Anyone who would rather keep the representation of PoC in media, especially within the fantasy genre, to a minimum is a racist. No sympathy.
I kind of feel like people, when presented with an opinion different from their own, are more likely to be considerate rather than defensive when it’s from someone anonymous. A person receiving an opinion different from their own will often react by looking at who said those things and trying to find things about that person so as to disregard and/or belittle their views. Of course, I could definitely be wrong, and I may just be trying to excuse myself for talking to people I agree and disagree with anonymously. I’m shy, so why would I want the interesting people I follow to know it’s me, some boring loser, who thinks their political views are lovely, or that the people mocking them for being trans or bi are fools? As for people I disagree with, I usually just want to present my perspective then move on, since, for me, it seems people learn from experience a lot more often than from arguments, especially ones online. Is using anonymous cowardly? I think it depends. Should I use it less? Probably, especially when I’m usually just trying to be nice.
exclusionary radical feminism isnt feminism at all so why do we keep calling it feminism? why dont we call it something more fitting, like “trash”
white disney fan:
there were no POC in medieval times so it would be inaccurate to have any POC in this fairytale movie!
points out that actually, there were
white disney fan:
UGH IT'S /FICTION/ IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE??
i mean, as an anarchist, could make a PARRALEL criticism of leninists, who believe ur gonna get full liberty by abolishing capitalism, and not the state
To summarize the ‘Marxist theory of the state’ on this point, it can be said that the Marxist classics have always claimed that (1) the state is the repressive state apparatus, (2) state power and state apparatus must be distinguished, (3) the objective of the class struggle concerns state power, and in consequence the use of the state apparatus by the classes (or alliance of classes or of fractions of classes) holding state power as a function of their class objectives, and (4) the proletariat must seize state power in order to destroy the existing bourgeois state apparatus and, in a first phase, replace it with a quite different, proletarian, state apparatus, then in later phases set in motion a radical process, that of the destruction of the state (the end of state power, the end of every state apparatus). - Louis Althusser
ohhh i didnt see this til now. okay louise get ready to call me a dirty anarchist: thats all pretty nice but its still a state
1. the state is unnecessary: people can organize themselves people can defend the revolution in voluntary organizations
2. it doesnt make sense to think that a state will abolish itself!!!! even the mythical “proletarian state”!! no state will ever conceivably abolish itself it hierarchy doesnt work that way
3. u cant have full liberty under a state no matter what, and its incredibly dangerous to set up a “revolutionary state” especially without democratic institutions u can look at literally any historical example of state socialism and see abuse by the state and police. ur gonna call it liberal bias but i mean those r historical facts idk what to tell ya. why is better to have “socialist” police beating and shooting people instead of liberal police. i dont see the difference
As I always say, I’d much prefer to live under a socialist state that guarantees the freedom from poverty and gives everyone access to healthcare, food, water, electricity, a home, transportation, a job (if able), etc., than to live in a stateless society with variables on my survival. Not to mention the fact that, in the event that the people were to “organize themselves,” we’re talking about quite the wait. Our system is designed to prevent just that.
Also, I’d like to add that a socialist state, in theory of course, could abolish racism, sexism, transphobia, and homophobia far more effectively than a society without a state.
okay im just gonna address ur last point cause that used to be my BIGGEST critique of anarchism, which is social issues.
so first, does the state currently in liberal democracy do any good with that. hardly. almost negligible. the liberal state tries to decree away social problems (only after YEARS of hard work by amazing citizens pressuring the government) and the results are pitiful. u can take the american civil rights movement as an example: poc in america are literally murdered in the streets by white people all the time, laws wrought in the 60’s have almost no effect.
next, what have u seen of socialist states? have socialist states ever rid themselves of these social ills? i could bring attention to lenins work of that sort, which gave women rights and jews and muslims protection, but stalin came around and reversed it all the USSR became HORRIBLY antisemitic like no good. similar things have happened in other socialist states, but laws cant force people to stop sucking hardcore
now like think of all the amazing groups of people who, comepletely independent of government, like the black panthers or feminists groups, who have done so much for their community and for the people they were defending. the state is never of any real help to them it is only ever a hindrance.
so i guess the last point is that now u gotta imagine a stateless society, where members of these groups arent being assinated by the state and hindered at every step of they way. theyd get SO MUCH MORE DONE theyd be able to get more support and help sO many more people without the state hounding and demonizing them
like i dont think this will fully convince u obviously im still formulating these thoughts but just think it over i think its a pretty valid critique of the whole thing
I think I can probably make a contribution at this point, answering some of the points that were raised earlier about the nature of the socialist state and what exactly Marxist would characterise as the state.
So, firstly, the argument that we don’t need a state. Well, in response to that, I would argue the primary use of the worker’s state is in the repression of the forces of capitalism. In essence it is a repressive body that is turned against the former oppressors. I make this point because to a Marxist, the true nature of the state is found in the act of class repression, when one class represses another. So when you make the point about people organising voluntarily to defend the revolution, if that defence takes the form of institutions (which can include direct democratic federations and other “non-state” forms) actively suppressing the restoration of class society, that is an act of state power, in a distinctly Marxist sense.
Another point that you made was about the whithering away of the state. While the socialist state is a repressive body (as it is the armed working class organised against the overthrown ruling class), it is engaged in the act of repressing a class which is disappearing. The power of the ruling class is being undone by the prolonged gains of the workers of the oppressed (which may be organised within or without of the “state”-form ; as you pointed out enormous gains can be made outside of the state form) and as such it is disappearing as a class. The new society which emerges, being a socialist one, is classless, or developing towards a state of classnessness, and as such no longer requires the state, because repression is not required. This is why Mandel in his book “The Marxist Theory of the State”, points out that the worker’s state both is and is not a state, for it has qualities of both. This contradiction is what causes it to wither away as the conditions and balance of class forces change.
So the Marxist argument for the state is not one rooted in a rejection of stateless-ness, rather it is a pragmatic position, forced by the actual process of making revolution.
On a final point, you pointed out that we need democratic institutions… I agree, as does Marx and the majority of the Marxist tradition. The institutions of the new state have to, as best as possible, reflect the actual needs of the oppressed by being composed of their institutions. The basis of the new society will need to be constructed in the neighbourhoods, the workplaces, the schools and the communes. It is simply in the act of their own self-defence that these structures become a “state. It is important to note, in this debate, that when confronted with the real structures and experiences of the Paris Commune, both Bakunin and Marx declared that this form, the commune form, would be the start of the new society. Bakunin saw that this form of organisation was organic, and not separate from the masses, indeed, it was the masses organised, and declared that it was not a state. Marx, saw that it was the oppressed, organised as a class, in the act of repressing the old order and defending their gains, and delcared that it was a state. So perhaps there are converging horizons, closer than those in both camps would like to admit.