ARCADE GOON

5y

Because socialists were so radical and threatening that the New Deal was a CONCESSION.

Same with Ghandi. The alternaitive was much more threatening to the UK.

You are trying to negotiate without any ace in your hand. You need leverage. Communists, real communists, were leverage until the 90s. The threat that loomed over bourgeois heads.

The European welfare states all regressed in the 90s when the USSR collapsed. Coincidence? No.

ARCADE GOON

5y

India was not peaceful, it only worked bc motherfuckers were bombing British s*** all day and revolting for decades. Ghandi was the concession made by the British.

Sloth

5y

sorry for s\*\*\*post

Synopsis

5y

no, you f***ed up at thinking youll achieve even some b******ized form of socialism (which is what "market socialism" is) through working with the establishment. jesus christ

Synopsis

5y

no, you f***ed up at thinking youll achieve even some b******ized form of socialism (which is what "market socialism" is) through working with the establishment. jesus christ

Nort

5y

market socialism would be 10x closer to my “ideal” of socialism than whatever the hell you wanna consider the USSR.

Synopsis

5y

then your ideal is a hot load of s***

Nort

5y

market socialism would be 10x closer to my “ideal” of socialism than whatever the hell you wanna consider the USSR.

Synopsis

5y

Yup there we go

sniper

5y

lol

calling "market socialism" b******ized when you support revisionist market reforms

Fargo

5y

I’m a liberal who calls themselves a communist on the internet even though I am opposed to literally any attempt to establishing socialism because it doesn’t look pretty enough for me

sniper

5y

Anarchists historically have viewed authority in 2 different manner, primarily stemming from operating under different definitions. The first view defines authority broadly to include things such as expertise and force, and thus rejects only “unjustified” authority. Such was the anarchism of Bakunin and Chomsky: Bakunin stated that he “bows before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason” (Bakunin, What is Authority?) and Chomsky stating that “Authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate and the burden of proof is on those in authority.” The later view does not define authority vaguely, instead defining authority as based on domination and hierarchization.

--

The issue that lies with Engels’ critique is that he falsely conflate these two incompatible views: he takes the definition of the former (which encompasses expertise and force) and combine such with the opposition to all authorities from the later. This creates a strawman that represents no anarchists: for anarchists have no qualms with neither the “authority of the railway employees over the passengers” in regards to how trains are ran nor the “authority” of a coordinator in large projects and industries: under the first view such position is justified, and in the later not authorities at all.

Nort

5y

the nordic model is way closer to fitting the description of socialism than the ussr. And they’re capitalist!

ARCADE GOON

5y

Troll

Nort

5y

the nordic model is way closer to fitting the description of socialism than the ussr. And they’re capitalist!

Sloth

5y

have you actually read theory or do u just echo vaush ?

Nort

5y

Dead serious.

ARCADE GOON

5y

Who decides what justified authority is

ARCADE GOON

5y

U live in a parallel universe

sniper

5y

Defined by domination and hierarchization, in which domination is the ability to dictate others actions without any constraint, when the individual asserts themselves over the will of others and to control.