Do you know how many enlightenment figures were wildly racist, how many of them profited from slavery while pretending to stand for freedom? Scientific racism is a direct evolution from this.
As for whether liberalism now would lead to more of the same, of course it would, it has no built-in method for people to not be exploited, to discourage greed, to stop genocide, etc. How would you suggest we prevent any and all of this within liberalism?
I’ve been thinking for a long time that any large-scale organization will lead to greed, corruption, injustice, et al. It’s only since I’ve been reading about ML that I learned I lean anarchist. Vanguard parties sound like a bad idea to me.
I’ve been thinking for a long time that any large-scale organization will lead to greed, corruption, injustice, et al.
Why? Seriously, think about it. Are you appealing to a supernatural explanation like “human nature,” or a materialist answer? Is the presence of any corruption or greed unacceptable or incapable of countering with structures and checks?
It’s only since I’ve been reading about ML that I learned I lean anarchist. Vanguard parties sound like a bad idea to me.
Why are vanguards a bad idea, in your eyes? The working class should organize, and the most politically advanced should organize in parties. Can you imagine if we refused to let scientists perform research? If we refused to let surgeons handle surgery? Why should revolution be any different? Any long-term, complex project should be led by those who study and train for it.
My observations and intuition so far is that, the larger the organization, the more that its injustices outweigh its benefits. Power corrupts, and people always have a way of justifying their own actions to themselves, no matter how unjust or “evil” they may be. As a population, I’m not confident in any one person, or any one small party, to wield the broad authority that a large government has.
I dunno. The more introspective I get the more I think of Oceania in 1984. Ingsoc is purported to be socialist but it’s still highly stratified, and the higher classes wield their power in the most violent and dehumanizing way possible. I fear that that’s the result of not just socialist organizations, but any organization that becomes large enough.
You’re confusing the way people behave in some forms of organization with the way people behave in all circumstances and forms of organization. The idea of a universal human nature that exists in static form, outside of its context, is idealism, ie an appeal to the supernatural. Further still, socialist governments and parties have all been very large, the CPC for example has 100 million people.
I don’t personally take much stock in fiction as a means to explain reality. Orwell was an anti-semitic British fed that kept a list of Jews and communists. His projection in Animal Farm and 1984 are taught in western schools for the very reason you are reminded of them, to discourage socialist organizing at a young age.
Sure, I’ll cop to that level of idealism. I think the “human condition” is a real thing we’ve inherited from our evolutionary forebears, and we’re constantly fighting against it. Heck, my main complaint started out as seeing Lemmy MLs as tribalistic to their own detriment. Even if it isn’t truly universal, I don’t think any form of political organization can permanently overcome that.
Also, yeah, I know that fiction doesn’t describe reality, just the author’s perspective of reality (learned that from Ayn Rand, 🤣 ). Didn’t know that Orwell was anti-semitic (nightmare ick), but the message I took from 1984 was anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-communist. I was taught that the “soc” in Ingsoc was a lie, just as in the Ministry of Truth produced lies and the Ministry of Love produced cruelty. Anyway.
I also want to reference some things I’ve heard about the USSR and the PRC, but I feel the canned response is that it’s all Western propaganda, and I don’t see a productive outcome of that line of conversation. I have some observations after reading Three Body Problem and my partner’s fandom for MXTX’s light novels, but that’s very anecdotal.
At any rate, I got more of the insight I wanted about Lemmy MLs, and you as always give me a lot to think about, Cowbee <3 I always appreciate your time and patience.
Sure, I’ll cop to that level of idealism. I think the “human condition” is a real thing we’ve inherited from our evolutionary forebears, and we’re constantly fighting against it. Heck, my main complaint started out as seeing Lemmy MLs as tribalistic to their own detriment. Even if it isn’t truly universal, I don’t think any form of political organization can permanently overcome that.
“Human nature” is most accurately described as formed by our social being. It does not exist outside of that, and isn’t something hardcoded into us. Humanity has, for the longest time, been largely cooperative. It’s mostly a factor of modern class society that negative traits like corruption take hold, it has nothing to do directly with the scale of society. That’s why I try to drive that point home, a scientific analysis of the problem means that we can’t treat human nature as something fixed, static, divorced from our actual lived experience, but instead something that is malleable and based on a given set of material conditions, material conditions we can deliberately change.
Also, yeah, I know that fiction doesn’t describe reality, just the author’s perspective of reality (learned that from Ayn Rand, 🤣 ). Didn’t know that Orwell was anti-semitic (nightmare ick), but the message I took from 1984 was anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-communist. I was taught that the “soc” in Ingsoc was a lie, just as in the Ministry of Truth produced lies and the Ministry of Love produced cruelty. Anyway.
Orwell kept a list of Jews and communists he would use to snitch to feds. In Animal Farm, his entire point about the bolsheviks rests on the assumption that the working classes of Russia are too stupid to understand that they are being duped, as an explanation for why the working classes really did support the bolsheviks in real life. Orwell was all manner of things, but most of all supremely British and liberal (in a bad way).
I also want to reference some things I’ve heard about the USSR and the PRC, but I feel the canned response is that it’s all Western propaganda, and I don’t see a productive outcome of that line of conversation. I have some observations after reading Three Body Problem and my partner’s fandom for MXTX’s light novels, but that’s very anecdotal.
Depends on what you’re talking about. It could be entirely real, entirely invented, an exaggerated real problem, a minimized real success, or a success framed as a problem.
At any rate, I got more of the insight I wanted about Lemmy MLs, and you as always give me a lot to think about, Cowbee <3 I always appreciate your time and patience.
I was looking at some old ReadFanon comments yesterday, and I was just reminded of this one
And for anyone else reading this who doesn’t know of the below essay. I think the paragraph that starts with “I’ve seen plenty of de facto vanguards emerge” leads into https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
That’s a great comment, thanks for linking it! And ReadFanon hit the nail on the head, so to speak, we have to train and practice for revolution, while being cognizant that distrusting any and all formalized structure sets us back, as these formalized structures appear whether we acknowledge them de jure or not. Jo Freeman’s essay is also wonderful for showing how we really need to formalize vanguards, so as to legitimately democratize them and prevent people from naturally dominating the space.
Do you know how many enlightenment figures were wildly racist, how many of them profited from slavery while pretending to stand for freedom? Scientific racism is a direct evolution from this.
As for whether liberalism now would lead to more of the same, of course it would, it has no built-in method for people to not be exploited, to discourage greed, to stop genocide, etc. How would you suggest we prevent any and all of this within liberalism?
I’ve been thinking for a long time that any large-scale organization will lead to greed, corruption, injustice, et al. It’s only since I’ve been reading about ML that I learned I lean anarchist. Vanguard parties sound like a bad idea to me.
Why? Seriously, think about it. Are you appealing to a supernatural explanation like “human nature,” or a materialist answer? Is the presence of any corruption or greed unacceptable or incapable of countering with structures and checks?
Why are vanguards a bad idea, in your eyes? The working class should organize, and the most politically advanced should organize in parties. Can you imagine if we refused to let scientists perform research? If we refused to let surgeons handle surgery? Why should revolution be any different? Any long-term, complex project should be led by those who study and train for it.
My observations and intuition so far is that, the larger the organization, the more that its injustices outweigh its benefits. Power corrupts, and people always have a way of justifying their own actions to themselves, no matter how unjust or “evil” they may be. As a population, I’m not confident in any one person, or any one small party, to wield the broad authority that a large government has.
I dunno. The more introspective I get the more I think of Oceania in 1984. Ingsoc is purported to be socialist but it’s still highly stratified, and the higher classes wield their power in the most violent and dehumanizing way possible. I fear that that’s the result of not just socialist organizations, but any organization that becomes large enough.
You’re confusing the way people behave in some forms of organization with the way people behave in all circumstances and forms of organization. The idea of a universal human nature that exists in static form, outside of its context, is idealism, ie an appeal to the supernatural. Further still, socialist governments and parties have all been very large, the CPC for example has 100 million people.
I don’t personally take much stock in fiction as a means to explain reality. Orwell was an anti-semitic British fed that kept a list of Jews and communists. His projection in Animal Farm and 1984 are taught in western schools for the very reason you are reminded of them, to discourage socialist organizing at a young age.
Sure, I’ll cop to that level of idealism. I think the “human condition” is a real thing we’ve inherited from our evolutionary forebears, and we’re constantly fighting against it. Heck, my main complaint started out as seeing Lemmy MLs as tribalistic to their own detriment. Even if it isn’t truly universal, I don’t think any form of political organization can permanently overcome that.
Also, yeah, I know that fiction doesn’t describe reality, just the author’s perspective of reality (learned that from Ayn Rand, 🤣 ). Didn’t know that Orwell was anti-semitic (nightmare ick), but the message I took from 1984 was anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-communist. I was taught that the “soc” in Ingsoc was a lie, just as in the Ministry of Truth produced lies and the Ministry of Love produced cruelty. Anyway.
I also want to reference some things I’ve heard about the USSR and the PRC, but I feel the canned response is that it’s all Western propaganda, and I don’t see a productive outcome of that line of conversation. I have some observations after reading Three Body Problem and my partner’s fandom for MXTX’s light novels, but that’s very anecdotal.
At any rate, I got more of the insight I wanted about Lemmy MLs, and you as always give me a lot to think about, Cowbee <3 I always appreciate your time and patience.
“Human nature” is most accurately described as formed by our social being. It does not exist outside of that, and isn’t something hardcoded into us. Humanity has, for the longest time, been largely cooperative. It’s mostly a factor of modern class society that negative traits like corruption take hold, it has nothing to do directly with the scale of society. That’s why I try to drive that point home, a scientific analysis of the problem means that we can’t treat human nature as something fixed, static, divorced from our actual lived experience, but instead something that is malleable and based on a given set of material conditions, material conditions we can deliberately change.
Orwell kept a list of Jews and communists he would use to snitch to feds. In Animal Farm, his entire point about the bolsheviks rests on the assumption that the working classes of Russia are too stupid to understand that they are being duped, as an explanation for why the working classes really did support the bolsheviks in real life. Orwell was all manner of things, but most of all supremely British and liberal (in a bad way).
Depends on what you’re talking about. It could be entirely real, entirely invented, an exaggerated real problem, a minimized real success, or a success framed as a problem.
No problem!
I was looking at some old ReadFanon comments yesterday, and I was just reminded of this one
And for anyone else reading this who doesn’t know of the below essay. I think the paragraph that starts with “I’ve seen plenty of de facto vanguards emerge” leads into https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
That’s a great comment, thanks for linking it! And ReadFanon hit the nail on the head, so to speak, we have to train and practice for revolution, while being cognizant that distrusting any and all formalized structure sets us back, as these formalized structures appear whether we acknowledge them de jure or not. Jo Freeman’s essay is also wonderful for showing how we really need to formalize vanguards, so as to legitimately democratize them and prevent people from naturally dominating the space.