#Political Theory

[pumpacti0n]

"...The Anarchist case against the State is pretty simple to put in Marxist terms. You have your dictatorship of the proletariat. But immediately there's a problem. The state is not, and cannot be the entire class. In order to have a state, you have to put a subset of the class in charge. Call it a vanguard, a party, what have you. Let's assume for a moment that the new party really is comprised of the proletariat and isn't composed of nominally allied intellectuals. Even in this best case scenario what you have is representation, not actual rule by the proletariat as a class.

"Well ok," says the Marxist, "that's not a problem, the representatives will just represent the interests of the class as a whole." But instantly you have a problem, your dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, it's a dictatorship of the representatives of the class. For the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie this doesn't matter, because the incentives of the state align with theirs and you can be a member of the bourgeoisie while simultaneously holding office, in fact almost all representatives are.

But for the proletariat this is not true at all, the moment a proletarian take(s) control (...) they are no longer part of the class with no property, they have at their command the property of the state. This problem is exacerbated by any attempt to use the state to socialize the economy, the larger the share of the economy administered by the State, the more property the representatives now command.

Those representatives of the proletariat in the State now have their own interests: that of the management of the property of the state, that of the nation state itself, formerly alien to the proletariat as a class.

Furthermore, each passing day isolates the representatives from the proletariat itself. It isolates them physically, it isolates them psychologically, it isolates them in terms of mannerism and expectation.

And so every day the interests of the representatives of the proletariat drift further apart from their representatives until one day the dictatorship of the proletariat vanishes entirely and you're left with the dictatorship of an entirely new class produced by the State.

And this is the BEST case scenario, the one in which the representatives of the class are genuinely attempting to do their job. And then still the form of the state devours the dictatorship of the proletariat, that which was once its content. The state will not wither away because its existence produces new classes with their own functions and interests.

Lenin's State and Revolution demonstrates this problem: it calls for the state to become the landlord of the proletariat. Immediately, in a single instant, the pretense of the State as a special armed body of the class disappears. In its place is a new class of rent connectors whose interests have nothing in common with the proletariat.

This is just how the State works. The proletariat has nothing in common with the tax collector, the landlord, the manager, the planner. All of the functions of the old world absorbed and preserved by the State coalesce into new classes and socialists are left spinning their wheels, trying to abolish two systems, the State and the class system, with an institution (the State) that reproduces both of them.

Even on a theoretical level, even in the world of State and Revolution, where every state employee is paid a worker's salary and nothing more, the State would still produce classes and with it reproduce itself. The only solution to this is to destroy the State entirely and let the class as a whole form the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is Anarchism. The propertiless masses rule themselves directly and destroy the property relations and the State institutions that comprise the conditions of their own existence as a class, thus ending at long last the nightmare of the class system with the new and radiant dawn of the classless society of communism."

[source]

[cripple-punk-dad]

Oops :(

I would like to formally apologize to the Leninist-Marxist community for being a stupid working class idiot who read the theory 'wrong' and made a comment on how useless theory is without taking tangible action. I will now go guillotine myself for preaching anti-intellectualism by saying you should throw bricks at cops more often than you sit in a cushy home library reading. I also apologize for saying that being able to access theory and understand its uniquely dense academic language is a privilege relegated to those who have access to higher education and the time off work to study it. Apparently that was incorrect. its my bad for saying that only reading theory and not doing anything about what you read (like maybe fuckin sharing what you read and understand with others) was bad.

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that intersectionality hurts or advances activism; for example let's say a climate change organization calling for a ceasefire?

Both.

In its positive aspects, intersectionality is grounded in reciprocal solidarity. It is an ideological and philosophical position that we are all connected and "no man is an island, entire of itself...Any man's death diminishes me/Because I am involved in mankind."

It is also a very pragmatic understanding that there aren't enough of us to win on our own. In addition to the concrete analysis of political struggle that we all share common enemies and have overlapping interests, the fractured nature of human society and identities means that coalition-building isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

In its negative aspects, intersectionality results in this weird, toxic narrowing of social movements to a point where only the most oppressed people possible are allowed to be in charge and make decisions and speak for the movement, and everyone else is a guilt-ridden privileged outsider who needs to shut the fuck up and lower their hands and listen and not make it about them - but only after they donate their time and money.

This is pretty much the opposite of what intersectionality was originally meant to convey: the whole point is that everyone exists in different positions on the various axes of oppression, discrimination, etc. (and these positions can change pretty damn quickly), and thus depending on the issue, certain people might have more of a lived experience and need to be listened to and have greater needs and need to have their agenda items prioritized, and who those people are going to be is fluid and dynamic rather than fixed.

And this brings us back to my earlier thing about reciprocal solidarity. I completely reject the notion that I exist within social movements solely as an ally to other people, because in truth I participate in these movements in no small part because I need help from other people on a whole host of issues. However, I remain in coalition when it comes to other issues (especially those in which my personal constellation of intersectionality puts me in a position of relative privilege), both out of a humanistic understanding that their lives and needs are equally important and out of that pragmatic understanding that if I help them on their stuff, they'll return the favor when it comes to my stuff. And over time, the experience of being in coalition will expand people's mindsets on issues that don't directly affect them and get them to act in solidarity more consistently.

And that's what I think is so good about social democracy and similar movements that have a comprehensive political "line" or policy agenda, because if we sit down and engage in good faith in democratic coalition-building negotiations where everyone understands what they are getting and what they are giving and that everyone gets a say but not an exclusive one, then we short-circuit this kind of toxic, self-destructive behavior and can move on to doing the work that needs to be done.

[troythecatfish]

[just-ray]

Guys I'm literally buzzing around rn like I LOVE POLITICS I LOVE POLITICS uyhhhhhjhhg I try and act all high n mighty sometimes like as if I'm so educated n shit NO I am NEURODIVERGENT !!!.,,

[forevergulag]

Bourgeois economists try to justify the existence of unemployment under capitalism by references to eternal laws of nature. This was the aim served by the pseudo-scientific fabrications of Malthus a reactionary British economist who flourished at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning ‘of the nineteenth century. According to the “law of population” invented by Malthus, the population, from the very beginning of human society has increased in geometrical progression (as 1, 2, 4, 8, etc). but the means of subsistence, owing to the limitations of natural resources, have grown only in arithmetical progression (as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) This, said Malthus, was the fundamental cause of the existence of surplus-population and of starvation and want among the masses of the people. The proletariat, in Malthus’s opinion; can free itself from poverty and hunger not by abolishing the capitalist system but by abstaining from marriage and artificially restricting childbearing. Malthus considered wars and epidemics beneficial, since they cut down the working population. The theory of Malthus is profoundly reactionary. It is a means whereby the bourgeoisie justifies the incurable taints of capitalism. Malthus’s fabrications have nothing in common with reality. The mighty technique which mankind has at its disposal is capable of increasing the amount of means of life at rates which cannot be overtaken by even the fastest growth of population, But this is prevented by the capitalist system, which is the real Cause of the poverty of the masses.

political economy, part two: the capitalist mode of production, chapter IX: accumulation of capital and the impoverishment of the proketariat; the industrial reserve army. 1954

[lem0nademouth]

i think the hardest pill for leftists/progressives/liberals/whatever you want to call yourself to swallow is that it’s not that simple. it’s not that easy.

i was the victim of a violent crime, and i personally do not want my perpetrator to go to prison. i do not think it will serve to protect anyone in the future or help me heal from what happened. but that’s my own feeling about my own experience. i do not get to dictate what other victims and their loved ones feel is justice for them. i support transformative and restorative justice as an option, but it can’t be the only one.

i work with young kids (2mo-7yrs) and try to keep up to date on discussions about child development to make sure i’m aware of what behavior is considered age appropriate. i ended up following a mom on tiktok who has been sharing her story about her son (who remains anonymous) and his progressive diagnoses of ODD, conduct disorder, and eventually antisocial personality disorder. he has threatened to kill his family, physically assaulted and severely harmed his family and neighbors, damaged private and public property, and has been arrested on several felony charges before his sixteenth birthday. this mom is distraught. he has no known history of trauma or adverse childhood experiences, was raised in a stable household where all his needs were met. he tried to kill one of the kids at the psychiatric hospital he was placed in, eventually leading to the state taking custody of him because it wasn’t safe for his family to be around him. not every person with his diagnoses is like him. but he is. and there needs to be a solution for him and his family.

my cousin was born to parents who were on a host of illicit drugs throughout the pregnancy and her early life, leading to her and her brother being placed in foster care. they were adopted by my aunt and it was revealed that my cousin has an intellectual disability called borderline intellectual functioning because her brain couldn’t develop properly in utero. fast forward to now, she’s in her early 20s and my aunt is raising the baby she had after being impregnated by her abusive boyfriend (we tried to get her to leave, called the police, my uncle nearly killed the guy) because she literally does not have the ability to raise a baby. she cannot process the complex thoughts you need to take care of a baby - her brain literally can’t do it. so now my aunt and uncle are raising their grandchild while caring for their daughter, who will never be able to live independently. was it ethical for that child to be born? i don’t know! i don’t even know if it was ethical for my cousins to be born! but i know it’s not as easy as “everyone should be able to have kids whenever they want and if you say otherwise its eugenics”.

people aren’t political issues. they’re people. and pretending like you have the answer to every problem doesn’t make you better or more in control; it makes you disillusioned. it’s not that easy. it never has been.

[st-just]

When people decide to listen to trans voices or neurodivergent voices, people are going to listen to me. I have free time to blog. I can talk like an upper-middle-class person; for that matter, I am reliably capable of concise and coherent speech. Hell, I have a good friend who runs a magazine. And, unless I deliberately think about it. all of these advantages are invisible to me. (That’s what privilege does!)

Of course, when asked to speak for trans people or neurodivergent people, I talk about my own concerns and advocate for my own needs. And so deference politics warps our sense of what matters most. Feminism frets about the number of women with C-suite jobs and about online harassment of female journalists. Advocacy for mentally ill people concentrates on destigmatizing depression instead of institutionalized violence against the schizophrenic. We are absolutely obsessed with occurrences on Ivy League college campuses.

Again, I’m not saying that it’s wrong to be worried about those things! Being relatively privileged doesn’t mean that it’s okay for you to be harassed, stigmatized, or discriminated against. But a disproportionate share of energy goes to issues that affect relatively few and relatively more powerful people.

-Ozy Brennan, Against Deference Politics: Or, The Importance Of Building Shit

[processedlives]

Agamben does examine a modern instance of slavery and his misreading confirms this essay’s concerns. In State of Exception Agamben frames the U.S. Civil War as a “conflict over sovereign decision.” He boldly contends that Abraham Lincoln “acted as an absolute dictator” by emancipating the slaves “on his authority alone,” “generaliz[ing] the state of exception throughout the entire territory of the United States” and becoming “the holder of the sovereign decision on the state of exception.” It is extremely troubling that Agamben links the Emancipation Proclamation to a dictatorial state of exception rather than arguing that slavery itself was already one of the boldest generalizations of the exception in nineteenth- century America, if not the world. One might counter that laws existed to regulate the slave owner’s treatment of the slave. Those laws only confirm my point, being based on the need to protect slaves as property for others to own and sell, on the basis of a racialized version of the Aristotelian ontological distinction always and already expelling the slave from civil society and legal personhood. The Western tradition contains multiple philosophical arguments, like those from Hobbes or even John Locke, that consider the relation between master and slave to be unmediated, despite what positive law demands, and place all right and force on the side of the master. To put it in Agamben’s parlance, the master’s claim property precedes positive law and therefore places the slave under the sovereign’s ban.

On Black Study and Political Theology, James Edward Ford III

[hato-mercenary]

Tankies will bend over backwards to justify every single shitty thing that Russia has done to Ukraine and call anyone that argues with them a Nazi because fundamentally they value stalinist aesthetics and sticking it to the west over shit like basic human decency. They've gone so deep down the anti-western contrarianism rabbit hole that on a long enough timeline I won't be surprised if they start saying that the Ukranian children getting raped by Russian soldiers deserve it because living west of the Dnieper river makes them Nazis by birthright or something.

I wish I could drag these people the the houses in Bucha and Irpin where there are houses with bloody nails in tabletops where women had their hands nailed in place before being raped by Russian soldiers, where you can see rows of blood stains on walls outside of houses where entire families were lined up and shot, and where the guys from my old squad found shipping containers full of corpses with their hands and feet bound. I want to force them to look at these horrors and then demand that they explain to me how any of this is some sort of "Marxist-Leninist praxis" and not just crimes against humanity of the exact same brand the Nazis carried out.

I wish I could take them through Donetsk oblast and show them town after town that lies in ruins. Buildings shredded by autocannon fire, flattened by artillery, and peppered with bullet holes. I wish I could point out all of the still nearly pristine Russian Orthodox churches. Shiny and mostly untouched by the advance of the Russian forces that respect a symbol of their own culture without having a hint of what Christ's teachings were meant to teach them.

I wish I could show them the elderly civilians, struggling to survive in recently liberated areas. Either incapable of leaving, or too stubborn to go. I wish they could see the children. Waving and the soldiers. Smiling when given food. Feeding their families by teaching some of the foreign fighters Ukrainian.

I can't show them any of this. Because they don't care. They aren't interested. The death and suffering here is an abstract concept for them. They don't give a shit about people. Just about the ideology that defines their sense of self. That's theory without praxis. The ironic peak of the hypocrisy of internet tankies.

[dionysus-to-apollo]

Nick Land on democracy

Democracy might begin as a defensible procedural mechanism for limiting government power, but it quickly and inexorably develops into something quite different: a culture of systematic thievery. As soon as politicians have learnt to buy political support from the ‘public purse’, and conditioned electorates to embrace looting and bribery, the democratic process reduces itself to the formation of (Mancur Olson’s) ‘distributional coalitions’ – electoral majorities mortared together by common interest in a collectively advantageous pattern of theft. Worse still, since people are, on average, not very bright, the scale of depredation available to the political establishment far exceeds even the demented sacking that is open to public scrutiny. Looting the future, through currency debauchment, debt accumulation, growth destruction, and techno-industrial retardation is especially easy to conceal, and thus reliably popular. Democracy is essentially tragic because it provides the populace with a weapon to destroy itself, one that is always eagerly seized, and used. Nobody ever says ‘no’ to free stuff. Scarcely anybody even sees that there is no free stuff. Utter cultural ruination is the necessary conclusion.

Within the final phase of Modernity 1.0, American history becomes the master narrative of the world. It is there that the great Abrahamic cultural conveyor culminates in the secularized neo-puritanism of the Cathedral, as it establishes the New Jerusalem in Washington DC. The apparatus of Messianic-revolutionary purpose is consolidated in the evangelical state, which is authorized by any means necessary to install a new world order of universal fraternity, in the name of equality, human rights, social justice, and – above all – democracy. The absolute moral confidence of the Cathedral underwrites the enthusiastic pursuit of unrestrained centralized power, optimally unlimited in its intensive penetration and its extensive scope.

With an irony altogether hidden from the witch-burners’ spawn themselves, the ascent of this squinting cohort of grim moral fanatics to previously unscaled heights of global power coincides with the descent of mass-democracy to previously unimagined depths of gluttonous corruption. Every five years America steals itself from itself again, and fences itself back in exchange for political support. This democracy thing is easy – you just vote for the guy who promises you the most stuff. An idiot could do it. Actually, it likes idiots, treats them with apparent kindness, and does everything it can to manufacture more of them.

[canichangemyblogname]

Theorist: “Fascism is a problem unique to western, often imperial-core, nations due to the way it thrives within liberal or neoliberal economic ideologies, which oft encourage the union of state and corporate power as well as imperialist expansion, two crucial facets of fascism. Fascism does not simply refer to just any ideology or any authoritarian structure; it critically relies on a corporate-state merger and white supremacy. The only way to combat fascism is to revolutionize the way western society is structured, and the ideas of whiteness and corporatism it was structured upon.”

Tumblr user who is missing the point: “This is so fucking stupid because then this would mean Joe Biden is a fascist!” “Well, my fascism is arguably kinder and better that the other side’s so…” “*an analogy that arguably makes zero sense*” “But then this is EVERY politician in Europe??? And I think that might be a stretch.” “Wow, I guess the REAL fascists are right 🙄; fascism is a meaningless buzzword!” “I think this might be too broad?”

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that fascism arises from economic crises?

It's a bit more complicated than a unicausal explanation, but I would argue that they are a necessary but not sufficient factor.

There is an old phrase on the Left that "anti-semitism is the socialism of fools;" which sometimes results in a kind of vulgar Marxist variety of conspiracy theory in which all forms of hatred and bigotry are the result of malign forces in the ruling class trying to distract and divide and inclulcate false consciousness among the masses.

According to this train of thought, all forms of discrimination and oppression are the result of capitalism, and once the Revolution comes, then racism and sexism and homophobia, etc. will all come tumbling down and we will all live in unity and equality and harmony. I think this particular school of thought is badly misguided and has been responsible for quite a bit of the Left's historical weaknesses and blindspots.

However, I think there is something to the idea of the original saying, in that I think a lot of the impetus for reactionary movements comes from an inchoate feeling that something is wrong with society and culture, that is turned into not just incorrect but malicious explanations of what the problems are and what the causes of those problems are, in order to radicalize people into joining hateful movements. It's not that different from how ideological frameworks function normally in a Geertzian sense, just done for darker and more violent purposes.

Here's where I think the economy comes in. It is true that there are always going to be some people with extreme reactionary beliefs, but how welcoming society is to their recruitment and other activities does I think depend on how many people are feeling desperate and let down by traditional sources of authority and willing to give "alternative" voices a hearing. Often but not always, the state and direction of the economy has a lot to do with this feeling of desperation - it's not an accident that in recent decades, we've seen the flourishing of reactionary politics following major recessions or in places that have been on the economic decline.

Again, this isn't a 1:1 thing, nor are a lot of the converts among the poorest and most desperate in society, but I do think that general impressions about the state of the economy are a major component of the motivating sense of desperation, alienation, and a breakdown of trust in institutions.

[cuntylittlesalmon]

For example, we can imagine ourselves participating in good faith conversations on a new social media platform about a particular social issue. This platform is structure, of course, by designers employed by the company owners, who build and manage algorithms that direct the traffic of posts and courage consumer engagement. As we talk on this platform, its feature begin to affect our behavior: simpler takes attract comments and shares, affecting what people say on the platform. The tech-company owners get the lion's share of the revenue generated by the site's traffic, driven by our conversations, and a small number of site participants get the lion's share of attention directed the activity on the platform. An elite emerges. It would be a mistake, however, to understand everything that happens on the platform as a process orchestrated by the elites. They are its results, like the platform's unequal distribution of the profit and attention itself. Elites do often make the environment worse and block solutions, but to blame the problem of elite capture entirely on their moral successes and failures is to confuse effect for cause. The true problem lies in the system itself, the built environment and rules of interaction that produced the elites in the first place.

— Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (and Everything Else)

[just-ray]

I am absolutely taking asks I LOVE yapping

My areas of knowledge are:

Basic biology

Basic chemistry

Biochemistry (derm/trichology)

Politics (especially athenian politics)

Economics

Irish culture

Music and music history