You must log in or register to comment.
As someone who used to identify as one; calling yourself a “Libertarian Marxist” is the stupidest shit.
To label yourself a Marxist is to imply that you have adopted Marx’s scientific method of socio-economic analysis, Historical Materialism.
If you believe that Marx was a Libertarian, the term “Libertarian Marxist” would be redundant.
If you believe that Marx was too “authoritarian”, “Libertarian Marxist” would be an oxymoron.
The term is a contradiction, which is why the only people who call themselves Libertarian Marxists today are Liberals who wish to adopt the aesthetics of radicalism; but are unable to escape from Bourgeoise propaganda surrounding actually existing Marxist revolutions, and Marxist States.
Eh, there are legit Libertarian Marxists, De Leonists being the prime example. Of course they use Libertarian as meaning anarchy-adjacent rather the American usage of the word. They also resolve the contradiction you bring up by believing that Libertarian Marxism is the dialectical synthesis of Anarchist and Marxist thought.
I think falling into “libertarian Marxist” sounds fuckin stupid, but I do appreciate his getting over the tankie phase. At least stan a country that doesn’t have an embarrassing record in the World Press Freedom Index (177th out of 180 lol) so you can adequately filter news that isn’t blatant state propaganda.
By relying on the extensive use of new technology, President Xi Jinping has succeeded in imposing a social model in China based on control of news and information and online surveillance of its citizens. At the same time, he has been trying to export this oppressive model by promoting a “new world media order” under China’s influence. China’s state and privately-owned media are now under the Communist Party’s close control while foreign reporters trying to work in China are encountering more and more obstacles in the field. More than 100 journalists and bloggers are currently detained in conditions that pose a threat to their lives. Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel peace laureate and winner of the RSF Press Freedom Prize, and Yang Tongyan, a dissident blogger, both died in 2017 from cancers that were left untreated while they were detained. Under tougher Internet regulations, members of the public can now be jailed for the comments they leave on news items posted on social media or messaging services, or even just for sharing content.
Out before the “Reporters Without Borders is some Western capitalist CIA op” canard gets tossed around (America is a pretty abysmally-ranked 43).
if you are basing your opinion of a country on World Press Freedom Index then idk what to tell you man. You’re gonna have an aneurysm when you find out what socialists plan to do with reactionaries and capitalist reporters
So what do socialists do with independent reporters? Is this a basic cop out that, “Yeah, China silences it its critics…for the greater good.” Shit is creepy…
And wtf is a “capitalist reporter”?
One, I’m not talking about China specifically, but socialist countries in general. Second, yeah, socialists do plan on silencing the press for the greater good. Reactionaries shouldn’t have a foothold in the media. Capitalists shouldn’t have a foothold in the media. If you can’t get on board with this very basic method of power-wielding then you’re not a good leftist, you’re a liberal that wants to play by liberal rules. Socialist governments have historically only survived with rightist-censorship and rightist-purges. It’s a hard truth but it’s something you’re going to have to accept if you really wanna upend the current order of things. There’s a reason Castro wasn’t overthrown while Allende was.
Not gonna answer that last question because it’s obvious.
So it’s akin to theology. Just gotta have “faith” that your representatives and leaders don’t have a shred of self-interest in their arsenal, and anyone that brings up criticisms is sent to the gulag.
Doesn’t inspire confidence.
I mean, yeah, the best we can do it hope the DOTP is founded by a dedicated group of revolutionaries that create the necessary structures to prevent overt abuses of power. This is true for literally all social projects in general. You need faith that your Union leaders don’t sell you out and take bribes from capitalists, you need to have faith your Catalonian anarchist commune doesn’t set up labour camps, you need to have faith that your Fred Hamptons of the world don’t work with the feds, you need faith for any sort of organization. You could maybe argue that we shouldn’t have these organized structures with leaders in the first place, but I find this argument to be pretty stupid considering disorganized, leaderless movements don’t have the track record that movements with Fred Hamptons do.
It’s not that I disagree with the conclusions, hell, you gotta take out your enemies and obstacles to make things happen, but as someone who’s not quite convinced that authoritarianism is the way to run things, it means I’d probably be offing myself before they send me to the concentration camp/gulag.
I won’t deny that 1) authoritarianism is not a desirable tool to use and 2) authoritarian socialist states more often than not abused authoritarianism on behalf of the ruling elites. Nobody wants the press to be censored, to be interrogated by a counterintelligence agent, or anything like that. But when the alternative to this dreaded authority is a right-wing coup (Allende), leftist purges (Pinochet), and the rolling back of any socialist policies (Nazis decollectivized Soviet farms), then authoritarianism is really the better alternative. It’s the paradox of tolerance.
Yes, this often results in abuse, and this is why it’s up to us to create structures that let us wield state power while stopping power-hungry dictators from using it for their own needs. I personally don’t really believe this is possible, since history seems to tell that as long as these mechanisms exist, they will be abused. But, the alternative to left-wing authoritarianism is right-wing authoritarianism. Pick your poison. I know what I choose.