I think the problem I’m seeing is that you seem to be equating any use of force with authoritarianism.
You can have a revolution, restore the means of production to the commons, and then just not have a single-party state. You can deliberately distribute power among the working class. Use of force doesn’t require unchecked state power.
Use of force is by any state is unchecked state power, and having multiple parties does not imply democracy, nor make things more democratic.
But yes, I actually do support giving proletarian communists (specifically women and minorities) guns, so that the state can be terrorized into not making reactionary compromises that will lead to doom.
The rich aren’t a minority group, and the action you’re describing is literally the polar opposite of authoritarianism. If you have to redefine words to make an argument, you don’t have an argument.
Minority group - any group holding less power than the group exercising the majority of it.
Authoritarian - concentration of power into one or just a few ELITE members.
I agree with you, I believe. The difference being that the authoritarian nature be geared towards exclusively a group that is VOLUNTARILY JOINED and nothing else. If you want to own that much wealth, you get some fancy new governmental oversight and regulations. Congrats. I don’t believe that that has be “authoritarian” to the VAST majority of people. Well over 95%.
If the wealthy were willing to give up their wealth without the very real threat of violence against them, we would simply not be having this conversation and instead be discussing the appropriate levels of wealth with the wealthy. The existence of this debate implies that we have all - in some form or another - accepted that the wealthy need to be parted with their wealth against their will.
To achieve a society where all are free and able to live out their potential, regardless of the labels we put on this freer society, wealth redistribution is necessary. If we say the wealthy keep their wealth then we are describing a society where only the wealthy are free.
First, regarding recommoning the means of production: it’s not a single discrete thing, but rather a collection of economic and political policies and approaches.
Look into is Solidarity Economies: this is a term that bundles together worker cooperatives, housing coops, public banks, credit unions, and all the other structures that allow groups of people to cut investors out of the critical institutions on which we rely.
As for the other part: progressive taxation is not authoritarian and does not require authoritarianism.
Progressive taxation would be a bandaid solution in my opinion but, maybe I’m being dramatic. Solidarity economics sound great as a shift in production.
The point I suppose I failed to make. In order to reverse course and affect radical change, you would need to enact taxation policies (FBI style raids on penthouses, IRS investigations into corporations, ICE style black bagging of CEOs etc.) that would be heavy handed. The heavy handedness one would think of when a regular person, like myself, misuses the term “authoritarian”.
You’re right. A revolution is not going to be bloodless. Use of force requires moral compromises, and we probably won’t get there with our hands clean.
But: I think there’s a big difference between the contradictions we struggle to navigate as we strive to build a world without masters, and the choice to enthusiastically hand unchecked power to “good” masters who we naively expect to treat us well even when we have no means to constrain them or impose accountability.
Put another way, I can tolerate grey areas we’re reluctantly forced into if our goals are anti-authoritarian, because I believe that such a project would have a good chance of reigning in those excesses. But if we accept and embrace domination from the start, the outcome is inevitably that we all wind up under a boot. Does that make sense?
Great! I’m a billionaire and I’m going to start my own fascist party and buy out and flood every means of mass communication with propaganda for my party. I sure am glad you’re going to allow my legitimate political party to flourish.
I think the problem I’m seeing is that you seem to be equating any use of force with authoritarianism.
You can have a revolution, restore the means of production to the commons, and then just not have a single-party state. You can deliberately distribute power among the working class. Use of force doesn’t require unchecked state power.
Use of force is by any state is unchecked state power, and having multiple parties does not imply democracy, nor make things more democratic.
But yes, I actually do support giving proletarian communists (specifically women and minorities) guns, so that the state can be terrorized into not making reactionary compromises that will lead to doom.
Restore the means of production to the commons. I’ll have to see what that means concretely. I’m not familiar with the idea.
In my idea of how the government should be run, one would need to implement an extremely steep taxation structure.
That would adversely effect a minority group within the nation enacting those laws. I feel that this action as a consequence would be authoritarian.
The rich aren’t a minority group, and the action you’re describing is literally the polar opposite of authoritarianism. If you have to redefine words to make an argument, you don’t have an argument.
Minority group - any group holding less power than the group exercising the majority of it.
Authoritarian - concentration of power into one or just a few ELITE members.
I agree with you, I believe. The difference being that the authoritarian nature be geared towards exclusively a group that is VOLUNTARILY JOINED and nothing else. If you want to own that much wealth, you get some fancy new governmental oversight and regulations. Congrats. I don’t believe that that has be “authoritarian” to the VAST majority of people. Well over 95%.
Totally agree but, it would have to be aggressive in our current world. They will not willingly part with their wealth.
I’m assuming all options would be on the table for mitigating this level of greed. Obviously in an effort to get to a better society.
If the wealthy were willing to give up their wealth without the very real threat of violence against them, we would simply not be having this conversation and instead be discussing the appropriate levels of wealth with the wealthy. The existence of this debate implies that we have all - in some form or another - accepted that the wealthy need to be parted with their wealth against their will.
To achieve a society where all are free and able to live out their potential, regardless of the labels we put on this freer society, wealth redistribution is necessary. If we say the wealthy keep their wealth then we are describing a society where only the wealthy are free.
First, regarding recommoning the means of production: it’s not a single discrete thing, but rather a collection of economic and political policies and approaches.
Look into is Solidarity Economies: this is a term that bundles together worker cooperatives, housing coops, public banks, credit unions, and all the other structures that allow groups of people to cut investors out of the critical institutions on which we rely.
As for the other part: progressive taxation is not authoritarian and does not require authoritarianism.
Progressive taxation would be a bandaid solution in my opinion but, maybe I’m being dramatic. Solidarity economics sound great as a shift in production.
The point I suppose I failed to make. In order to reverse course and affect radical change, you would need to enact taxation policies (FBI style raids on penthouses, IRS investigations into corporations, ICE style black bagging of CEOs etc.) that would be heavy handed. The heavy handedness one would think of when a regular person, like myself, misuses the term “authoritarian”.
Well, I’ll give you some nuance then:
You’re right. A revolution is not going to be bloodless. Use of force requires moral compromises, and we probably won’t get there with our hands clean.
But: I think there’s a big difference between the contradictions we struggle to navigate as we strive to build a world without masters, and the choice to enthusiastically hand unchecked power to “good” masters who we naively expect to treat us well even when we have no means to constrain them or impose accountability.
Put another way, I can tolerate grey areas we’re reluctantly forced into if our goals are anti-authoritarian, because I believe that such a project would have a good chance of reigning in those excesses. But if we accept and embrace domination from the start, the outcome is inevitably that we all wind up under a boot. Does that make sense?
Agreed. I wouldn’t want to help create hierarchy I’m just seek rigid rules around wealth.
Great! I’m a billionaire and I’m going to start my own fascist party and buy out and flood every means of mass communication with propaganda for my party. I sure am glad you’re going to allow my legitimate political party to flourish.