So we’re to show no authority against billionaires and their enforcers (police) and validators (law workers/politicians) because it might go too far? Slippery slope claims tend to just reinforce the status quo since it stops people from doing anything functional. The status quo is definitively authoritarian.
Not saying that it has to, but is there an example of “without being generally authoritarian” out there in the wild somewhere? Because imo every country on earth uses authority to uphold some class structure and my country, even if we had all the things we wanted to make us happier (affordable housing, free medical care and education, public transit, etc) it would still show authority over the global south to maintain itself.
Iirc the Spanish and Ukrainian anarchists were doing a good job of that while fighting off fascists and monarchists before the communists stabbed them in the back.
Also the Zapatistas have some territories and practice direct democracy.
My line is you can use force, organised even, but don’t give the state a tool that can, and historically has been, turned on you
And I’m pointing out that history repeats itself when you don’t learn from it.
Just like the fascists of today are fucking shit up like the ones in 1920s-40s Europe, the auth left extremists would fuck shit up like the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
The horseshoe theory shitlibs trot out to defame the left may be bullshit (definitely is), but auth left oppresses people because it’s auth.
You just don’t get good things from a select group excessively controlling everybody, no matter which group that is and how good their initial intentions are.
People are OK with auth right. But auth left? Oh no, that’s not gonna happen. The military would coup the shit out of that real quick.
Auth Left is still inherently abusive.
No matter how much you pretend that it’s for the greater good, authoritarianism will always be detrimental to the relatively powerless masses.
Using authority against billionaires is good actually
Yeah, but it’s not like auth left stops there.
You can have egalitarian taxation and common sense regulations without being generally authoritarian, and you should.
So we’re to show no authority against billionaires and their enforcers (police) and validators (law workers/politicians) because it might go too far? Slippery slope claims tend to just reinforce the status quo since it stops people from doing anything functional. The status quo is definitively authoritarian.
Not saying that it has to, but is there an example of “without being generally authoritarian” out there in the wild somewhere? Because imo every country on earth uses authority to uphold some class structure and my country, even if we had all the things we wanted to make us happier (affordable housing, free medical care and education, public transit, etc) it would still show authority over the global south to maintain itself.
Iirc the Spanish and Ukrainian anarchists were doing a good job of that while fighting off fascists and monarchists before the communists stabbed them in the back.
Also the Zapatistas have some territories and practice direct democracy.
My line is you can use force, organised even, but don’t give the state a tool that can, and historically has been, turned on you
Oh I’m not pretending anything. Just saying that auth left would never get as far as Trump is getting.
History would very much disagree with you.
Not talking about history. Talking about what would happen today.
And I’m pointing out that history repeats itself when you don’t learn from it.
Just like the fascists of today are fucking shit up like the ones in 1920s-40s Europe, the auth left extremists would fuck shit up like the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
The horseshoe theory shitlibs trot out to defame the left may be bullshit (definitely is), but auth left oppresses people because it’s auth.
You just don’t get good things from a select group excessively controlling everybody, no matter which group that is and how good their initial intentions are.
“People” or Russian bots?