international
Discord ID: 308950154222895104
752,937 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 90/7530
| Next
@Blebleh What have anarchists unions achieved? They are hamstrung by their superstitious notions of 'consensus' and 'democracy'.
it could be just undermining the socialist roots or not making the decisions agreed by the people
they've achieved 8 labour hours in Spain
with a general strike
the IWW while not pure anarchist, the organization I think it's and it's big
this is all to improve conditions for the worker and also get a consciousness for the revolution
and as I said, in the USSR before the party, there were councils
@Blebleh A dictatorship of the proletariat that betrays the interests of the collective is a contradiction. Either the Party is objectively proletariat or they are revisionist traitors. Class consciousness will win in the end.
it looked more like an anarchist federation
a prole can be traitor to his class
@Blebleh In there beginning there were councils, but this was abandoned because it was childish and ineffectual for revolutionary purposes.
what lenin says
Lenin was wrong?
probably in this
A prole who is a traitor is not a prole, but an agent of the bourgeoisie.
@Blebleh Councils are limited to reformism. Revolution is exclusively the business of the Vanguard.
a prole can be an agent of the bourgeoisie, declasรฉ
we can set up theoretical unity in the platform agreeing on revolutionary themes
no reformism allowed
but we have to attract the people there, revolution is done by the masses not by a few
Sure, you can talk about it. It seems all they do. This is a great inefficiency. The masses cannot, by definition, lead themselves.
lenin wasn't a blanquist doing a coup d'etat
he has to work with the masses, the party had
the platform can lead them
The platform, you mean like as an authority?
I wouldn't call it an authority
I disagree with Engels in that a revolution is the most authoritarian thing
because they're the original authoritarians, not us; and we're just liberating ourselves from their state
That's cute semantics, but if your platform is not arrived at through direct democracy and consultation of every single individual it represents, it is authoritarian.
I think there are some people that don't have the time to be in the platform or unions; but we can get massive support through the unions
some anarchists call this semilibertarianism
or anarcho-leninism
Is this something you support?
yes
I also could support a party as an extension
Then our positions are not so different. You want a 'representative' Party based on consensus, I see a better alternative based on competency.
the platform is independent from the party
parties are hierarchic
I think you are deluding yourself. If the platform is arrived at via a minority of representatives, then there is a hierarchy.
I don't think they should arrive with a minority of representatives
it's just for promoting ideas or getting the ground prepared
You just said that people don't have time to be in the platform?
Who decides the ideas?
I said that not all
but it can be massive
Not unless every individual has equal intellect and involved. Practically it is not massive in content.
we'd have to select texts from bakunin, marx, etc.
Basically you just want 'consent'.
@Deleted User It can with the unions
the unions are revolutionary in that they explain the ideology
appart from getting improvements
otherwise they can't be revolutionary, they have a final objective
My objection is that not all union members have an active role. Basically you give them the memo and then they just sign off on it. That is your idea of non-hierarchy, which is pretty deceptive.
Yes they have an active role
How so?
By holding your banner?
Unions are based in direct action
not in "professionals"
those professionals usually sell the working class
they pact with the bourgeoisie
Are you trying to strawman me?
Let me get this right. You have people teaching ideology, but there are no leaders. You have people making a platform, but there is no hierarchy?
Ah, I understand you
there's no hierarchy inside the platform, but the people who can't get into the platform can consent
Hooray!
That's authoritarian.
Well, it would be.
If you didn't rely on a deceptive formality like 'consent'.
v
this
is what politics should be
What I would add is that consensus in itself has little bearing on correct decision making.
I don't think that liberating ourselves from the original authoritarians is an authoritarian act, but a libertarian one; without banning factions.
it has to do with accountability
to make sure that people understand what they're choosing and what's going on
Why not just educate?
What has the formality of choice have to do with anything?
Yes educate, I think you're viewing the politics as something very positive right now
it has to do with a culture of revision
Yes. So why not just educate on what is happening and the reasons why it is happening, and just skip the whole 'okay now sign here I need your consent please'.
If you're referring to a pre-revolutionary phase, the platform needs to measure the support in a certain form and we need to organize for the revolution
does anyone know about the left caucus in the DSA
I agree that is important. But you still deny that there is authority involved? Obviously this executive comes from somewhere.
@Blebleh All of anarchism is pre-revolutionary.
I conceive authority as something imposed. If there wasn't a state, the people would seize the means of production; so capitalism needs a state
It's violent but I still consider it a libertarian act
And as pre-revolutionary, in theory I disagree; there's a discussion for example in if we should use wages or not
@Deleted User propaganda of democracy is too strong. You can not educate everyone.
bourgeois democracy
in this democracy some proletarians don't have time for it; the academia is friend of the bourgeoisie
the media is controlled by them
752,937 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 90/7530
| Next