• barsoap
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is getting into the weeds and that’s never good, let’s give a pivot to theory a try.

    We do not think that “tyranny is good”: we think that the state is needed for a revolutionary project to survive as much as it is its fate to disappear as class contradictions do too.

    The revolutionary idea started in the bourgeois state. How can it not be present under bourgeois rule? The disaffected will be discontent, and they will look to solutions. Some will be impatient actionists and be quickly shored up or be otherwise ineffective, others will eternally look to analysis and be equally ineffective – in the present moment, that is, not necessarily down the line, when their analysis bears fruit. Strings will be picked up, weaved into new tapestries, tricks that once worked to distract people from their nature and self-interest no longer hold any power. The antithesis co-evolves with the thesis and thus does the sublation. (That may not technically be Hegelian dialectics but you get my drift).

    There is a way for the powers that be to halt the evolution of revolutionary thought: By imposing tyranny, not to stop disaffection, but to cut off transmission that enables one to think thoughts greater than oneself because one is standing on the shoulders of others, to arrest the antithesis at a stage not able to even properly conceptualise the thesis. But, and here’s the kicker: Capitalism can’t afford to do that, much less liberal capitalist democracies. Tyranny depresses the human spirit, you end up with serfs not able to contribute to capital accumulation as their surplus value addition stagnates, stays at a level fixed to the scraps you feed, mere machines, not creative minds.

    That is the ultimate contradiction of capitalism: That it invariably breeds its own antithesis.

    Scene change: North Korea. Now I don’t know what you believe happens down there but from what I know ever since Corona hit the country has been on a complete and utter lockdown, people can’t even smuggle drugs and food over the Chinese border, any more. It is tyranny in its final stage as the people choose between starving and being executed for trying to survive. It is the literal death-drive of society, Thanatos become flesh and force. Will the revolution come out of that place? Well, shit’s going to come to a point in one form or another at some soonish point, but it’s not the deliverance we’re speaking about we’re rather talking about mass-psychology driving people to run into machine gun nests in an attempt to rip Kim Jong Un’s head off. Be they successful or not, we either end up with a tyrant without serfs, or serfs with no idea where to go from where they are. At that point any theory you could come up with to explain things will be moot, it’s all pure instinct, raw human nature, all territory, no maps to be seen anywhere.

    That is what happens when you try to arrest the revolution by imposing doctrine.

    All Anarchism is necessarily gradualist, and not because we didn’t prefer things to go faster: But because we understand that you cannot create the ultimate socio-psychological form of Anarchism – everyone being bright eyed and bushy-tailed, for lack of more precise language, constantly reinforcing that in their neighbours by acts of understanding and kindness – by imposing strictures. People, first individually then as smaller groups then larger groups, have to understand that that’s what they want, that it’s a possibility, that it’s their birthright, and develop the skills to foster it. “Do or else” doesn’t stand a chance. Even less “thou shalt say to others: Do or else”.

    So excuse me if I’m not particularly impressed by tales of past or present-day Anarchist projects falling short of perfection (and yes the Zapatists are Anarchists from a western analytical lens which they don’t share or at least give special status to, hence their non-identification): We’re not yet there. Those places happened because the right people fought straight tyranny at the right moment and gave people hope and a vision – but imperfect people. Who listen to what the revolutionaries have to say because they’re meeting you on eye level, without grand illusions of having the answer to everything. They tell you about equality of the sexes, you tell them about the tree spirit. Both learn. This is how societies progress.

    In other places we don’t have straight-up tyranny. We can talk, we can exchange, we can be creative and race shoulder to shoulder, if not even a bit ahead of the thesis, in theory and praxis. And that’s all that’s necessary, that’s all it’s about. To quote Kerry Thornley: “Universal Enlightenment a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or – that failing – nobody will give a damn”.

    And now comes the question: Would you rather bide your time in a non-ideal but definitely liveable liberal democracy, or pedal backwards, either participating in or overseeing the suffering of your compatriots? Be one of the actionists? Oh and have some maths proving I’m right not just on the political, sociological, or even psychological level, but the physical. Among other things trying to engineer the “perfect system for humanity” you run into the problem that you can’t be a good regulator of a system without being a model of said system, and modelling everything germane is infeasible. Universe isn’t large enough to contain the computer necessary. Presuming you know the ultimate face of the revolution, that you won’t have to co-create it with everyone, that there is nothing more for you to learn, is sheer hubris.

    • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I did not send my first message to attempt to “convert” you or anyone into another ideology. My intentions were simple: to disprove the popular claim of MLs “betraying” revolutions by taking a closer look at the events that it refers to, and to show that past anarchist projects are equally guilty of engaging in authoritarianism once they see themselves out of idealist theory and into the field where they have to survive: all of it by taking a closer look at history. And, if not to actually manage to convince anyone about it, at least to encourage people lurking here to take a deep dive into the history of their own movement, something that we “tankies” are already forced to do because of constant confrontation but that anarchists usually don’t have to, being instead able to rejoice in a romantisized and adequately simplified version of the past, not having to worry about anyone ever bringing up the “dark” bits of their history.

      You are welcome to attempt discussing it or (although I doubt it) agreeing with it. Yes, we could instead talk about the theory attempting to change each other’s minds in vain about either anarchism or marxism-leninism, but with due respect, that’s outside the scope of my initial intentions, and nonetheless I do not think that neither you nor I have any intent of perpetuating this discussion into eternity. And even if I wanted, attempting to discuss some subjects such as North Korea would eventually get me banned from this sever and have my comments deleted per this site’s rules.

      If you wish to add anything else about our initial topic, you are welcome to do so and I will listen and respond adequately. If not… I’d say it’s been a pleasure talking. You are a well read person, I will give you that.

      • barsoap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And even if I wanted, attempting to discuss some subjects such as North Korea would eventually get me banned from this sever and have my comments deleted per this site’s rules.

        How would you analyse NK if it didn’t have hammers and sickles1 painted all over it? If instead it featured a swastika? A cat’s paw? The Klingon emblem? Keep all facts on the grounds the same, look at “the purpose of a system is what it does”, only switch symbols around. Maybe then you’ll understand why other people’s neck hairs stand on edge.


        1 and brushes, a nice addition I have to admit though the graphic design is atrocious.

        • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          How would you analyse NK if it didn’t have hammers and sickles painted all over it?

          I just… Told you I won’t. Not here, at least. Just by being here I am already dancing on the knife’s edge and, as this server very clearly states, authoritarian behaviour a bannable offense. I came here limiting myself to talk about history because I am not interested in breaking this place’s rules. If you still insist in hearing what I have to say you are more than welcome to send me a private message.

          • barsoap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You pretty much already gave the answer: Your interpretation wouldn’t change, or at least you can’t imagine it would.

            The homework I’ll leave you then, is simple: Analyse Singapore as-is, but with hammer and sickle symbolism and rhetoric. Compare it to your analysis of NK, and see whether any inconsistencies arise.

            • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You pretty much already gave the answer: Your interpretation wouldn’t change, or at least you can’t imagine it would.

              No I did not, and you are putting words in my mouth here. I said I refuse to talk about the specifics of North Korea in this place. But if you insist, I’ll tell you that symbolism is meaningless by itself alone, and that a solid interpretation of a society can only come from a study of its structure seen from the lense of its history and its material conditions.

              If you want a honest conversation without the restriction of moderation, once again, you are welcome to send me a private message. If not, there’s nothing else to say.

              • barsoap
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?

                Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don’t want to lose your cricket club?

                • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?

                  My interpretation consists on actually attempting to explain how North Korea’s apparatus works. I have no interest in critiquing “authoritarianism” (or in other words, the existance of a state) per se, as an idea of an entity above society and separated from it, independent of class struggle.

                  Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don’t want to lose your cricket club?

                  That’s such a bizarre thing to say. The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.

                  • barsoap
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I have no interest in critiquing “authoritarianism” (or in other words, the existance of a state) per se, as an idea of an entity above society and separated from it, independent of class struggle.

                    The notion of state as inherently authoritarian is curious. Maybe read into anarchist critiques of ancaps (which aren’t anarchists but neo-feudalists), the anarchist insistence on organisation and structure being necessary (Anarchism is Order is age-old doctrine), or, well, Kerry Thornley (which I already quoted): Nobody gives a damn about a state who busies itself with things like providing public transportation, general infrastructure, safety nets, conflict mediation, suchlike.

                    The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.

                    Nah what it shows is that I’m an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.