Yes. Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?

In the ole socialist definition of “state”

I use the "Monopoly on violence" definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)

Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.

They just did it for fun, wasn't like there was fascist and imperialist forces right?

How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?

Democratic centralism, but it will have beraucrats until the state abolished capitalist force. The party bureaucrats debate internally and acts in unison. You can freely join the party. It's deliberate to keep non marxist/people that think capitalism is good, outside. It's based. Read "What is to be done" from Lenin.

How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things?

Not what Engels or I am saying? The "decision" or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.

Doubly so if there’s a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?

Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It's this abstract that Engels is referencing

UBI

A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say

Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing. UBI also comes at the cost of consolidating various social spending in order to create more dependency and have only one front of negation to deal with as a capitalist

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?

Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that's because the Rothschilds don't want you to succeed. Couldn't be because the plan was shit.

I use the “Monopoly on violence” definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)

There's no monopoly on violence in Anarchism.

Democratic centralism.

Have you actually read Lenin. That's not a method to organise a society, it's a method to organise a party. All it basically bogs down to "Once the party has made a decision, party members are to stop arguing and get to work implementing it". It has numerous problems when it comes to de-facto centralisation of power, as well as inability to address and correct decisions that were, or have become, wrong.

The “decision” or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.

That's literally the authority of the shoe-maker. Being a specialist and therefore trusted to make expert decisions is not the same as having power over people. Anarchists freely bow to the shoe-maker when it comes to matters of shoe production, but not when it comes to where to walk with them.

Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It’s this abstract that Engels is referencing

No they're not bound by that decision. There's plenty of reasons why one would want to change their mind.

A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say

It takes power away from capitalists by giving the labourer the option to walk away from job offers they don't like. It is not a total overhaul of the system, true, but you should be able to appreciate the juicy irony of fighting capitalist power with market mechanisms.

Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing.

People need more to live than housing, also, you're being paternalistic. "Here, live in this place, eat this stuff". What if I want to take the same amount of resources and live in another place, and eat different stuff?

[–] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that’s because the Rothschilds don’t want you to succeed. Couldn’t be because the plan was shit.

Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with "Rothschild's"?

As far as I now the soviet union went from feudalism to a space traveling nation. Similarly the rise of China is impressive af. Cuba despite it's sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US. etc.

How many anarchist non-state states exist? Rojava? Tell me how their dealing with capitalist imperialist forces is going

There’s no monopoly on violence in Anarchism

Idc. I tell you how I use the term. It ssimilarly a wide category that encompasses disciplinary measures inside anarchist organization.

authority of the shoe-maker

Brother in Christ why are you so dense about this and not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could've meant and try to view from that lense (not necessarily having to adopt it)

People need more to live than housing, also, you’re

Agree and it's the socialists states duty to serve these interests

being paternalistic. “Here, live in this place, eat this stuff”.

I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with “Rothschild’s”?

Nah I'm more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism, dunno whether you share it it's not a universal. Could've just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. "Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we're falling behind, they're exerting authority over us" give me a break no they're not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.

higher life expectancy than the US.

Yeah saying "we're better off than the US" is just as convincing as American saying "we're better off than Haiti". Darn low bar. Do better.

not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could’ve meant

Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels? Why isn't he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn't argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.

I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.

Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money. In one case you can consume those goods, in the other you can choose which goods you consume. You can forego expensive food for a while to save up for canvas and paintbrush, if you so please. You can choose whether you spend the money included for purposes of recreation to travel to a metal concert, the opera, or a beach bar. You can choose to spend that recreation money on better food or a new hammer, if you so please.

Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it's still miles better than "work for a boss or starve", or "work for a boss or don't get to choose your meal". Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[–] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nah I’m more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism

Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king

Could’ve just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. “Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we’re falling behind, they’re exerting authority over us” give me a break no they’re not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.

What no theory does to a mf

Yeah saying “we’re better off than the US”

Do you even read? I said "Cuba despite it’s sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US" Qualitative different statement

Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels?

Because he's dead?

Why isn’t he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn’t argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.

"Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine"

Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money

It's paternalistic still? The economic base is capitalist and has a welfare superstructure. The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.

Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it’s still miles better than “work for a boss or starve”, or “work for a boss or don’t get to choose your meal”. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you're basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king

Anti-semitism like this.

“Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine”

It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There's a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.

The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.

The employer also doesn't get a say. The citizen overall, though, does get a say (in liberal democracies at last), as to how large the universal allowance is. The Labourer outnumbering the employer in the liberal democratic process thus gives an overall tilt towards the labourer, the ability to ensure that it's large enough to be able to tell bosses "Shove it, I quit".

Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you’re basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful

On what? Housing? People spend it on housing. They can pool it into cooperatives, no issue there regarding economies of scale.

[–] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There’s a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.

It is if you expand the definition of salad.. how are you not understanding this??

I'm ending this conversation as it's pointless.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Anti-auths don't have any issues with caprese We do have issues with fruit salads, though.

...or something along the lines I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don't have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese. But you'll get it, eventually, as long as you stop confusing stuff by equivocating.

[–] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don’t have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese.

You're such a joke

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I lost track, you never noticed you had none from the start,, we're not the same.