Once the bourgeoise are eliminnated the evil party becomes the new ruling class

trust me i've totally done an indepth materialist marxist analysis to come to this conclusion

lol

I wouldn't say evil

DAMN UKRAINIANS

but if they're disconnected from the people, how could you prevent revisionism in the next generation?

Context is key. How and why did this disconnect come about? In the USSR it's mostly due to WW2 related reasons in China because of post-feudal reasons dank

i need to go and buy congolese slaves now brb

yes, and after going that path we can't know for sure if the leaders will drop socialism or not; the people need blind faith, we don't know if there would be a Stalin or a Khruschev

I think we should keep this sacred as possible, how can we know at this point that the party is lying to keep in power or not?

There was never a Stalin or a Kruschev, but anyone who disagreed was removed, so, from the perspective of materialism, there was.

Which is why these purely phenomenological descriptions are ... cancer.

I get why it's attractive. The western mindset ought to react to current year politics as though besieged.

Some are willing to sharpen the knives and gather the resources.

@OF-8 How much do they pay you?

how can a planned economy and a restoration of capitalism be the same?

whoever claims to mark the USSR as capitalist because of the five year plan is completely reactionary

https://discord.gg/UVhsP

Better: https://discord.gg/VeS7meG

https://youtu.be/y7ndeiintE0

"Atheism is a crutch for people who can't accept the reality of god"

🤔

lmao

lololol

@Blebleh >I think this breaks the myth that we need a strong leader and party to get the power.
The USSR made many mistakes but learned and adapted using what worked, accumulating with Stalin in the 5 year plans, which was highly centralised. From my perspective, to say that we do not need this or that is being too dogmatic. We can learn from history and many paths have already been trodden. Practically I do not see where any anarchist 'structure' proved successful to such a degree.

@Deleted User It needs to be built yet on such scale. But I say that in a dogmatic form because we have to take a path and I want to avoid corruptibility as possible, which I think could prevent too authoritarianism but more important deviationism and the restoration of capitalism

It doesn't mean that I reject collaborating with people that support the USSR or want to help us

@Blebleh Your concern towards corruption may be warranted or it may be paranoia. The way to tell the different is to observe authority which is grounded in material reality. Intellectually it will be easy to determine whether an authority is corrupt or not, depending on its adherence to scientific principals. When you can prove that an authority is not doing what is in the best interests of the collective, only then are your concerns merited. However, having resistance right from the beginning is not rational.

I put a special focus on emerging truly representative structures

Your assumption is that authoritarianism is always corrupt. An adage I have only heard from reactionaries who do not like a particular kind.

I don't say that it's always corrupt, but corruptible

I'd prevent it from the beginning as possible

By 'representative' structures, do you mean democracy?

yes, but not this one

not bourgeois democracy

Isn't democracy also corruptible?

no if the delegates are watched closely, recallable and totally delegated

a proliteriat one is much less corruptable too

but yeah there should be a state regulating it

and guns

because kulak

@Blebleh Let me clarify, you are saying, democracy is incorruptible?

democracy in your phrase is ambiguous

I think a consensus democracy with a culture of revision is good

combined with a delegative democracy (liquid democracy) for irreconciliable factions

Well, anyone can say 'a very specific kind of X is perfect'

Look how the USSR was disolved

against the will of the people

I want to make in such a way that people will be alert for that

or they'd be fired

not from the top to the bottom

What happens when the people are wrong?

They face it and learn next time

What if they do not learn?

Then they chose to act against their own interests for something, it'd mean that the majority and the minority is irrational

this is prevented from the platform anyways, it's not that we pull democracy out of thin air

the previous development pulled the theory, which could shape the constitution; example: putting that all exploitation is banned because it's a right and studying in the academia how it works

self-managed media, etc. this can't be done now

in bourgeois democracy the media is controlled by hierarchies and capitalists in their own interests, parties depend on funding (with an advantage to capitalists) and to change the whole system you need to face the external imperialism and opposition

so it's like a dictatorship

'Acting against their own interests' can be avoided with authority that is grounded in material reality, that is, when intellectual superiors have higher authority to the average

also, education serves capital with terms like totalitarianism and mainstream economics

that's assuming there are intellectual superiors

Are you saying that everyone has equal intellectual ability?

if educated, yes

a few books aren't so difficult

So if we both read the same book, we understand it with equal depth and insight?

Unless we are clones raised in mirror worlds, this is never true.

public education can make tests and there could be assemblies with consensus about it; but about interpretations, there could be factions

and I think that giving a minority the authority because other minority think that they're best is the wrong way

wouldn't it be easier to have an authority

it's an imposition

How many different interpretations of '2 + 2 = 4' are there?

what if

teachers had like democratic elections

so if they don't work they can't preach to their tenure

in the decimal system this is true

and it should be taught as science

although not in a binary one

Consensus is a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

It is only sigificant if based in science.

anarchists unions try to discuss in assemblies and get into a consensus, convince who doesn't agree with them

What a waste of time.

this could take more time yes

but after it we don't have to do again the law

change the government, etc.

because we already agreed and learned from it

in other cases, there could be supermajorities

Assuming you made the correct discussion, which you cannot know because you care more about consensus than authoritative truths.

and in irreconciliable cases factions

no

scientifical truths doesn't depend on democracy

this is built on the platform in a pre-revolutionary phase

but after it, what people don't know if it's truth or not; what we have to agree

What kind of truth is not scientific?

this is other thing

in politics?

it depends a lot on the environment and the circumstances

we don't have laboratory conditions

I should rephrase, what kind of decision making should not be guided by science?

there could be some zones in the territory that would prefer to pay for having this thing or another one

for example

I agree it should be guided by science when possible

So you are saying, if we are 100% ignorant, which is not the case, but if we were, we should use consensus, but then once we have science why not abandon consensus in favour of science?

I agree when it's 1+1=2

What if others do not agree?

What if they are the majority?

then people has done such a bad educational work

and maybe the judges, the minority, are judging in a bad way and are pseudoscientific thinking that they're scientists

they already were educated

and thinking that only a minority has scientifical reason in this is an imposition

I never said, only the minority have scientific reason, I said that the best minds should have authority.

You are assuming an unprecedented scenario, where every person is a genius of equal intellect.

Let's say that people can do basic math

if it's too advanced, the best minds could explain it to the people

in a way they can decide

politics has values

Assuming this were possible, why bother if the outcome will be the same because there is only 1 correct answer, objectively.

Sure, educate people to the best of our ability, but do not, yet, rely on them to make the correct decision.

because if for some reason the delegate isn't doing what we agreed, we can overthrow that person violently or legally

it avoids "revisionism"

otherwise the delegates have a spirit for themselves

Why not just point to the incorrect teaching?

yes, but who will point it out and who will listen?

The authority will point it out with intellectual reasoning. And if they are corrupt, then the contradictions can be easily pointed out.

the authority is the corruptible one

the contradictions aren't so easiliy pointed out

see Khruschev

there can be protestors but the people when they don't know the problems could ignore it

and let them pass

The majority is incorruptible?

the people has to decide the fate

they're not the ones who can be corrupted

If an authority works against the interests of the collective, objectively, then there may be grounds for new revolution, because they have become the new bourgeoisie.

It is inevitable.

people don't notice it when they don't know about it

this is happening in every country now

and I don't see how the USSR prevented this; a few people may realize it

What are you talking about? Don't you agree that socialism is inevitable?

yes but it needs class consciousness

and organization

even more, we need to be careful when we have a capitalist bloc that is our enemy

So how is it going to happen do you think? There are going to be revolutionary forces. Which is also why there should be a Vanguard.

the platform in combination with the anarchist unions have to improve the consciousness of the people and act

When a socialist authority gets corrupt, it becomes bourgeoisie. And a new dialectic begins.

we could add a party too, but as an extension

they don't have to become the bourgeoisie to be corrupt

@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, declasé

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'.

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

vhttps://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

v

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

https://twitter.com/timmythick/status/863037667574984704

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

@Blebleh any

in this democracy some proletarians don't have time for it; the academia is friend of the bourgeoisie

the media is controlled by them