• HardNut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didn’t you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism?

    You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question. Good work requires organization, organization requires planning and logistics, rules are created and/or people appointed to take the job of handling logistics. I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers, is that where you inferring authoritarianism from? Again, I didn’t say authoritarianism. If you think having any authority over anything strictly means authoritarianism, then that’s where it falls.

    Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian? That’s where the answer to your question lies. I don’t have much skin in this evaluation.

    Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy.

    This was in my definition. Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government. And yes, I did mean state and government when I said state and government. They advocate against the ruling organization itself, and they also want to take power away from the people who rule it.

    But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.

    I agree. Remember when I said I’m not an anarchist? We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society, that doesn’t mean that anarchism doesn’t refer to a lack of statehood.

    I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I’ll type it out again. Humans eat food, it’s necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of “human” absolutely has to include “something that eats food”? No, it doesn’t. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can’t stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.

    I’m not exaggerating when I say this is the most important part of my previous comment. I will not respond to you anymore if you don’t entertain this thought. Do you disagree that “something that eats food” should be part of the definition of human? If so, why should you include “something that has a monopoly on violence” to the definition of a state? You keep appealing to definitional problems, so let’s work it out instead of ignoring an incredibly important point.

    • Prunebutt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question.

      Apparently, you didn’t really make it clear to me.

      I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers

      I begin to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I don’t think that some logistical management implies authority. By “authority” I mean a position of command and control. Just because someone is in charge of logistical planning, doesn’t mean they get to fire me.

      Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian?

      When any questioning of an existing hierarchy is being punished by the authority.

      This was in my definition.

      No it wasn’t. You said “without political institutions or hierarchical government”. This leaves out other hierarchies, like economic, ethnic or gender hierarchies.

      Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government.

      Pardon my french: That is some grade-A bullshit. From the very beginning of the political movement we call “anarchism”, it was at least also about the abolition of capital. Yes, the abolition of the state is always an important part. But anarchism is rooted in power analysis which is highly skeptical of any hierarchy. One of the most famous quotes by Proudhon was “Property is theft”, after all.

      We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society

      That’s not what I’d call an anarchist society. This would be an “anarcho-capitalist” society. In anarchist society, all means of productions would be held in common.

      I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I’ll type it out again. Humans eat food, it’s necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of “human” absolutely has to include “something that eats food”? No, it doesn’t. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can’t stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.

      You are really not talking sense. You said “eating food” is necessary for humans. That means that it’s a necessary feature of a human. It is however not a sufficient feature of a human. Not everything that eats food is human. But if something doesn’t eat food, you can rule out that it is a human, since it doesn’t satisfy a necessary condition. Here’s the Wikipedia page, since it’s such an important point for you.

      I never claimed that monopoly of violence is a sufficient feature of a state. It is necessary, though. If something doesn’t have the sufficient property of a monopoly of violence, it is not a state. That is not a definition I made up for my world-view to function. There is consensus in political science that this is a necessary property of a state.