Mastodawn

wb x64 Jul 4, 2024

@Radical_EgoCom making ourselves ungovernable in a thousand different ways. Centralized efforts to overthrow and socialize will also have single points of failure and advance singularly powerful people who will inevitably be singularly corrupt due to the nature of power, whereas a balkanized/indigenized continent will be harder to govern and more naturally address the needs of its people.

Given climate collapse this may happen anyway, and indeed has been previewed with state cannabis legality

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 Jul 4, 2024

A centralized effort is necessary, though. The tasks that have to be followed out during a revolution must be done with all of the revolutionaries united ideologically, strategically, and tactically. A centralized effort would ensure this unity, as it would allow everyone to be united by ideology, tactics, and strategy by having them all be united under a centralized vanguard that embodies all of these traits.

wb x64 Jul 4, 2024

@Radical_EgoCom maybe, but that presumes that we all agree as to the tasks that need to be carried out.

A power vacuum is surely dangerous, but consider futile efforts to control splintered bands with divided loyalties like middle eastern "warlords." America is already almost fifty countries (with even more micro-nations within, indigenous and otherwise) so it's barely a union. We're also seeing armed governor and Fed clashes.

I don't dream of a nuclear United Socialist States of America.

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

Regardless of your rather valid criticisms of American governance, a centralized effort of some kind is still necessary for a successful revolution for the reasons I listed above.

wb x64 Jul 4, 2024

@Radical_EgoCom some cooperation certainly, but to me centralized sounds like one party for the entire country to 1:1 replace the existing national government. And that's what has me questioning its corruptibility, inherent authoritarianism (and associated violence/injustice), and inherent Euro-centric-colonial ideals.

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 Jul 4, 2024

A single vanguard party to lead a country on a revolutionary path isn't a bad thing. Such a vanguard party provides many benefits to a revolution, such as having the ability to unite the masses without having counter-revolutionary forces sway people off the revolutionary path. There is a possibility of corruption, but the best thing to do would be to eliminate corruption and its possibility from the party instead of abandoning the party centralization and all of its benefits.

@Radical_EgoCom ah yes, just eliminate corruption among a small extremely powerful cabal of people organizing an overthrow of a huge country without themselves getting assassinated (yet somehow remaining accountable to The People) it's such a good thing that the country is already so experienced at accomplishing that and not defaulting to fascism, self-serving greed, and "might makes right"

If that was more likely than distributed horizontal resistance I think we'd have fixed society already

@Radical_EgoCom one thing capitalism and fascism have going for it (besides their ultimate undoing) is that they basically ask everyone to be selfish cutthroats and whoever wins "deserves" to win. That sucks but it scales. We've seen how empires don't scale and how power corrupts so IMO the next best thing is to ask everyone to make the most moral choices they can in their own spheres of influence which are kept small: attempting to exert control (vs liberation and cooperation) is in itself evil

A centralized state is far more effective of an option for a post-revolutionary period than immediately transitioning to decentralized, non-hierarchical statelessness. A centralized state can effectively deal with counter-revolution and enemy countries due to all power being centralized on it, whereas a decentralized non-state system would not have the control over all means and resources necessary to make quick decisions or fully eliminate counter-revolution.

@Radical_EgoCom maybe, I just haven't seen centralized governments transition to things that actually respect autonomy (the power is too tempting, the time is never right) and I think we have different ideas about what form revolution might take. Super successful long-lasting "revolutions" can be like the "industrial revolution" or the halting chaotic global transition away from monarchy, where an idea's time has simply come. Violent central revolts can be co-opted and repressed too. No masters.

@Radical_EgoCom specifically, once you have a handful of people with the means and responsibility to decide who needs to die and who doesn't, it's historically really really hard to make that choice in a way that doesn't inspire its own very righteous backlash and taints any moral claims the new powers might make. The paranoid surveillance, secret police, loyalty demands, and suppression of any information the party doesn't like makes it hard to claim that the result is actually "by the people"

1/2 I know that hierarchy and authority can lead to abuses of power, and such abuses should be avoided at all cost, but the potential for hierarchy and authority to be corrupted doesn't mean that some form of hierarchy and authority won't be necessary during a revolutionary period, particularly after the fall of capitalism. I still say that hierarchy and authority will be necessary during the transition from capitalism to communism because of the effectiveness of having a centralized...

2/2 ...state would have in that necessary work be done and threats can be immediately eliminated, all things a centralized state can do specifically because of the control it would have over society. I know that such a system could still be corrupted, but given the benefits it provides, it would be better to try and prevent corruption from occurring within the state instead of getting rid of it.

@Radical_EgoCom you keep using hand wavy words like necessary, effective, control, and benefits, that don't really assuage the concerns of someone who really doesn't like abuses of power especially at the hands of The People's Police and The People's Army (very likely to be the same people, more or less, that currently impose on the populace just with new leadership [we hope] and branding.) Necessary for who and for what? Benefiting who? A bureaucracy needs bureaucrats, and guess who that is?

@Radical_EgoCom in the end, you're basically proposing a relatively short and bloody revolution where 99% of the country's population remains the leaders get swapped out and you cross your fingers that popular ideas or re-education are enough. But change that comes quickly can be undone quickly, and the American populace is much less receptive to centralized authority then they are to individual freedom.

You've completely mischaracterized my position and strawmanned it to ridiculous degrees. Please argue against what I say I support instead of making up things that I support that makes me look like some deranged maniac who put no planning into my ideas when I've spent the last couple of comments throughly explain the logic and reasoning behind what I believe. I've been respectful to you and only argued against what you've said, and I only ask that you do the same.

As for your first comment, it's clear who would benefit from a vanguard party that is aligned with Marxist-Leninist ideology, that being the proletariat, the class that would be the ruling class of this new society. I agree that I may not have alleviated the concerns some may have of abuses of power, but that's because I wasn't trying to. I was trying to explain why, despite the potential of abuses of power, hierarchy and authority will be necessary after the abolition of capitalism.

@Radical_EgoCom you haven't actually said much though. Partly due to character limits, but you haven't really explained, moreso asserted circular reasoning that central dictatorial authority is good because it's necessary, and won't be abused because of reasons. So far it seems about as much of a fantasy as a joyful grassroots anarchist revolution sans guillotines. Yes you can ally with China, roll tanks into DC and institute a new order, but I'm unsure it would be better for average Americans.

1/3 You're wrong. I've said plenty. My character limit hasn't limited me in any significant way because I've constantly sent multiple comments to single responses and you know that. I haven't engaged in any circular reasoning. The premise of my argument was not used to prove my argument, which is what a circular argument is. Nothing that I've talked about has been remotely fantastical. My argument has consistently maintained a logically cohesive structure. I'm not going to tolerate...

2/3 ...you constantly insulting me. First you essentially accused me of supporting a bloody and illogical revolution when everything I've said prior indicated the opposite, and now you're saying that my argument in favor of a vanguard state that I've presented logical argumentation for is equivalent to the, seemingly, completely illogical position of specific anarchist who idealisticly want to rush into their desired goal with no cohesive plan.

3/3 I'm not continuing this conversation until you give a proper apology to me for your constant insults

andho Jul 6, 2024

@Radical_EgoCom @wilbr why not eliminate corruption from the current state instead?

wb x64 Jul 6, 2024

@andho @Radical_EgoCom lollll I got blocked. So much for left unity and sincere questions for anarchists, I guess I'll be up against the wall when the glorious communist revolution comes too