on the long end of the leaver, you might need to walk some distance.
Then get them safety equipment and robots.
You want things to be de-commodified, don't you? "A stateless, classless, moneyless society". You say currently sewerage workers are compelled by money, I take that to mean that you think they only do it because they need money because otherwise they'd starve.
But they would be supplied for in communism whether they do that job or not. So why would they still choose to do the work? For the greater good, of course. This isn't something that's unique to Anarchism. You're trying to saw off a branch that you yourself are sitting on.
In a soviet-style state: Definitely not. You need freedom of association to be able to get people used to the necessary modes of organisation. The USSR did not tolerate such things, China does not tolerate such things. The reason is simple: They do understand that it is in direct contradiction to the centralisation of power, and thereby the privileges of the party. To do prefiguration, you have to eat humble pie.
Please explain how a democratic, publicly owned economy is "feudalism."
Furthermore, please, try to actually understand Marxism and not just make up whatever you want about it. Labor vouchers and credits aren't money, money is made to be exchanged amond individuals. Labour vouchers being used to buy goods and services from the social fund isn't money, because they are destroyed upon use. No "greater good" sacrifices necessary for you to live on the backs of those with the short end of the stick!
As for prefiguration, it doesn't seem to be possible in a Capitalist state so far either, so again you just approve of Imperialism and Capitalism so long as it's your state that sits on top of the Global South.
Truly, you have no clue what Marxists actually advocate and you don't understand Marxist states either, why are you bothering to reply? What's your goal here?
Democratic is not what the USSR was, and that style of thing is the only thing Marxists ever achieved. There's also a difference between public ownership and state control, doubly so in non-democracies. Also you're leaving out a model not really seen anywhere outside of liberal democracies and that's foundations, that is, self-owning companies. Zeiss is a good example. Their purpose, according to statute, pretty much say "We do optics and funnel some money to the University of Jena", no shareholder interest at all.
Dude Latinos are the most vocal and active in the prefigurative space. There's a reason we use a Portuguese term, "especifismo", for a basic organisational principle. It's the failure to think outside of the vanguardist box that makes Marxists not achieve anything but regression: Don't dilute yourself to be better and more enlightened. You are not, you're also a mere human. Anarchists understand we need to eat humble pie when talking to people, that we do not have all the answers, that all we have is a good compass and a toolbox that can help people to walk into that direction, on their own terms, at their own pace, organically, without coercion, which is crucial because the end goal does not contain any coercion.
How do you eat if you don't have a labour voucher? How is that "to everyone according to need"? It's the same "bow to the bosses or starve" tyranny as capitalism without welfare state.
Your bits on the USSR translate to "I said it wasn't democratic" as well as "state and public control is totally different and in the USSR it wasn't public" so they can be safely ignored, given the books I already linked proving otherwise.
As for Imperialism, I mean you specifically who said you wanted to live in a Social Democracy in the Global North rather than Socialism. I don't think you share many views with most Anarchists, based on how you seem to understand Anarchism and prefiguration.
As for labour vouchers, those aren't the only way to get things, and they'd likely become unnecessary once production advances enough. You can have social services and whatnot, but during the development of Communism (and Anarchism, whether you agree or not) labour vouchers are a necessary form of accounting. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work" can only truly become "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" at a higher phase of Communism with more advanced Means of Production. Things like healthcare and education are usually free or inexpensive in AES countries, same with food.
It is not "the same as Capitalism," because production is not done for accumulation of profit in an M-C-M' circuit, and because production is publicly owned and planned. Very, very different from private ownership and competition for accumulation and profit.
Noone but tankies considers the USSR to have been democratic. You can use a different, non-standard, sectarian, definition of a common concept all you want but don't be confused if people don't agree with your equivocation tactics.
No. I said I do not want to live under what you call socialism, which is, in the best case, red-painted oligarchy. I'd love there to be actual socialism but in the meantime, until material conditions are created which actually allow a revolution, and that includes resilience against a Bolshevik counter-revolution, a liberal democracy with a social market economy is adequate. It is an improvement over your red-painted oligarchy, ask any East European.
As to your implied accusation of colonial exploitation: First off, there's no cannon boats of ours sailing up your rivers, we gave that up long ago: If you don't want to sell us stuff, then don't sell us stuff. Secondly, this. The USSR never cared about the conditions the people producing their imports are in, somehow a social market economy does manage to.
Guess Wikipedia is "tankie" now. For a better source, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan (also referenced as a source on the Wikipedia page). I also recommend Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. Again, nobody is going to care what you say if you keep doubling down, when you have been given sources and you provide none other than "only bad people agree with you" you've already admitted to not having done the research necessary to make such a claim.
Your next paragraph is worse, when you rely on "any East European." Nostalgia for the Soviet Union is well-documeneted. 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want Socialism back, and this number is actually a good deal higher in many post-soviet sattelite states. When you do no research and assume yourself to be right, you show others exactly how unreliable your other points are. Why make a point easily googled to disprove?
As for your defense of Imperialism, I'm quite happy to be proven right, you're a neoliberal at heart with an Anarchist coat of paint. No Anarchist I have ever spoken to, regardless of their opinion of the USSR, has said Imperialism is fine once it has been pointed out. The US maintains 750 foreign military bases just for the US military, it's much higher if you include Western Europe, and they make up the same economic bloc. These countries exert power to force slave-like labor in countries they intentionally under-develop by expropriating vast amounts of resources. Imperialism in the 21st Century as well as Super Imperialism are great books to check out to remove the neoliberalism from your brain and take a proper anti-Imperialist stance.
To quote Michael Parenti:
Why do you keep replying? What is your goal?
You did not read the article. It makes a clear distinction between council democracy itself (soviet means council), and what was implemented in the USSR. There did exist some democracy on lower levels that were not of immediate interest to the higher-ups, but that was also the case under monarchism.
Russians have neither a liberal democracy nor a social market economy. They're also not terribly educated about the outside world. Ask Poles, ask Ukrainians, ask Romanians.
That asks specifically about the economic situation. Probably due to current factors such as affordability of rent, you won't see me arguing that there's work to do in those areas. Oh wait Hungary tops the list yep that's not surprising they just got EU funds cut due to democratic backsliding and they were very much a net recipient. Fidez is a bunch of corrupt fascists. We'll have to switch stereotypes around, Romanians are supposed to be the thieves I guess it's ok they can still be the drunks.
Which imperialism did I defend? I said that we stopped sailing cannon boats up rivers. I'm fucking European don't dare blaming shit Seppos do on us.
Unless you mean the "pressure companies abroad into not using slave labour" thing in which case yes I'm completely fine with us throwing our big economic dick around. Do you have any issues with us using our economical power to combat slave labour and other forms of exploitation, even against the will of governments in the global south?
And, no, we're not the "same economic bloc" as the US. This is our bloc. Mercosur is likely to come into force soon, US is way unlikely to ever happen. Things that may puzzle you: It actually includes Vietnam.
...then elect better governments? It's your countries, your responsibility. Do something with those riches, like for starters distributing them fairly, and growing them. Are we supposed to swoop in and direct you in how to do it? We'd very likely do a better job this time around but generally lost the taste for imperialism so the answer is no.
To save your soul.
Wikipedia, however, does consider it democratic and used a source I already gave you that proves that it was, along with another that does as well. You have nothing working in your favor.
As for your racism against Eastern-Europeans, it's no shock that they preferred the Socialist system when 7 million people died due to its dissolution and the introduction of Capitalism brought mass poverty. Pretending that they are "too stupid and uneducated" to tell you that they had it better under Socialism than under Capitalism is that neoliberal chauvanism oozing out. Really, you have a lot in common with Reagan and Thatcher in worldview. Really, it's similar to Orwell's view of Eastern Europeans as stupid, illiterate, and destined to be taken advantage of, as he portrayed them in Animal Farm.
Denying the existence of G-7 and NATO wasn't on my bingo card, neoliberals like yourself love those. Trying to pretend you do "good" Imperialism is European Chauvanism, it's nice to see you own up to it. The IMF brutally exploits the Global South with predatory loans. This is a process also referred to as Neocolonialism, and exerting power is often done under the convenient guise of "helping" the Global South. This is the same sham as calling the IDF "the most moral military in the world." The fact that you blame the imperialized and colonized countries you yourself benefit from for being imperialized and colonized is monstrous behavior, akin to Churchill blaming Bengali's his policies starved on themselves:
Or, more topically, Macron recently saying African countries should be thankful to France for colonizing them:
It's hilarious that you think you're trying to save me when you've been fighting against Socialism and defending Colonialism and Imperialism. Such a Neoliberal "Anarchist" is an oxymoron.
-Michael Parenti
Wikipedia does not consider anything anything, it describes how other people describe it. Basic media literacy, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seem to be confusing racism with banter and it's kinda telling you can't tell the difference.
The IMF did a lot of shit especially in the past, but don't pretend that loans were forced on states, or they would treat even EU countries any differently (remember Greece?), or that it wouldn't be a UN institution that the global south itself co-founded. Haiti was made to take on debt, ages ago, and France is skirting its responsibility, yes. But IMF loans? If you don't want them, don't take them.
What you're doing here is blaming stupid decisions of southern governments on the north. You act as if you were incapable of governing yourselves.
But it's oh so fucking easy to blame diffuse foreign powers. It's a tactic employed by many politicians in the global south: "Don't look at our corruption, blame the evil Europeans". They're distracting you and you're falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
...and the French are making fun of him for it. He's not exactly popular, as you might have heard. His only saving grace is that he's not LePen.
I'm curious: What do you think about the German-Namibian hydrogen project?
There's really nowhere to go if you won't even entertain the idea of reading sources beyond glancing at Wikipedia.
As for the German-Nambian Hydrogen Project, I am not familiar with it and don't have the time to research for a satisfying answer on it. I'm not going to speak on something I don't know enough about.
Ha! We reached max comment depth so I'm replying here. Feel free to answer or don't or just tell me to end this I think lemmy wants to send us a message.
If I had a dime for every time a politician blamed colonialism for the consequences of their corruption I'd have enough money to buy them. Which, btw, would be illegal. As in: It's illegal for me, under domestic law, to bribe people abroad that's why the Chinese are making inroads in Africa we're not matching their bribes, any more. Russia, at least, is pretty much out of the game now after they overextended, they're at least a magnitude worse than the Chinese in approach.
Or, differently put: Maybe be a bit more specific when you say "global south" or "global north". We're currently defending Ukraine against imperial aggression from the north, you might've heard of that.
What drives our economies, btw, what makes us so rich, is labour productivity, industry with high degrees of automation, uncoupling value-add from labour investment. Which is why it's so fucked to see a country like South Africa fall to the consequences of corruption, to wit, more blackouts than electricity production. No, it wasn't evil England who made the ANC bleed Escom dry. Those are domestic problems requiring domestic solutions.
I'll reply as best I can, but really, I don't think it makes any sense to continue. This convo moved very far from the original roots being that the 3 arrows symbol is anti-Socialist, and I don't think either of us has had our minds changed in any way, really. If yours was, you haven't indicated it at least.
In this comment, you make a bunch of unsupported claims and use terms in ways that indicate you aren't really familiar with them at all and are just responding to what I said based on what the terms sound like. A quick example is calling Russia the "Global North," which is geographically correct but from the geopolitical definition is very wrong. The "Global North" refers to the United States, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. These are the more developed Capitalist countries that make the bulk of their income off of Imperialism, which you also use in a manner that is entirely different from what I have been using.
Imperialism isn't a military intervention, for Marxists. Imperialism is sort of like an international Capitalism, where wealthier countries rely on slave-like labor internationally in order to grossly underpay. Consider this, why is most of the world's production in countries in Africa, Latin America, and particularly in China and southeast Asia? Because wages are kept low and overexploited. The ruling classes of colonized countries make deals with foreign Imperialists in order to pocket the vast majority of the money sent, while their citizenry is kept destitute. This is the concept of "unequal exchange."
Labor productivity isn't what drives European economies. China has more developed automation these days, as a necessity for being essentially the world's factory. What drives European economies is the concept of generational wealth at a country level. If you have, say, 1 million euros invested, and hand it down in a century, it would grow to much greater heights, yes? This is also true for countries, if an abstract example. What truly rules the US and Western Europe is financial Capital, not industrial. The Global South produces, and the Global North consumes.
Your foreign policy is indistinguishable from Thatcher and Reagan, and yet you claim to be a Leftist. You really need to read more books like the ones I linked if you want to keep yourself honest, you blaming the colonized and Imperialized is like the trust fund kid telling the poor immigrant family to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps."
If you get the time do read up on it, aside from checking that everything is indeed kosher, ask why you haven't heard of it before. Why, in the list of data points you are exposed to, one that does not fit the colonial exploitation narrative seems to be missing.
Anyhow short rundown: Germany needs green hydrogen for its industry (at least until fusion, it's dependent on energy inputs), Namibia has lots of wind and sun, world's best location in fact, and Germany the tech to turn that into electricity, then into hydrogen, then into ammonia for transport. Germany is going to finance the initial stage of the project which includes enough generation capacity for Namibia's electricity demands as well as to start exporting. IIRC it also includes fixing up the Namibian electricity grid. Namibia is planning on using its revenue share to further expand things and become an exporter of both green energy and refined metals, because when you have lots of hydrogen and also lots of iron ore it does make sense to export steel instead of ore, if not finished metal products. Value added yadayada you know your Marx.
And Namibia really can use the extra money. There's plenty of stuff to invest in, from making sure San are not malnourished over not re-introducing school tuition to speeding up land reform. With easy access to capital and material, I'm sure Namibia will become a manufacturing powerhouse, at least compared to its population size. Sensible people look for win-win situations, and this is one of them. SWAPO even calls it Socialism with Namibian characteristics.
(Side note: Australians so far do not seem to have understood that it makes sense to keep the value-add in country, it's not like they're lacking in cheap energy, or the capacity to tap it. Confounds me to this day).
Even if we assume the best intentions for this one specific deal, which I won't because I haven't read up on it, Imperialism and neocolonialism still drive the economies of the Global North. I recommended many sources that thorughly document this process to the point of no longer being deniable.