For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Community: "free of ML influence"
or "I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE ANARCHISTS DOING TERROR ATTACKS ON THE MARXIST-LENINISTS SAVING US FROM FASCISM!"
What a lack of Marxism-Leninism and historical materialism does to a mf. Literal kindergarten level leftism. These are the same people who will argue that it's the Bolsheviks ackchually who made it possible for fascists to win the Spanish civil war by repressing anarchists (no sources provided)
"Producing complex medicine like insulin is actually tankie because supply chains are authoritarian.
☝️☝️☝️🤓🤓🤓"
Edit: Or an even better deranged idealist take that I have actually seen in the wild (/gen not trolling) "We need to liberate ourselves from the oppressive concept that is time"
The way we think about time down to precise seconds is very much a result of the oppressive structure of capitalism. I wouldn't mind going back to a time were noon was just noon and not some specific clocksignal. Time in general though? That's silly.
Also being a type-B person is like a light disability due to the way we've constructed society
timekeeping is a tool of capitalist oppression and shit like not adjusting work hours like people did before electric lighting should be a crime.
Taylorism is the devil, and the embrace of it by the Soviets was the start of revisionism.
I'd argue that being able to optimize your workflow can be crucial if, say, you're being invaded by genocidal fascists and your very survival depends on being able to produce large numbers of tanks and aircraft quickly.
Taylorism was embraced and made central to soviet understanding of communism before Hitler had become head of the nazi party.
But not before 15 different countries intervened in their civil war on behalf of their enemy.
I mean you can look at Lenin's justification for taylorism yourself if you want.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm
Given that building socialism requires having the productive capacity to maintain armed forces capable of deterring the hostile foreign powers that want to strangle your movement in the crib, I'd say Lenin was right.
At no point is his argument for taylorism built around the invasion of the allied and central powers.
Nonetheless, the outcome remains. Even if his reasoning was wrong, he arrived at the right answer.
The USSR is no longer around and the primary espouser of Taylorism in the USSR was purged in 1939.
Are you seriously arguing that if the USSR had just never dabbled with Taylorism, it would still be around today?
I have no way of knowing. I am merely telling you your utilitarian argument of justifying something solely by looking at the results is flawed. Given that the outcome was bad.
How else are we supposed to justify things?
Is that a serious question? I don't want to sound condescending if it is. But it's just a very odd question. We are literally discussing a text now that is justifying something without a priori knowledge of the outcome. Or do you mean it in the broader sense of everything is justified solely by arguing for a potential outcome or looking to am achieved outcome? Because that's... i don't know man, like consequentialism is a fine enough philosophy but it's just odd to believe it's the only school of thought.
It is, as far as I know, a necessary part of materialist thought. It's why the common refrain of "that wasn't real capitalism" is laughable, because it appeals to some ethereal platonic ideal of capitalism rather than looking at how the system manifests itself in and impacts the real world.
Okay i don't know when people decided that insulin was the argument against anarchism or degrowth on the left but you gotta stop, it's wrong. Like it's wrong to a degree that is genuinely annoying.
There are a lot of medications, including diabetes related medication, which requires enormously complex industrial processes to produce, but you can make home chemistry insulin. In fact we used to make that stuff with equipment that was less advanced than what we have in high school chemistry labs. You need that and a good size mammal you can either acquire cheaply or breed quickly like, for example, dogs (DO NOT LOOK UP THE HISTORY OF INSULIN IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO ANIMAL CRUELTY).
It's an argument against anprims and twitter-anarchists. However
There are billions of people in the world. In order to produce the amount of equipment, even simple equipment (glasses is my go-to example) for it to be available to all who need it everywhere, then you need complex supply chains. The alternative is a utopian idea of yeoman communities each somehow having access to all the raw materials needed to produce everything, as well as time and knowledge and equipment needed to:
For every community everywhere.
On top of that, the idea is that each person does this voluntarily and on their own, whilst still taking care of their own basic needs of food, shelter and so on. And that's just for insulin. Extrapolate it for every medicine, every aid to the disabled, and everything which needs some sort of processed good.
In order to make clean drinking water for millions, you need chemicals at an industrial scale and a lot of work-hours. Or you need vast swathes of land to make root-filtration as well as maintenance. What about power? Okay you need a generator, where do you get that? In this utopia you either make it yourself or a member of your community does. Where do you get the resources, the fuel, the knowledge and so on? What about the billions of other people, millions of other communities?
The argument isn't that it is impossible for a person to make glasses or insulin or living off the grid.
The argument is that the scale at which this needs to be done for everyone who needs it, is impossible without complex supply chains - which require some sort of organizing authority.
This is not an argument against anarchism, I assume there's plenty of anarchist theory that actually treats these issues. It is an argument against the idealistic anarchism that is typical of the online Western left.
Insulin is just a good example for this.
No, insulin is a terrible example and so is glassware. Glassware, especially specialised glassware, was famously one of the last holds out of artisan craftsmanship against industrialised processes.
You are arguing with a strawman, and you are arguing using an example that fits their argument best. Your example is bad.
Brilliant reading comprehension my guy.
I guess all the examples I presented for why disappear. I guess I also somehow argued for general glassware rather than mentioning eyeglasses and then going in detail for chemical-grade glassware for the production of insulin for millions. Seeing as how you consider these arguments bad, let me present ones that equal the ones you present.
Nuh-uh, they're good.
I was not aware this was how arguing was done well, so thank you for enlightening me. I also appreciate knowing that complex supply of all the resources, knowledge and so on needed to produce insulin for everyone who needs it disappears because you say so. Wish you'd use that power for better stuff than formatting a response to a guy online.
I starten nød jeg at du præsenterede heterodoxe idéer, men med tiden er det blevet tydeligt du bare er en tumpe med en træls adfærd. Du er dårlig til at engagere dig med tekst og folk der er uenige med dig, og din vidensbasis er langt under hvad du lader til at tro den er. Så nu blokerer jeg dig. Det er en skam, til at begynde med var dine tendenser en frisk brise, men med tiden er du blevet til en uduelig knark. Håber du vokser ud af det.
Being this offended about my reply isn't impressive. Plenty of people get mad, you're not special. Your point is about the need for spcialised industrial labor and your examples are a thing that can be made with relatively simple tools and animal agriculture and the actual last refuge of artisan craftsmanship. I just don't know what to tell you, you want to argue for industrialistion and you chose two bad examples, and being mad that this is highlighted won't change that.
it's the argument against anprims
Someone post a instance that doesn't want to be oppressed by the concept of reality.