I canât avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position⊠How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.
You clearly hold a position, otherwise we wouldnât be here going back and forth. Youâre going to have to submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known. You canât argue against something, without arguing for something. What are you arguing for? Is your position (as Iâve assumed) that authoritarian government is bad?
Iâm not going to watch your video. You need to make your arguments for yourself. No one else can.
I have absolutly no idea what âMarxism-leninismâ is, so this label means nothing to me.
Marxism-leninism is the dominant communist tendency in the world, and the tendency of the Lemmygrad instance this post is in.
Itâs not weird that youâre not familiar with it as such; education in the West is super anti-communist.
You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian.
Yes. Thatâs my point! Marxism-leninists hold authoritarian (here Iâm using it to mean âthe state monopoly on violenceâ or âthe oppressive power of the stateâ) means as a necessary tool.
You canât seize the means of production without fighting the owners for it (a revolution) and you canât hold onto that means of production without continuing to defend against capitalism/the owner class. Once that class contradiction has been removed (by oppressing the bourgeoisie out of existence), and once foreign capital isnât fighting for control of your society. You can drop the use of state oppressive power - because itâs not a tool you need anymore!
Holy shit, bro actually linked CPG Grey as a source. The dude notorious for making videos based on a single book/source, and deliberately ignoring criticism of that book when making his videos. The video in question splits ârulersâ into âdemocratic rulersâ and âauthoritariansâ and makes no attempt to actually define these terms. Essentially, it argues that a ruler has a certain number of âkeysâ that they need to keep happy in order to stay in power (the people, the military etc.) and that democracies are democracies and authoritarian dictatorships are authoritarian dictatorships and one cannot be halfway between them lest it collapse or something. Dude is the epitome of the smug reddit intellectual who reads a single source and believes themselves to be an expert on a topic they didnât know existed 5 minutes ago. Only difference is Grey makes videos rather than reddit posts.
If that isnât enough, he also said that the Monarchy in the UK shouldnât be abolished because of âtourism.â Yeah.
Thanks for explaining the video! Iâm now very happy I didnât watch it đ
Itâs not very long, so it wouldnât be a huge waste of time, but it does the standard âlib theoryâ thing of simplifying everything into binaries to the point of meaninglessness, then trying to retrofit reality onto their binary. Itâs worth a watch if only to see how this stuff looks when it is presented in a âslickâ sort of way, and is superficially convincing, but only to those that agree with the core premise that societies can be split into âdictatorshipsâ and âdemocracies.â
