this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
565 points (94.8% liked)

Comics

5950 readers
3 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Saying that every state is authoritarian is missing the point. When we say that a state is authoritarian, we mean that relatively, the people are much more oppressed by the elite.

Sorry I disagree with trying to quantify "authority" in order to put in relation. It's becomes meaningless. Authority either exists or doesn't, it's a binary.

Even anarchists only oppose hierarchical authority.

As I'm reading the link I see that the author compares Bakunins understaning of authority, to that of Engels. The Author's interpretation of Engel's text is, that it argues against anarchists, when in fact it argues against "anti-authoritarians" and therebay misunderstands it significantly lol (Ctrl+F "anarchist" yourself https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm). The author of your link further highlights their misunderstanding in the section "Does organisation imply the end of liberty?" and says "Engels argument proves too much. As every form of joint activity involves agreement and “subordination,” then life itself becomes “authoritarian.” Yes, Engels indeed proves that "authoritarian" is a meaningless term and authority can have different forms.Engels doesn't even say anything about wether organization ends liberty. Engels acturally argues that "authorty" transforms. "If we took Engels’ argument seriously then we would have to conclude that living makes freedom impossible!" That's not even what Engel's is saying in the text.

Engel's defintion of authority ("Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. [...]" is quite elegant. Organization Engel's defines as "combined action". Engels further asks the abstract question whether organization [combined action] is possible without authority [the imposition of the will of another].

In your link the author writes "However, Engels is simply confusing two different things, authority and agreement." and literally falls into "These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves." Further down your author writes: "For a given task, co-operation and joint activity may be required by its very nature." and uses and example of the organization of train networks. (Guess what example Engels used to showcase how authority is transformed?)

Read Engels yourself if you don't believe me. There's a qualitative difference between reading about Marx, Engels, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and reading them.

But are they? Yes, China has lifted a ton of people out of poverty, but as long as most employees don’t own the means of production, they are being oppressed,

Yes they are. Hardly seems oppressive, when Harvad's Long-term survey reveals Chinese government satisfaction

and the hands of the means of production don’t seem to have been transferring.

Yes it is. The fact that you have the state tightly regulate capitalism and outright forbidding the formation of a financial capitalist class (China's banks are public. Find out how Jack Ma is doing after they tried to ascend to financial capitalist by creating ANT pay), have a state that works in the interest of the majority (Stopping the Real Estate Bubble and make housing affordable, while with a 95% homeownership rate; Massive Public transport; Renweable engergies, etc.) and also encourages worker coops (e.g. Huawei) and China’s Revised Company Law looks very promising (Keep in mind it's the economist, but damn even that makes it sound so good https://archive.md/VIEPf ).

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can’t just make things binary. If I say billionaires are either taxed or not or say that socialism/happiness either exists or not and there’s no point quantifying or comparing it, you’d certainly disagree.

If you need clarification: when we say more authoritarian, we mean that the authority gets more upset when their authority is breached/potentially reached and enforces their authority a lot harder. Some escalating examples of such enforcement are: “the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.”

The document I linked is about the much narrower topic on how "On Authority" does not refuteanarchy or eliminating the state. It's not supposed to be a refutation of the essay itself.

Long-term survey reveals Chinese government satisfaction

Yeah, because unlike America, most people don’t really care about politics or whether you can read Wikipedia. However, I’m a hacker-person, so I care that we have basically no direct representation and Tencent owns the lifeblood of everything online. Is the quality of life better than the USA? I think so. Does the government get more things done than the USA? Probably. Can people say what they want and organize what they want? Depends. Is the government controlled by the workers? Certainly not. I’ve been there for half of life, so please don’t lecture me on how life actually is there.

Yeah, they control all the finance. No, I don't see how that means the workers are getting more of or closer to getting the means of production. Unions have nearly no power. The third part of that law you sent, worker's representatives, just seems like extending the ruling elite's reach further. Not to mention that the housing bubble hasn't stopped. It's much better than the situation in the USA, sure, but it's crazy how the (actually pretty nice) microdistrict we live in continues to have prices rise even after a pretty big corruption scandal.

[–] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You can’t just make things binary. If I say billionaires are either taxed or not or say that socialism/happiness either exists or not and there’s no point quantifying or comparing it, you’d certainly disagree.

I'd certainly agree. You can't quantify "Authority". You can quantify billionairs (one can have more billions than another). You can't quantify "being taxed", you can however quantify the taxed amount. Also you can't quantify "socialism".

“the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.”

You can't quantify these either.

Is the government controlled by the workers? Certainly not.

That's a very abstract question. When one in 15 is a CPC member the, PRCs government represent workers interests? Certainly.

Yeah, they control all the finance. No, I don’t see how that means the workers are getting more of or closer to getting the means of production.

Not what I'm saying? I gave you examples on how the state represents workers interests.

Unions have nearly no power.

Good. They can be used as a wedge against the workers state as we saw in the Western toppling of the SU.

The third part of that law you sent, worker’s representatives, just seems like extending the ruling elite’s reach further.

How so?

Not to mention that the housing bubble hasn’t stopped.

Then you're not following news. The fact that western media is screeching about how CNs real estate market crashed says otherwise.