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.
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.
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.