How do you plan on suppressing the bourgeoisie after the revolution? What are you going to do when they roll up with tanks on your little hippie commune? Are you going to vote really hard at them?
Your revolution isn’t going to last long if you think a vote or referendum can eradicate the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, as a class, will not disappear solely due to democratic decision-making. They’re going to strategize and plan for a counter-revolution in order to regain what they’ve lost.
In addition removing the bourgeoisie alone isn’t enough. Capital is not solely tied to individual bourgeoisie, but rather a complex social force embedded in the structure of exchange value. Merely eliminating the bourgeoisie without addressing the underlying mechanisms that uphold capital will not prevent the emergence of a new capitalist class. And no, “voting” will not prevent this either.
In an anarchist framework, we understand that a revolution cannot be solely achieved through voting or referendums. Anarchism seeks to dismantle hierarchical structures and establish a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
To address your concerns, anarchists recognize that the bourgeoisie will resist revolutionary change. That’s why anarchism advocates for a decentralized society where power is dispersed among communities, making it harder for counter-revolutionary forces to consolidate. Anarchists believe in direct action, self-defense, and community organizing to confront and neutralize counter-revolutionary threats.
Moreover, anarchism goes beyond removing individual bourgeoisie. It aims to eliminate the structural mechanisms that perpetuate capitalism. Anarchists advocate for the abolition of capital-generating private property, wage labor, and the state, which are fundamental pillars of capitalism. By dismantling these institutions and replacing them with non-hierarchical alternatives, anarchism seeks to create a society where capital accumulation and exploitation are impossible.
While voting alone cannot prevent the emergence of new capitalist classes, anarchism emphasizes grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation in shaping social and economic structures. Through these means, anarchists strive to create a society that is fundamentally egalitarian, cooperative, and resistant to the reemergence of capitalism.
Ultimately, anarchism seeks to foster a society where power is decentralized, individual autonomy is valued, and economic relations are based on solidarity rather than exploitation.
To address your concerns, anarchists recognize that the bourgeoisie will resist revolutionary change. That’s why anarchism advocates for a decentralized society where power is dispersed among communities, making it harder for counter-revolutionary forces to consolidate. Anarchists believe in direct action, self-defense, and community organizing to confront and neutralize counter-revolutionary threats.
If anything this makes it even easier for counter revolutionary forces to consolidate. With the revolution pulling itself in umpteen different directions, you have no coherent programme at all. That ignores the fact that anarchists can’t even agree on anything amongst themselves, let alone that capitalism should even be abolished at all without even realizing it. Many of them believe that commodity production is fine, because they think it’s merely a policy issue or that capital can be “democratically controlled” or whatever.
Up to this point we’ve assumed that an “anarchist revolution” was even able to make it this far, but even that seems laughable.
Moreover, anarchism goes beyond removing individual bourgeoisie. It aims to eliminate the structural mechanisms that perpetuate capitalism. Anarchists advocate for the abolition of private property, wage labor, and the state, which are fundamental pillars of capitalism. By dismantling these institutions and replacing them with non-hierarchical alternatives, anarchism seeks to create a society where capital accumulation and exploitation are impossible.
Anarchists have a superficial understanding of private property, wage labor, and the state. The fact you think these are “institutions” is evident of that enough. An “anarchist revolution” would simply re-create these under a different name or wind up serving the counter-revolution.
While voting alone cannot prevent the emergence of new capitalist classes, anarchism emphasizes grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation in shaping social and economic structures. Through these means, anarchists strive to create a society that is fundamentally egalitarian, cooperative, and resistant to the reemergence of capitalism.
What does any of this even mean lol. Who knows how all that fluff will accomplish what you’re talking about. You might as well just say we’ll sustain the revolution by holding hands and singing kumbaya.
I get your concerns about anarchism. Some people think that decentralization can lead to chaos, but anarchists believe in principles like mutual aid and solidarity to unite communities. Decision-making involves direct participation and consensus-building, taking into account diverse perspectives.
Anarchism isn’t a single ideology, so there are debates and different strategies within the movement. However, this diversity can be a strength, encouraging critical thinking and adaptability to local contexts.
Anarchists aim to abolish private property, wage labor, and the state. Private property means control by a few, while personal possessions are respected. Wage labor is seen as exploitative, and the state is considered a hierarchical and coercive institution. Anarchists propose non-hierarchical alternatives like collective ownership and self-management.
Grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation are important for creating a decentralized society. It’s not just fluff, but practical ways to resist capitalist dynamics and foster solidarity.
Anarchism has real-world examples of successful organizing and communities. It’s an ongoing process, learning from history and adapting to confront oppressive systems.
To fully understand anarchism, it’s important to delve deeper into the theory and history of the movement. Anarchists don’t claim to have all the answers, but they offer a vision of a more just and sustainable world based on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation.
Using AI-generated responses, such as those from ChatGPT, in political discussions might raise issues because it potentially distances the user from their own arguments. When a user employs an AI to communicate their stance, they may inadvertently end up promoting ideas or arguments they don’t fully grasp or agree with. This can breed misunderstandings and miscommunications during the discussion.
Moreover, a key part of productive dialogue involves critical thinking, which might not be fully exercised when relying on an AI to formulate responses. Crafting one’s own arguments often deepens understanding and encourages personal growth, an aspect that might be overlooked when AI-generated responses are used.
Another consideration is accountability. If the arguments are provided by an AI, holding the user accountable for the views expressed becomes more complicated. The user might deflect criticism by simply pointing out that the content was generated by the AI, not personally by them.
Authenticity plays a crucial role in any debate or discussion. When responses are AI-generated, they might be seen as lacking personal insights, experiences, or perspectives, thereby reducing their authenticity. Over time, this reliance on AI can also limit the user’s ability to effectively communicate without assistance, potentially stunting the growth of skills necessary for forming and articulating personal arguments.
Lastly, we need to consider algorithmic bias. AI models like ChatGPT are trained on extensive datasets and may unintentionally mirror the biases present in those data. This can potentially result in the promotion of skewed or unbalanced viewpoints. However, when combined with personal understanding and critical thinking, AI can also serve as a helpful tool to generate ideas, offer information, or stimulate innovative thinking.
I know Wikipedia isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, but this is how it’s article on Fascism begins, and I think it would be fairly common for people to consider fascism a form of authoritarianism:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
FWIW I’m not meaning to attack democracy here, I find it to be far preferable to the other systems we have at our disposal. But it is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though?
well, we’d have a more settled answer if historically communists of all stripes weren’t immediately persecuted wherever they win power (whether democratically or through revolution), but Revolutionary Catalonia strongly suggests the answer is yes. its most anarchist regions successfully managed themselves pretty well for more than 2 years during a vicious civil war before being crushed, and those are the literal worst circumstances possible to try and build an egalitarian, stateless, classless society in.
(also ironically, the anarchists in Catalonia sometimes had to fight the Marxist-Leninists who were ostensibly united with them against the Francoists, because the two sides had such radically different visions of society)
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though? How would distribution of resources be enforced without control?
Democratically.
How do you plan on suppressing the bourgeoisie after the revolution? What are you going to do when they roll up with tanks on your little hippie commune? Are you going to vote really hard at them?
After the revolution their resources would already be controlled democratically, there would be no bourgeoisie.
And what would you do, make a new bourgeoisie while pretending not to have one?
Your revolution isn’t going to last long if you think a vote or referendum can eradicate the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, as a class, will not disappear solely due to democratic decision-making. They’re going to strategize and plan for a counter-revolution in order to regain what they’ve lost.
In addition removing the bourgeoisie alone isn’t enough. Capital is not solely tied to individual bourgeoisie, but rather a complex social force embedded in the structure of exchange value. Merely eliminating the bourgeoisie without addressing the underlying mechanisms that uphold capital will not prevent the emergence of a new capitalist class. And no, “voting” will not prevent this either.
In an anarchist framework, we understand that a revolution cannot be solely achieved through voting or referendums. Anarchism seeks to dismantle hierarchical structures and establish a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
To address your concerns, anarchists recognize that the bourgeoisie will resist revolutionary change. That’s why anarchism advocates for a decentralized society where power is dispersed among communities, making it harder for counter-revolutionary forces to consolidate. Anarchists believe in direct action, self-defense, and community organizing to confront and neutralize counter-revolutionary threats.
Moreover, anarchism goes beyond removing individual bourgeoisie. It aims to eliminate the structural mechanisms that perpetuate capitalism. Anarchists advocate for the abolition of capital-generating private property, wage labor, and the state, which are fundamental pillars of capitalism. By dismantling these institutions and replacing them with non-hierarchical alternatives, anarchism seeks to create a society where capital accumulation and exploitation are impossible.
While voting alone cannot prevent the emergence of new capitalist classes, anarchism emphasizes grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation in shaping social and economic structures. Through these means, anarchists strive to create a society that is fundamentally egalitarian, cooperative, and resistant to the reemergence of capitalism.
Ultimately, anarchism seeks to foster a society where power is decentralized, individual autonomy is valued, and economic relations are based on solidarity rather than exploitation.
If anything this makes it even easier for counter revolutionary forces to consolidate. With the revolution pulling itself in umpteen different directions, you have no coherent programme at all. That ignores the fact that anarchists can’t even agree on anything amongst themselves, let alone that capitalism should even be abolished at all without even realizing it. Many of them believe that commodity production is fine, because they think it’s merely a policy issue or that capital can be “democratically controlled” or whatever.
Up to this point we’ve assumed that an “anarchist revolution” was even able to make it this far, but even that seems laughable.
Anarchists have a superficial understanding of private property, wage labor, and the state. The fact you think these are “institutions” is evident of that enough. An “anarchist revolution” would simply re-create these under a different name or wind up serving the counter-revolution.
What does any of this even mean lol. Who knows how all that fluff will accomplish what you’re talking about. You might as well just say we’ll sustain the revolution by holding hands and singing kumbaya.
I get your concerns about anarchism. Some people think that decentralization can lead to chaos, but anarchists believe in principles like mutual aid and solidarity to unite communities. Decision-making involves direct participation and consensus-building, taking into account diverse perspectives.
Anarchism isn’t a single ideology, so there are debates and different strategies within the movement. However, this diversity can be a strength, encouraging critical thinking and adaptability to local contexts.
Anarchists aim to abolish private property, wage labor, and the state. Private property means control by a few, while personal possessions are respected. Wage labor is seen as exploitative, and the state is considered a hierarchical and coercive institution. Anarchists propose non-hierarchical alternatives like collective ownership and self-management.
Grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation are important for creating a decentralized society. It’s not just fluff, but practical ways to resist capitalist dynamics and foster solidarity.
Anarchism has real-world examples of successful organizing and communities. It’s an ongoing process, learning from history and adapting to confront oppressive systems.
To fully understand anarchism, it’s important to delve deeper into the theory and history of the movement. Anarchists don’t claim to have all the answers, but they offer a vision of a more just and sustainable world based on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation.
Using AI-generated responses, such as those from ChatGPT, in political discussions might raise issues because it potentially distances the user from their own arguments. When a user employs an AI to communicate their stance, they may inadvertently end up promoting ideas or arguments they don’t fully grasp or agree with. This can breed misunderstandings and miscommunications during the discussion.
Moreover, a key part of productive dialogue involves critical thinking, which might not be fully exercised when relying on an AI to formulate responses. Crafting one’s own arguments often deepens understanding and encourages personal growth, an aspect that might be overlooked when AI-generated responses are used.
Another consideration is accountability. If the arguments are provided by an AI, holding the user accountable for the views expressed becomes more complicated. The user might deflect criticism by simply pointing out that the content was generated by the AI, not personally by them.
Authenticity plays a crucial role in any debate or discussion. When responses are AI-generated, they might be seen as lacking personal insights, experiences, or perspectives, thereby reducing their authenticity. Over time, this reliance on AI can also limit the user’s ability to effectively communicate without assistance, potentially stunting the growth of skills necessary for forming and articulating personal arguments.
Lastly, we need to consider algorithmic bias. AI models like ChatGPT are trained on extensive datasets and may unintentionally mirror the biases present in those data. This can potentially result in the promotion of skewed or unbalanced viewpoints. However, when combined with personal understanding and critical thinking, AI can also serve as a helpful tool to generate ideas, offer information, or stimulate innovative thinking.
The bourgeoisie are by definition a minority. In a non-corrupt democratic system with a well-informed populace, their power is negligible.
That answer assumes democracy can’t be authoritarian, which isn’t true.
Authoritarianism and democracy are directly incompatible.
How so? If the majority votes in authoritarian laws that are violently enforced on minority populations, is that not authoritarian?
No, because a simple majority could also reverse them, it wouldn’t be authoritarian, it’d be fascistic.
I know Wikipedia isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, but this is how it’s article on Fascism begins, and I think it would be fairly common for people to consider fascism a form of authoritarianism:
FWIW I’m not meaning to attack democracy here, I find it to be far preferable to the other systems we have at our disposal. But it is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Well, it’s more like a large portion of the people voting would have to be fascistic, not that the system itself would be fascistic
It’d be a weird contradiction to have such an anarchist system end up fascistic, I don’t think it’s a concern in the real world.
Yes.
well, we’d have a more settled answer if historically communists of all stripes weren’t immediately persecuted wherever they win power (whether democratically or through revolution), but Revolutionary Catalonia strongly suggests the answer is yes. its most anarchist regions successfully managed themselves pretty well for more than 2 years during a vicious civil war before being crushed, and those are the literal worst circumstances possible to try and build an egalitarian, stateless, classless society in.
(also ironically, the anarchists in Catalonia sometimes had to fight the Marxist-Leninists who were ostensibly united with them against the Francoists, because the two sides had such radically different visions of society)