Controversial General Political Discussion

Daniel

Daniel

‎‎‎‎
#55,084
#55,084
Definition of Authoritarianism:
Critique of Using a Dictionary Definition:
  • Dictionary definitions are based on common usage, which is often too vague or simplistic for political theory.
  • Political theory requires specificity and detail, and terms often have different meanings depending on the context or thinker.
Anarchist Definition of Authoritarianism:
  • Authoritarianism: The degree to which a power structure monopolizes the flow of power within an organization.
  • This typically involves centralization of power by a small group of individuals, reducing the influence of the people.
Distinction Between Authoritarianism and Centralization:
  • While centralization is often a component of authoritarianism, it is not synonymous with it.
  • Authoritarianism focuses on how monopolized power restricts the flow and control of decision-making.
Inclusion of Domination in Authoritarianism:
  • Domination: The use of coercion, violence, and deception to maintain a power structure.
  • In anarchist and libertarian socialist theory, domination is often folded into authoritarianism, as the two are typically intertwined.
The Relationship Between Monopolization of Power and Domination:
  • Monopolized power structures often catalyze domination through coercion and deception, making domination an inherent characteristic of authoritarian systems.
Second Thought’s Failure to Address This Conception:
  • The critique emphasizes that the nuanced anarchist definition of authoritarianism, which combines power monopolization and domination, was not adequately addressed in Second Thought’s video.
Examples of Authoritarianism:
Common Examples of Authoritarian Practices:
  • Large prisons or labor camps
  • Covert police forces
  • State-controlled media
  • Strongman leaders
  • Censorship
  • These examples highlight the use of monopolized power combined with coercion, violence, and deception.
Monopolization of Power as the Defining Factor:
  • Each example reflects a small group or body of power holders controlling societal functions.
  • Power flows from the top, limiting people's ability to influence decisions, which leads to authoritarian outcomes.
Coercion, Violence, and Deception as Core Elements:
  • The mechanisms through which authoritarian systems enforce control and maintain their power.
  • These elements are often hidden or justified as necessary to maintain order.
Relevance to Both Liberal Democracies and State Socialist Nations:
  • While typically associated with countries like USSR, China, or North Korea, these features also exist in liberal democracies such as the United States or UK.
  • This critique highlights that authoritarianism is not exclusive to one system but rather reflects structural power dynamics.
Second Thought’s View on Authoritarianism:
  • The video emphasizes that these examples are often criticized in socialist states while being ignored in liberal democracies, leading to a hypocrisy argument.
Argument from Hypocrisy:
  • The critique notes that pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t address anarchist concerns about systemic power structures.
  • Just because liberal democracies also engage in authoritarian practices doesn’t make such practices acceptable anywhere.
Critique of Liberal Democracies:
Authoritarian Practices in Liberal Democracies:
  • Liberal democracies like the United States, UK, and European nations exhibit authoritarian traits, such as:
    • Surveillance states
    • Policing systems
    • Censorship
    • Control of economic and political systems by elites
Blind Spots of Liberals:
  • Liberal critics often fail to acknowledge authoritarian practices in their own systems, focusing solely on socialist states.
  • Examples of such practices are frequently worse in liberal democracies but remain overlooked due to cultural bias or propaganda.
Argument from Hypocrisy:
  • Critiquing authoritarianism in socialist states while ignoring its presence in liberal democracies is a form of hypocrisy.
  • However, pointing out this hypocrisy does not address the core concerns of anarchists or libertarian socialists, as authoritarianism is still wrong regardless of who practices it.
Impact of Propaganda:
  • Western Red Scare propaganda has distorted public perceptions of socialism and exaggerated authoritarianism in state socialist nations.
  • The critique acknowledges that this distortion has led many to ignore authoritarian tendencies in liberal democracies.
The Validity of the Critique:
  • While Second Thought’s critique of liberal hypocrisy is valid, it does not fundamentally engage with anarchist concerns about structural authoritarianism across all systems.
Historical Propaganda and Red Scare:
Western Propaganda’s Role:
  • Western nations, especially during the Cold War, used Red Scare propaganda to discredit socialist and communist systems like the USSR, China, and North Korea.
  • This propaganda painted these systems as inherently authoritarian and ignored similar authoritarian tendencies in the West.
Distortion of Perceptions:
  • The critique emphasizes that many misconceptions about socialism and state-controlled systems stem from decades of biased portrayals and misinformation.
  • This distorted view leads people to equate socialism with authoritarianism without critical evaluation.
Acknowledgment of Propaganda’s Impact:
  • Second Thought accurately points out that distorted public opinions of socialist states are largely shaped by Western propaganda.
  • This distortion affects how people perceive authoritarianism and its sources.
Unaddressed Concerns:
  • While propaganda is acknowledged as a factor, it does not explain or justify the authoritarian practices seen in both socialist and liberal systems.
  • The critique highlights that propaganda does not excuse the structural issues that anarchists and libertarian socialists oppose.
Anarchist Perspective on Propaganda:
  • From an anarchist viewpoint, authoritarianism in both Western democracies and state socialist regimes is the result of centralized power, regardless of the narratives pushed by propaganda.
Critique of Authoritarian Left Ideologies:
Engels’ Essay On Authority:
  • The video heavily relies on Engels' essay, which argues that revolution inherently requires authoritarian methods (e.g., imposing will through force, violence, and terror).
  • Engels criticizes anti-authoritarian perspectives, claiming they misunderstand the nature of revolution.
Rebuttal to Engels:
  • The critique argues that Engels' definition of authoritarianism is a straw man, misrepresenting anarchist and libertarian socialist positions.
  • Anarchists do not oppose the use of force or violence in revolution but reject centralized, monopolized power structures.
Reproduction of Old Power Structures:
  • Authoritarian methods often lead to the reproduction of the old system, such as transitioning from feudalism to state capitalism.
  • Historical examples (e.g., USSR, China, North Korea) demonstrate that authoritarian revolutions result in state-controlled capitalism rather than true socialism or communism.
False Equivalence of Success:
  • The critique rejects the idea that creating state capitalism constitutes a successful revolution.
  • True revolutionary success involves decentralizing power and redistributing it to the people, as opposed to centralizing it under new leadership.
Alternatives to Authoritarianism:
  • Historical and modern examples of non-authoritarian movements (e.g., Rojava, Zapatistas, CNT-FAI) prove that revolutions can succeed without centralized authoritarian control.
  • These movements emphasize self-defense, mutual aid, and bottom-up organization.
Apologia for Authoritarianism:
  • Second Thought’s defense of authoritarian methods as “necessary” for revolution is seen as an attempt to justify the failures of state socialist regimes.
  • The critique highlights that authoritarian leftists often dismiss alternatives and erase non-authoritarian successes.
Examples of Non-Authoritarian Revolutions:
Historical and Modern Examples:
  • Rojava (Northeast Syria): A confederated, decentralized political and military system with a population of 2–3 million. Focuses on democratic autonomy and confederation.
  • Zapatistas (Chiapas, Mexico): An anti-authoritarian movement emphasizing self-governance, indigenous rights, and mutual aid, with a polity of 200,000–300,000 people.
  • CNT-FAI (Spanish Civil War): Anarchist and syndicalist collectives that implemented workers’ self-management and fought against fascism during the war.
  • Free Territories of Ukraine: A stateless society organized under anarchist principles during the Russian Revolution, led by Nestor Makhno.
Success Defined by Progress Toward Socialism:
  • These movements are seen as successful because they decentralized power and prioritized people-led governance, rather than re-establishing capitalism under state control.
  • They demonstrate practical implementations of anarchist and libertarian socialist principles.
Erasure of These Examples:
  • Second Thought is criticized for ignoring these non-authoritarian revolutions in his analysis.
  • The omission is framed as either ignorance or malice, as these movements directly counter the claim that authoritarianism is necessary for success.
Central Features of Non-Authoritarian Movements:
  • Bottom-up decision-making: Power flows from local communities or councils, rather than being imposed from the top.
  • Revocable delegation: Power can be immediately withdrawn if those in leadership abuse it.
  • Self-defense: Emphasis on protecting revolutionary gains without replicating authoritarian structures.
Critique of “Successful” Authoritarian Revolutions:
  • State socialist revolutions (e.g., USSR, China, Cuba) are seen as failures in anarchist terms because they merely transitioned to state capitalism, maintaining centralized control.
Key Lessons from Non-Authoritarian Movements:
  • These movements prove that decentralization, mutuality, and bottom-up approaches are viable, even in large-scale revolutions.
  • They counter the narrative that centralized authoritarianism is the only path to revolutionary success.
Libertarianism and Mutuality:
Libertarianism:
  • Defined as the degree to which social power is distributed among the people.
  • Opposite of authoritarianism, where power is centralized and monopolized at the top.
  • Focuses on empowering individuals and communities to make decisions directly and revoking power from those who misuse it.
Mutuality:
  • Described as the degree to which power structures rely on cooperation, self-defense, and free thought rather than coercion or domination.
  • Encourages systems where people collaborate voluntarily instead of being forced into compliance through violence or deception.
Contrasts with Authoritarianism:
  • In authoritarian systems, power flows downward from centralized authorities.
  • In libertarian systems, power flows upward from the people, emphasizing bottom-up governance.
Importance of Self-Defense:
  • Self-defense is a core principle of mutuality.
  • It distinguishes between the coercive violence of domination and the defensive violence used to protect people’s autonomy.
Practical Examples of Libertarianism and Mutuality:
  • Systems like Rojava and the Zapatistas demonstrate these principles through their decentralized and cooperative structures.
  • These movements maintain their revolutionary momentum by empowering people at the grassroots level to defend their autonomy and dissolve structures of domination.
Misrepresentation in Second Thought’s Argument:
  • Second Thought fails to acknowledge libertarianism and mutuality as viable alternatives to authoritarianism.
  • The critique highlights that libertarianism and mutuality are not about avoiding violence but about ensuring power remains with the people.
Structural Differences in Power Flow:
  • Authoritarianism: Power is concentrated at the top, with decision-making imposed on lower levels.
  • Libertarianism: Power originates from the bottom, and decisions are made through direct participation and revocable delegation.
Relevance to Revolution:
  • Libertarianism and mutuality prevent counterrevolution by decentralizing power and enabling communities to actively defend their autonomy.
  • This approach ensures that revolutions do not simply recreate oppressive structures under new leadership.
Misrepresentation of Anti-Authoritarianism:
Claim that Anti-Authoritarianism Is a Western Phenomenon:
  • Second Thought argues that anti-authoritarianism primarily stems from Western privilege.
  • He suggests that those in the "Imperial core" (wealthy Western countries) hold naive beliefs about avoiding authoritarian methods because they don’t experience oppression directly.
Rebuttal to This Claim:
  • The critique points out that anti-authoritarian movements have been global, not exclusive to the West.
  • Examples like the Zapatistas (Mexico), Rojava (Syria), CNT-FAI (Spain), and Free Territories of Ukraine demonstrate non-Western and non-privileged anti-authoritarian struggles.
Erasure of Non-Western Movements:
  • Second Thought’s argument is criticized for erasing the history of successful non-Western anti-authoritarian revolutions.
  • The Zapatistas (1994–present) and Rojava (2013–present) are active, large-scale examples of decentralized governance outside the West.
Evidence of Practical Viability:
  • These movements prove that anti-authoritarian principles work, even in regions facing extreme oppression or conflict.
  • They challenge the narrative that authoritarianism is the only path to survival or success in revolution.
Misrepresentation of Anti-Authoritarian Stances:
  • Second Thought implies that anti-authoritarians are against defensive violence, which the critique refutes.
  • Examples of anti-authoritarian movements show they actively use defensive violence to protect their autonomy without becoming authoritarian.
Critique of Privileged Perspective:
  • The critique highlights that many anti-authoritarian struggles arise in conditions of oppression and hardship, not privilege.
  • Second Thought’s framing disregards the realities faced by these movements and oversimplifies their motivations.
Conflation of Revolution and Authoritarianism:
  • Second Thought’s claim that all revolutions are inherently authoritarian is rejected.
  • Anti-authoritarian revolutions emphasize decentralization and grassroots empowerment, avoiding the centralization of power.
Key Takeaway:
  • Anti-authoritarianism is not a luxury of the privileged; it is a response to oppression and domination worldwide.
  • The misrepresentation of this stance as purely Western overlooks the real, ongoing struggles of decentralized movements globally.
Centralized vs. Decentralized Revolution:
Second Thought’s Argument for Centralization:
  • Second Thought argues that revolutions require centralized, authoritarian coordination to succeed.
  • He claims that decentralized approaches lack the cohesion needed to protect revolutionary gains and fend off reactionary forces.
Critique of Centralized Revolutions:
  • Centralized revolutions often lead to state capitalism, where power is concentrated under a new ruling class, rather than achieving socialism or communism.
  • Historical examples (e.g., USSR, China, Cuba) demonstrate how centralized revolutions replicate old systems of domination.
Examples of Decentralized Revolutions:
  • Movements like Rojava and the Zapatistas demonstrate that decentralized, bottom-up organization can succeed:
    • Decision-making is handled through local councils.
    • Power is revocable and temporary, preventing long-term centralization.
  • These examples show that revolutions can succeed without authoritarian control.
Bottom-Up Governance as a Model:
  • Decentralized revolutions are organized around confederations of councils, militias, and cooperative structures.
  • Power flows upward from local groups, ensuring accountability and preventing monopolization of power.
The Role of Self-Defense:
  • Decentralized movements incorporate confederated militias and systems of self-defense to protect their gains.
  • Examples include Rojava’s confederated military structure, which successfully resisted ISIS.
Critique of Authoritarian Framing:
  • Second Thought’s claim that all revolutions are inherently authoritarian ignores the structural differences between centralized and decentralized systems.
  • Decentralized systems avoid domination by keeping power distributed at the grassroots level.
Revolutionary Processes:
  • Revolutions often arise from bottom-up movements, where the people drive change before any centralized authority exists.
  • Centralized entities, like political parties, often step in after the revolution to consolidate power, retroactively claiming credit for success.
Key Takeaway:
  • Decentralized revolutions prioritize empowering the people and maintaining accountability, ensuring that revolutionary goals are not undermined by new authoritarian structures.
  • Centralized approaches often lead to counterproductive outcomes, reinforcing existing hierarchies under a new guise.
Call for Engaging with Power Structures:
Avoiding Substantive Engagement:
  • The critique accuses authoritarian leftists of avoiding discussions about how power structures are constructed and maintained.
  • By failing to engage, authoritarian leftists perpetuate systems of centralized control without exploring alternative methods.
Focus on Power Distribution:
  • Anarchists emphasize the importance of analyzing and understanding power structures.
  • The goal is to redistribute power to the people through decentralization and accountability.
Challenges of Authoritarian Thinking:
  • Authoritarian leftists often use arguments like Engels’ essay On Authority to justify their approach, without addressing how centralized power can lead to domination.
  • The critique argues that this reliance on outdated ideas prevents meaningful dialogue about creating truly egalitarian systems.
Necessity of Structural Analysis:
  • Revolutionary theory requires an understanding of how power functions within different systems.
  • This includes exploring how authoritarian power flows downward versus how libertarian power flows upward from the people.
Obfuscation of Political Terms:
  • The critique suggests that authoritarian leftists attempt to blur definitions of terms like "authoritarianism" to avoid scrutiny of their preferred systems.
  • This rhetorical strategy undermines the ability to discuss alternative power structures effectively.
The Importance of Alternatives:
  • The critique highlights existing alternatives, such as Rojava, Zapatistas, and other libertarian socialist movements, that demonstrate the viability of decentralized systems.
  • These examples show that revolutions can succeed without replicating authoritarian power dynamics.
Engaging with Differences in Power Flow:
  • A meaningful revolutionary discussion must address how power is distributed and revoked in different systems.
  • The critique points out that centralization inherently prevents grassroots control, leading to domination and counter-revolution.
Key Takeaway:
  • A failure to engage with these ideas results in perpetuating systems of domination and undermines the potential for transformative, decentralized revolutions.
  • Authoritarian leftists must address how their preferred systems differ structurally from the systems they oppose.
Engagement with Second Thought:
Critique of Second Thought’s Video:
  • The video is described as propaganda that lacks meaningful engagement with anarchist or libertarian socialist theory.
  • It is criticized for relying on recycled arguments that fail to address the structural concerns of power dynamics.
Failure to Address Anarchist Concerns:
  • Second Thought is accused of avoiding discussions about the construction and distribution of power in authoritarian systems.
  • The critique notes that this avoidance is common among authoritarian leftists, who dismiss decentralized approaches without engaging with their successes.
Invitation for Dialogue:
  • The creator invites Second Thought to respond or discuss the critique further, emphasizing a willingness for open conversation.
  • This reflects a desire for mutual understanding and debate, rather than outright dismissal.
Encouragement for Viewers:
  • Viewers are encouraged to watch Second Thought’s original video to assess whether the critique has fairly represented its arguments.
  • This approach emphasizes transparency and critical thinking in analyzing the content.
Call for Better Theoretical Engagement:
  • The critique highlights the need for substantive discussions about revolutionary theory, power structures, and the viability of alternatives to authoritarianism.
  • It expresses disappointment in the lack of depth and engagement from authoritarian leftist perspectives.
Final Remarks on Authoritarian Leftists:
  • The critique suggests that authoritarian leftists avoid engaging with anarchist ideas because doing so would force them to confront the flaws in their own systems.
  • It concludes that a deeper understanding of power structures and their alternatives is essential for any meaningful revolutionary project.
Key Takeaway:
  • The critique leaves open the possibility for productive dialogue while emphasizing the importance of theoretical rigor and practical examples in debates about authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:
Monkey D Theories

Monkey D Theories

‎
#55,087
#55,087
https://www.reddit.com/r/thepassportbros/s/OEmkt9f1Xi

this sub is a gold mine lol
Post automatically merged:

Think the idea of a passport bro is kinda crazy

like if you’re saying that all the women in your country are ass… maybe the problem isn’t the women lol
Post automatically merged:

Daniel said:
Definition of Authoritarianism:
Critique of Using a Dictionary Definition:
  • Dictionary definitions are based on common usage, which is often too vague or simplistic for political theory.
  • Political theory requires specificity and detail, and terms often have different meanings depending on the context or thinker.
Anarchist Definition of Authoritarianism:
  • Authoritarianism: The degree to which a power structure monopolizes the flow of power within an organization.
  • This typically involves centralization of power by a small group of individuals, reducing the influence of the people.
Distinction Between Authoritarianism and Centralization:
  • While centralization is often a component of authoritarianism, it is not synonymous with it.
  • Authoritarianism focuses on how monopolized power restricts the flow and control of decision-making.
Inclusion of Domination in Authoritarianism:
  • Domination: The use of coercion, violence, and deception to maintain a power structure.
  • In anarchist and libertarian socialist theory, domination is often folded into authoritarianism, as the two are typically intertwined.
The Relationship Between Monopolization of Power and Domination:
  • Monopolized power structures often catalyze domination through coercion and deception, making domination an inherent characteristic of authoritarian systems.
Second Thought’s Failure to Address This Conception:
  • The critique emphasizes that the nuanced anarchist definition of authoritarianism, which combines power monopolization and domination, was not adequately addressed in Second Thought’s video.
Examples of Authoritarianism:
Common Examples of Authoritarian Practices:
  • Large prisons or labor camps
  • Covert police forces
  • State-controlled media
  • Strongman leaders
  • Censorship
  • These examples highlight the use of monopolized power combined with coercion, violence, and deception.
Monopolization of Power as the Defining Factor:
  • Each example reflects a small group or body of power holders controlling societal functions.
  • Power flows from the top, limiting people's ability to influence decisions, which leads to authoritarian outcomes.
Coercion, Violence, and Deception as Core Elements:
  • The mechanisms through which authoritarian systems enforce control and maintain their power.
  • These elements are often hidden or justified as necessary to maintain order.
Relevance to Both Liberal Democracies and State Socialist Nations:
  • While typically associated with countries like USSR, China, or North Korea, these features also exist in liberal democracies such as the United States or UK.
  • This critique highlights that authoritarianism is not exclusive to one system but rather reflects structural power dynamics.
Second Thought’s View on Authoritarianism:
  • The video emphasizes that these examples are often criticized in socialist states while being ignored in liberal democracies, leading to a hypocrisy argument.
Argument from Hypocrisy:
  • The critique notes that pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t address anarchist concerns about systemic power structures.
  • Just because liberal democracies also engage in authoritarian practices doesn’t make such practices acceptable anywhere.
Critique of Liberal Democracies:
Authoritarian Practices in Liberal Democracies:
  • Liberal democracies like the United States, UK, and European nations exhibit authoritarian traits, such as:
    • Surveillance states
    • Policing systems
    • Censorship
    • Control of economic and political systems by elites
Blind Spots of Liberals:
  • Liberal critics often fail to acknowledge authoritarian practices in their own systems, focusing solely on socialist states.
  • Examples of such practices are frequently worse in liberal democracies but remain overlooked due to cultural bias or propaganda.
Argument from Hypocrisy:
  • Critiquing authoritarianism in socialist states while ignoring its presence in liberal democracies is a form of hypocrisy.
  • However, pointing out this hypocrisy does not address the core concerns of anarchists or libertarian socialists, as authoritarianism is still wrong regardless of who practices it.
Impact of Propaganda:
  • Western Red Scare propaganda has distorted public perceptions of socialism and exaggerated authoritarianism in state socialist nations.
  • The critique acknowledges that this distortion has led many to ignore authoritarian tendencies in liberal democracies.
The Validity of the Critique:
  • While Second Thought’s critique of liberal hypocrisy is valid, it does not fundamentally engage with anarchist concerns about structural authoritarianism across all systems.
Historical Propaganda and Red Scare:
Western Propaganda’s Role:
  • Western nations, especially during the Cold War, used Red Scare propaganda to discredit socialist and communist systems like the USSR, China, and North Korea.
  • This propaganda painted these systems as inherently authoritarian and ignored similar authoritarian tendencies in the West.
Distortion of Perceptions:
  • The critique emphasizes that many misconceptions about socialism and state-controlled systems stem from decades of biased portrayals and misinformation.
  • This distorted view leads people to equate socialism with authoritarianism without critical evaluation.
Acknowledgment of Propaganda’s Impact:
  • Second Thought accurately points out that distorted public opinions of socialist states are largely shaped by Western propaganda.
  • This distortion affects how people perceive authoritarianism and its sources.
Unaddressed Concerns:
  • While propaganda is acknowledged as a factor, it does not explain or justify the authoritarian practices seen in both socialist and liberal systems.
  • The critique highlights that propaganda does not excuse the structural issues that anarchists and libertarian socialists oppose.
Anarchist Perspective on Propaganda:
  • From an anarchist viewpoint, authoritarianism in both Western democracies and state socialist regimes is the result of centralized power, regardless of the narratives pushed by propaganda.
Critique of Authoritarian Left Ideologies:
Engels’ Essay On Authority:
  • The video heavily relies on Engels' essay, which argues that revolution inherently requires authoritarian methods (e.g., imposing will through force, violence, and terror).
  • Engels criticizes anti-authoritarian perspectives, claiming they misunderstand the nature of revolution.
Rebuttal to Engels:
  • The critique argues that Engels' definition of authoritarianism is a straw man, misrepresenting anarchist and libertarian socialist positions.
  • Anarchists do not oppose the use of force or violence in revolution but reject centralized, monopolized power structures.
Reproduction of Old Power Structures:
  • Authoritarian methods often lead to the reproduction of the old system, such as transitioning from feudalism to state capitalism.
  • Historical examples (e.g., USSR, China, North Korea) demonstrate that authoritarian revolutions result in state-controlled capitalism rather than true socialism or communism.
False Equivalence of Success:
  • The critique rejects the idea that creating state capitalism constitutes a successful revolution.
  • True revolutionary success involves decentralizing power and redistributing it to the people, as opposed to centralizing it under new leadership.
Alternatives to Authoritarianism:
  • Historical and modern examples of non-authoritarian movements (e.g., Rojava, Zapatistas, CNT-FAI) prove that revolutions can succeed without centralized authoritarian control.
  • These movements emphasize self-defense, mutual aid, and bottom-up organization.
Apologia for Authoritarianism:
  • Second Thought’s defense of authoritarian methods as “necessary” for revolution is seen as an attempt to justify the failures of state socialist regimes.
  • The critique highlights that authoritarian leftists often dismiss alternatives and erase non-authoritarian successes.
Examples of Non-Authoritarian Revolutions:
Historical and Modern Examples:
  • Rojava (Northeast Syria): A confederated, decentralized political and military system with a population of 2–3 million. Focuses on democratic autonomy and confederation.
  • Zapatistas (Chiapas, Mexico): An anti-authoritarian movement emphasizing self-governance, indigenous rights, and mutual aid, with a polity of 200,000–300,000 people.
  • CNT-FAI (Spanish Civil War): Anarchist and syndicalist collectives that implemented workers’ self-management and fought against fascism during the war.
  • Free Territories of Ukraine: A stateless society organized under anarchist principles during the Russian Revolution, led by Nestor Makhno.
Success Defined by Progress Toward Socialism:
  • These movements are seen as successful because they decentralized power and prioritized people-led governance, rather than re-establishing capitalism under state control.
  • They demonstrate practical implementations of anarchist and libertarian socialist principles.
Erasure of These Examples:
  • Second Thought is criticized for ignoring these non-authoritarian revolutions in his analysis.
  • The omission is framed as either ignorance or malice, as these movements directly counter the claim that authoritarianism is necessary for success.
Central Features of Non-Authoritarian Movements:
  • Bottom-up decision-making: Power flows from local communities or councils, rather than being imposed from the top.
  • Revocable delegation: Power can be immediately withdrawn if those in leadership abuse it.
  • Self-defense: Emphasis on protecting revolutionary gains without replicating authoritarian structures.
Critique of “Successful” Authoritarian Revolutions:
  • State socialist revolutions (e.g., USSR, China, Cuba) are seen as failures in anarchist terms because they merely transitioned to state capitalism, maintaining centralized control.
Key Lessons from Non-Authoritarian Movements:
  • These movements prove that decentralization, mutuality, and bottom-up approaches are viable, even in large-scale revolutions.
  • They counter the narrative that centralized authoritarianism is the only path to revolutionary success.
Libertarianism and Mutuality:
Libertarianism:
  • Defined as the degree to which social power is distributed among the people.
  • Opposite of authoritarianism, where power is centralized and monopolized at the top.
  • Focuses on empowering individuals and communities to make decisions directly and revoking power from those who misuse it.
Mutuality:
  • Described as the degree to which power structures rely on cooperation, self-defense, and free thought rather than coercion or domination.
  • Encourages systems where people collaborate voluntarily instead of being forced into compliance through violence or deception.
Contrasts with Authoritarianism:
  • In authoritarian systems, power flows downward from centralized authorities.
  • In libertarian systems, power flows upward from the people, emphasizing bottom-up governance.
Importance of Self-Defense:
  • Self-defense is a core principle of mutuality.
  • It distinguishes between the coercive violence of domination and the defensive violence used to protect people’s autonomy.
Practical Examples of Libertarianism and Mutuality:
  • Systems like Rojava and the Zapatistas demonstrate these principles through their decentralized and cooperative structures.
  • These movements maintain their revolutionary momentum by empowering people at the grassroots level to defend their autonomy and dissolve structures of domination.
Misrepresentation in Second Thought’s Argument:
  • Second Thought fails to acknowledge libertarianism and mutuality as viable alternatives to authoritarianism.
  • The critique highlights that libertarianism and mutuality are not about avoiding violence but about ensuring power remains with the people.
Structural Differences in Power Flow:
  • Authoritarianism: Power is concentrated at the top, with decision-making imposed on lower levels.
  • Libertarianism: Power originates from the bottom, and decisions are made through direct participation and revocable delegation.
Relevance to Revolution:
  • Libertarianism and mutuality prevent counterrevolution by decentralizing power and enabling communities to actively defend their autonomy.
  • This approach ensures that revolutions do not simply recreate oppressive structures under new leadership.
Misrepresentation of Anti-Authoritarianism:
Claim that Anti-Authoritarianism Is a Western Phenomenon:
  • Second Thought argues that anti-authoritarianism primarily stems from Western privilege.
  • He suggests that those in the "Imperial core" (wealthy Western countries) hold naive beliefs about avoiding authoritarian methods because they don’t experience oppression directly.
Rebuttal to This Claim:
  • The critique points out that anti-authoritarian movements have been global, not exclusive to the West.
  • Examples like the Zapatistas (Mexico), Rojava (Syria), CNT-FAI (Spain), and Free Territories of Ukraine demonstrate non-Western and non-privileged anti-authoritarian struggles.
Erasure of Non-Western Movements:
  • Second Thought’s argument is criticized for erasing the history of successful non-Western anti-authoritarian revolutions.
  • The Zapatistas (1994–present) and Rojava (2013–present) are active, large-scale examples of decentralized governance outside the West.
Evidence of Practical Viability:
  • These movements prove that anti-authoritarian principles work, even in regions facing extreme oppression or conflict.
  • They challenge the narrative that authoritarianism is the only path to survival or success in revolution.
Misrepresentation of Anti-Authoritarian Stances:
  • Second Thought implies that anti-authoritarians are against defensive violence, which the critique refutes.
  • Examples of anti-authoritarian movements show they actively use defensive violence to protect their autonomy without becoming authoritarian.
Critique of Privileged Perspective:
  • The critique highlights that many anti-authoritarian struggles arise in conditions of oppression and hardship, not privilege.
  • Second Thought’s framing disregards the realities faced by these movements and oversimplifies their motivations.
Conflation of Revolution and Authoritarianism:
  • Second Thought’s claim that all revolutions are inherently authoritarian is rejected.
  • Anti-authoritarian revolutions emphasize decentralization and grassroots empowerment, avoiding the centralization of power.
Key Takeaway:
  • Anti-authoritarianism is not a luxury of the privileged; it is a response to oppression and domination worldwide.
  • The misrepresentation of this stance as purely Western overlooks the real, ongoing struggles of decentralized movements globally.
Centralized vs. Decentralized Revolution:
Second Thought’s Argument for Centralization:
  • Second Thought argues that revolutions require centralized, authoritarian coordination to succeed.
  • He claims that decentralized approaches lack the cohesion needed to protect revolutionary gains and fend off reactionary forces.
Critique of Centralized Revolutions:
  • Centralized revolutions often lead to state capitalism, where power is concentrated under a new ruling class, rather than achieving socialism or communism.
  • Historical examples (e.g., USSR, China, Cuba) demonstrate how centralized revolutions replicate old systems of domination.
Examples of Decentralized Revolutions:
  • Movements like Rojava and the Zapatistas demonstrate that decentralized, bottom-up organization can succeed:
    • Decision-making is handled through local councils.
    • Power is revocable and temporary, preventing long-term centralization.
  • These examples show that revolutions can succeed without authoritarian control.
Bottom-Up Governance as a Model:
  • Decentralized revolutions are organized around confederations of councils, militias, and cooperative structures.
  • Power flows upward from local groups, ensuring accountability and preventing monopolization of power.
The Role of Self-Defense:
  • Decentralized movements incorporate confederated militias and systems of self-defense to protect their gains.
  • Examples include Rojava’s confederated military structure, which successfully resisted ISIS.
Critique of Authoritarian Framing:
  • Second Thought’s claim that all revolutions are inherently authoritarian ignores the structural differences between centralized and decentralized systems.
  • Decentralized systems avoid domination by keeping power distributed at the grassroots level.
Revolutionary Processes:
  • Revolutions often arise from bottom-up movements, where the people drive change before any centralized authority exists.
  • Centralized entities, like political parties, often step in after the revolution to consolidate power, retroactively claiming credit for success.
Key Takeaway:
  • Decentralized revolutions prioritize empowering the people and maintaining accountability, ensuring that revolutionary goals are not undermined by new authoritarian structures.
  • Centralized approaches often lead to counterproductive outcomes, reinforcing existing hierarchies under a new guise.
Call for Engaging with Power Structures:
Avoiding Substantive Engagement:
  • The critique accuses authoritarian leftists of avoiding discussions about how power structures are constructed and maintained.
  • By failing to engage, authoritarian leftists perpetuate systems of centralized control without exploring alternative methods.
Focus on Power Distribution:
  • Anarchists emphasize the importance of analyzing and understanding power structures.
  • The goal is to redistribute power to the people through decentralization and accountability.
Challenges of Authoritarian Thinking:
  • Authoritarian leftists often use arguments like Engels’ essay On Authority to justify their approach, without addressing how centralized power can lead to domination.
  • The critique argues that this reliance on outdated ideas prevents meaningful dialogue about creating truly egalitarian systems.
Necessity of Structural Analysis:
  • Revolutionary theory requires an understanding of how power functions within different systems.
  • This includes exploring how authoritarian power flows downward versus how libertarian power flows upward from the people.
Obfuscation of Political Terms:
  • The critique suggests that authoritarian leftists attempt to blur definitions of terms like "authoritarianism" to avoid scrutiny of their preferred systems.
  • This rhetorical strategy undermines the ability to discuss alternative power structures effectively.
The Importance of Alternatives:
  • The critique highlights existing alternatives, such as Rojava, Zapatistas, and other libertarian socialist movements, that demonstrate the viability of decentralized systems.
  • These examples show that revolutions can succeed without replicating authoritarian power dynamics.
Engaging with Differences in Power Flow:
  • A meaningful revolutionary discussion must address how power is distributed and revoked in different systems.
  • The critique points out that centralization inherently prevents grassroots control, leading to domination and counter-revolution.
Key Takeaway:
  • A failure to engage with these ideas results in perpetuating systems of domination and undermines the potential for transformative, decentralized revolutions.
  • Authoritarian leftists must address how their preferred systems differ structurally from the systems they oppose.
Engagement with Second Thought:
Critique of Second Thought’s Video:
  • The video is described as propaganda that lacks meaningful engagement with anarchist or libertarian socialist theory.
  • It is criticized for relying on recycled arguments that fail to address the structural concerns of power dynamics.
Failure to Address Anarchist Concerns:
  • Second Thought is accused of avoiding discussions about the construction and distribution of power in authoritarian systems.
  • The critique notes that this avoidance is common among authoritarian leftists, who dismiss decentralized approaches without engaging with their successes.
Invitation for Dialogue:
  • The creator invites Second Thought to respond or discuss the critique further, emphasizing a willingness for open conversation.
  • This reflects a desire for mutual understanding and debate, rather than outright dismissal.
Encouragement for Viewers:
  • Viewers are encouraged to watch Second Thought’s original video to assess whether the critique has fairly represented its arguments.
  • This approach emphasizes transparency and critical thinking in analyzing the content.
Call for Better Theoretical Engagement:
  • The critique highlights the need for substantive discussions about revolutionary theory, power structures, and the viability of alternatives to authoritarianism.
  • It expresses disappointment in the lack of depth and engagement from authoritarian leftist perspectives.
Final Remarks on Authoritarian Leftists:
  • The critique suggests that authoritarian leftists avoid engaging with anarchist ideas because doing so would force them to confront the flaws in their own systems.
  • It concludes that a deeper understanding of power structures and their alternatives is essential for any meaningful revolutionary project.
Key Takeaway:
  • The critique leaves open the possibility for productive dialogue while emphasizing the importance of theoretical rigor and practical examples in debates about authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
I support Monarchy
 
Last edited:
Roo

Roo

‎
#55,094
#55,094
Brush D. Teeth said:
You defined pro-war as a dog whistle against US support of Ukraine, did you not? Is it not what you think "pro-war" entails?
Click to expand...
Why do you keep deflecting and not answering my question?

My quote btw

“Pro war” is a dog whistle used to pushback against U.S support of Ukraine and a stupid caricature. Nobody is truly pro or anti war.
Click to expand...
It is pretty obvious that I don't believe in such things. Which is why I just point out the current use of the word. It's like asking me "Who is god?" because I mention it is usually used for the Abrahamic god. I'll just tell you there's no such thing.

Now answer my question
 
Brush D. Teeth

Brush D. Teeth

‎
#55,095
#55,095
Roo said:
Why do you keep deflecting and not answering my question?
Click to expand...
I think it's better if we finish discussing our first topic of conversation first before going on to other stuff.
It is pretty obvious that I don't believe in such things. Which is why I just point out the current use of the word. It's like asking me "Who is god?" because I mention it is usually used for the Abrahamic god. I'll just tell you there's no such thing.
Click to expand...
That's why you defined it as a dog whistle.
Now answer my question
Click to expand...
I can do that if I want it, of course, but it's not like I HAVE TO.
 
Toby D. Dog

Toby D. Dog

‎
#55,100
#55,100
P
Roo said:
“Pro war” is a dog whistle used to pushback against U.S support of Ukraine and a stupid caricature. Nobody is truly pro or anti war.

So I want him to define what he means by that.
Click to expand...
He uses it as a dog whistle sure. But you whitewash the legacy of the United States by pretending there is no such thing. I guess Raytheon isn’t really pro war, and Cheney didn’t have any other choice and we really needed to murder 300k Iraqis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top