Don't forget Chile in 1973
Prunebutt
joined 2 years 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.
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
Don't you know? He saved the world from... umm... any communist who could have become dangerous to his position. /s
"On authority" debunked squat except any notion of Engels' credibility as an essayist.
What do you mean exactly? Socialism or the transitional society?
For MLs, socialism is when the dictatorship of the proletariat is established and the state is run by "the proletariat" in order to lead to communism. Anarchists (ever since Bakunin) would point out that this would make them stop being the proletariat, but rather a class of bureaucrats. Also, means ends unity would dictate that this will not lead to a stateless society.
For me, "socialism" means worker control of the means of production.
The anarchist transitionary period is way harder to describe, since
- There are too many anarchist flavors for a consistent "prediction" or what have you
- The anarchist approach is generally less theleological. Therefore, they "predict" less and think that the people in the transitional period need to find out the rules of said society when they get the most feedback for it, i.e. when it's happening.
- I haven't put too much thought into how this would go about, to be honest.
However, the most important part is IMHO that the revolutionary cells working for communism are structured with horizontal hierarchies.
Doctored screenshot of youtube:
You see a video with the description "LA protests LIVE: View from Los Angeles" by the Associated Press. The Thumbnail has been doctored to show a screenshot of the Episode S2E08 ("Who are you?") of the TV Show Andor, where in the episode...
Spoiler for S2E08 of Andor
the Ghorman genocide takes place
I got a new Biqu H2V2 for my Ender 3 pro , since myold hotend started getting unreliable and that was a great excuse for yet another upgrade.
I wasn't happy with the carriage holder I printed, so I wanted to print a new one. After afew hours of printing, I needed to abandon one part, since it was incredibly messy with blobs of PLA gooped on the print. Since I needed the new carriage mount, I didn't think anything off it and simply abandoned that part and continued the other ones.
Today, I saw that the heating block is completely gooped up with PLA (see pictures). So now, I got two questions:
- How should I remove that gunk? I was thinking o| carefully peeling of everything without the silicone sleeve while the hotend is at a low PLA-bending temp, like 150°C, or 175°C.
- What caused this? Flowrate too high (the prints look the part)? Too fast extrusion? Heatcreep?
Thanks in advance. (:
view more: next ›
Y not? Aren't the twin towers sad, too?