What authority is justified?

[KingOfSpades]

I think when it comes to critiques of the current system you won't find a better set of tools than Marxism.

However, I do think that Marxism (or any type of "ism" -- be it libertarianism, socialism, corporatism, etc.) really limits our ability to imagine world with real freedom in it.

I think the essence of freedom goes beyond any "ism" or any real path that has been outlined by theorists to date.

That being said, it's impossible to deny that under centralized statism, Russia, China and Cuba developed a much higher standard of living than they would have otherwise. But we shouldn't gloss over the pain, suffering, torture, and killings it took to get there. That's all part of history, as well.

For me, it's about values. My main value is that I never ever want to side with the executioner. It doesn't matter the reason why the executioner does what he does. We don't give life to anyone; we have no similar power to take it away, either.

In my imagination, I dream about a world without borders, laws, and governments and police. Self-reliance, responsibility, love and respect -- those are pretty much all you need to get along in this world, with anybody.

I act the way I would act in my ideal society, and I hope that over time people do the same in their own way as well. I make mistakes, but no one's perfect; you learn and improve, and you make new mistakes, and keep learning.

That's what it really means to smash the state -- people naturally evolve to the point where the state, of its own accord, withers away because it's no longer needed.

But you can't force the state to die. It will never die under threat of force. The Empire always strikes back. Indeed, the state is alive and well in Cuba, China and Russia, as it is almost everyone on this planet today.

My $.02

 

[Koba]

I think when it comes to critiques of the current system you won't find a better set of tools than Marxism.

However, I do think that Marxism (or any type of "ism" -- be it libertarianism, socialism, corporatism, etc.) really limits our ability to imagine world with real freedom in it.

I think the essence of freedom goes beyond any "ism" or any real path that has been outlined by theorists to date.

That being said, it's impossible to deny that under centralized statism, Russia, China and Cuba developed a much higher standard of living than they would have otherwise. But we shouldn't gloss over the pain, suffering, torture, and killings it took to get there. That's all part of history, as well.

For me, it's about values. My main value is that I never ever want to side with the executioner. It doesn't matter the reason why the executioner does what he does. We don't give life to anyone; we have no similar power to take it away, either.

In my imagination, I dream about a world without borders, laws, and governments and police. Self-reliance, responsibility, love and respect -- those are pretty much all you need to get along in this world, with anybody.

I act the way I would act in my ideal society, and I hope that over time people do the same in their own way as well. I make mistakes, but no one's perfect; you learn and improve, and you make new mistakes, and keep learning.

That's what it really means to smash the state -- people naturally evolve to the point where the state, of its own accord, withers away because it's no longer needed.

But you can't force the state to die. It will never die under threat of force. The Empire always strikes back. Indeed, the state is alive and well in Cuba, China and Russia, as it is almost everyone on this planet today.

My $.02

You criticize "isms" and then adhere to one religiously. Yours is called idealism (edit: and not in the Kersey sense!). Idealism involves choosing guiding principles, for whatever reason, and trying to work on applying those principles. If you don't call it idealism, but still utterly confine yourself to guiding principles, then it's still idealism.

I try to confine myself to a method. You try to confine yourself to principles. It's not much different, really. The only reason I think mine is better is because I believe that the world exists and develops independently of any one of us. While we can't be sure of that yet, it seems to be true, and so because of it I've reached the conclusion that it's of the utmost importance to understand the world and how it works.

To me, this is more important than principles. You might have wonderful principles, but if they don't correspond to the material world, then you're mainly benefiting yourself. If your principles really manage to benefit people, it's because you got lucky or because they correspond to the world in some way. Religion is a good example there- it found a base of support in the world, and so spread rapidly. Over time and on a wide scale, however, this base of support always overshadows the principles that founded it, so materialists when again for being able to see what that material basis is. Idealism would still be right, however, if life were all a dream, if there is a god who actively intervenes in the world to the point where a scientific outlook is invalid, etc. I think what you're really trying to say is that materialism is wrong and idealism is correct. Your beliefs and methods of analysis are still as systematic as the next person.

Executions are horrible. Allowing reactionary forces to crush the USSR early on and never getting that doubling of lifespan would have been more horrible. Nothing is beyond criticism, but I have no doubt about where the "greater good" is.

The world is a depressing place, in many ways. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't what will change that, though.

Edit: Let's expand a bit more... imagine the world with real freedom? I honestly don't try to do that. So maybe you're right- I am limited, because I'm not going to try to say what a world could look like without basing it on what the world has been like. I "limit" myself to reality, so what I can say about certain things is very limited too

Marx, though, said very little about socialist countries. You could say he limited himself to imagining what a socialist society would be like. This was because there were no socialist countries, there had never been socialist countries, so he could only make vague stipulations, which he mostly avoided doing. However, he was dead on about the fact that socialist societies would arise, and his ideas helped people get there, even if they still had to figure the majority of what to do once they got there.

 

[KingOfSpades]

You appear to be arguing (but definitely correct me if I'm wrong) that violent overthrow of a regime by a vanguard is in all instances appropriate in order to cause material progress. I don't think that's true. Like I said before, Marx had great critiques of our economic system. However, the provided solution strikes me as little more than a way of exchanging tyranny for tyranny.

I don't think there's anything really revolutionary about what the Russians, Chinese, or Cubans did honestly. In all three instances you have a "bottom-up" revolution whereby the people without power overthrew a very tiny elite who had all the power. And I have grave concerns about the cults of personality that arose in all three places, which is undeniable.

Furthermore, it is clear that in many instances the leaders did a lot to damage society, and not raise the quality of life. It is undisputed that Stalin killed 25,000,000 Ukranian peasants and millions more during his obsession with collectivizing farmland. Mao killed millions during the famines caused by the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, as merry trees pointed out earlier. This is material progress? The American system has its problems but there have never been famines here, as far as I know.

I think a place with really fascinating revolution is Bolivia, whereby the indigenous people are finally in power and trying to do their best to make a more equitable distribution of wealth. They have done this through the ballot box, and from what I know of their leader (Evo Morales) he is committed to using democratic institutions as a way of causing real reform. I think this a good example of making lasting changes for the better without the need for violence, but it's too early to tell honestly.

I guess it boils down to the fact that in my opinion, when people start talking about vanguards, they inevitably insist that they should be leading that very vanguard. No one ever talks about ending vanguards, ending authority, ending the need for shepherds and sheep.

I'm not going to deny that the method of Marxism gets people into power. It's worked in a lot of places. But I'm also not going to deny that once in power, these very same people do not promote freedom and oftentimes kill millions of people as well. There's already plenty of death and war on this planet as it is -- why add to it? What difference does it make if we kill people for democracy, or for progress? The suffering is the same, even if the reasons we make to justify the bloodshed are as numerous as the stars.

EDITED to add: I think in these types of discussions it's always very valuable to emphasize similarities in points of view as well as differences. I think it is telling that from what I can tell, you and I both agree that there are serious problems with the status quo, and even look to Marx and his writings as a way of critiquing them. That is a lot in common! And from earlier in the thread it appeared you also agreed that education was an important tool in furthering the end to various types of oppression. I think that's great that we seem to see eye-to-eye on a lot of things as well.