anonymous asked:

You say authoritarian socialism is impossible, but then what would you call the USSR or similar states?

tbh you’re misunderstanding me. my point is that socialism can’t be anything but libertarian. even the most violent revolutionary form of socialism can be justified by and situated within libertarianism, even the most “authoritarian”-seeming socialist practice is a response to power dynamics that make it an essentially libertarian project. that obviously isn’t to say there aren’t non-socialist responses as well that might be considered authoritarian, but that genuine socialism in my mind can’t be considered authoritarian in any meaningful sense without a good amount of decontextualization and ahistorical nonsense.

i’ve talked about this a bit before but you can actually justify a revolutionary socialism with the non-aggression principle if you put it in these terms and undermine the arguments of “libertarian” capitalists, which is the reverse impossibility, as capitalism is inherently authoritarian and cannot be anything but authoritarian.

Freedom Supporter: “People have the right to do whatever they want as long as they respect the rights of others. People who are not hurting anyone else do not deserve to be treated like criminals.”

Ass-Kissing Authoritarian: “You don’t have the right to break the law. The law is the law. If you break the law, even if your actions cause no harm to others, you deserve to be treated like a criminal, because you are one.”

Freedom Supporter: “Are you saying that something being legal makes it right, and something being illegal makes it wrong?”

Ass-Kissing Authoritarian: “Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s what it means for something to be a law. Don’t like it? Too bad.”

Freedom Supporter: ”If that’s the case, why even go through the trouble of passing laws in the first place? Just repeal all laws, and we’d live in a perfect utopia where no one ever does anything wrong.”

Ass-Kissing Authoritarian: “That’s ridiculous. You really think no one would do anything wrong? Without laws, people would be able to murder and rape whenever they want.”

Freedom Supporter: ”Of course people would murder and rape if there were no laws against it. But it would be legal, so there’d be nothing wrong with it.”

Ass-Kissing Authoritarian: “How could you even say that? Without laws, people would have to live in constant fear of someone murdering or raping them. We can’t let that happen. That’s why we have laws.”

Freedom Supporter: ”Are you saying that you first decided whether something is right or wrong, completely independent of what the law currently is, then said that laws should be created to match that? Are you saying that you first decided that people who hurt others deserve to be punished, completely independent of what the law currently is, then said that laws should be created so they get the punishment that they already deserve? Because that’s what I’ve been saying all along. Deciding what rights people have comes first, then laws should be created only to protect those rights. If you have to use the fact that something is illegal as a reason to believe that people don’t have the right to do it, then people do have the right to do it and it shouldn’t be illegal.”

Ass-Kissing Authoritarian: “That just went in one ear and out the other. Logic is not my strong point.”

anonymous asked:

Reading the ask about the "english class anon" made me remember something myself. Sat and waited for my teacher to show up when I heard in a classroom closeby a teacher saying criticizing the government are dangerous thoughts and that people should refrain of doing that. Am I in the wrong to think that is some fucked up shit to say? (Oh yes, I live in tumblr-land aka Sweden)

That is wrong. It’s outright authoritarian.


CNN’s Brian Stelter exposes the fascistic nature of Trump and Press Sec. Spicer spouting lies to the press and intimidating the media through a series of ESSENTIAL questions.

Look, I know that we can all list off a million and one ways the current news media is garbage and problematic. But they are still our last imperfect line of defense from Trump’s authoritarianism and he is trying to dismantle it. The danger in that is clear.

anonymous asked:

As Marx aged, did he become more libertarian or authoritarian?

tbh i dont think these are terribly useful words for marx or even socialism

  • me: I'm an anarchocommunist
  • me: I believe in the abolition of nation-states
  • me: I'm also antifascist, definitionally, as I don't agree with nation-states.
  • me: I hate nazis. I will fight them in any way possible, just as they will murder millions to create authoritarian nationstates which will harm the people brutally with any dissent.
  • me: ... Okay, for starters buddy, pal, fuckjob, fascism requires a strong nation, it relies on nationalism, I very clearly disagree with nation-states. I definitionally can't be fascist, but apparently you never learned what this meant
  • me: secondly I have no government power to silence freedom of speech, I'm using my freedom of speech to fight nazi fucks, you're uncomfortable with this because you're a nazi-supporter, very clearly, lmao
  • me: and thirdly, I will break all the starbucks windows, I'm antistarbucks, get fucked.