Forwarded from ACAB includes Tankies
'Hierarchy, sexism and renunciation do not disappear with “democratic centralism,” a “revolutionary leadership,” a “workers’ state,” and a “planned economy.”
On the contrary, hierarchy, sexism, and renunciation function all the more effectively if centralism appears to be “democratic,” if leaders appear to be “revolutionaries,” if the state appears to belong to the “workers,” and if commodity production appears to be “planned.”
Insofar as the socialist project fails to note the very existence of these elements, much less their vicious role, the “revolution” itself becomes a facade for counterrevolution.
Marx’s vision notwithstanding, what tends to “wither away” after this kind of “revolution” is not the state but the very consciousness of domination.'
— Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism
On the contrary, hierarchy, sexism, and renunciation function all the more effectively if centralism appears to be “democratic,” if leaders appear to be “revolutionaries,” if the state appears to belong to the “workers,” and if commodity production appears to be “planned.”
Insofar as the socialist project fails to note the very existence of these elements, much less their vicious role, the “revolution” itself becomes a facade for counterrevolution.
Marx’s vision notwithstanding, what tends to “wither away” after this kind of “revolution” is not the state but the very consciousness of domination.'
— Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism
👍1
HOLD ON
Going
I think this explains, in a way, why conservatives in the modern era seem to be okay with suppressing knowledge, particularly of other viewpoints. If your moral standpoint is not one of "I want people to be better" and is rather one of (admittedly, in a flawed, often self-contradicting way) "I think people are generally better off fending for themselves" then you don't really NEED other people's experiences or perspectives, self-knowledge is enough.
Anyway, I know this argument has some flaws and that the phil majors among ye will eat me alive over it, but that's at least the concept, as far as it's bounced around my mind tonight.
Going
Armchair philospher mode
Been thinking a lot today about whether or not knowledge is a moral imperative or, in english, whether or not you have to acquire knowledge to be moral. The conclusion I came to? Well, it depends on your moral framework. If you're coming from a more liberal-minded, egalitarian mindset, then yes, absolutely. If you believe it's your moral duty to make the world better for others, then you MUST learn about the experiences of others in order to better them. If you don't believe in that sort of thing, than it isn't necessarily a need to learn more.I think this explains, in a way, why conservatives in the modern era seem to be okay with suppressing knowledge, particularly of other viewpoints. If your moral standpoint is not one of "I want people to be better" and is rather one of (admittedly, in a flawed, often self-contradicting way) "I think people are generally better off fending for themselves" then you don't really NEED other people's experiences or perspectives, self-knowledge is enough.
Anyway, I know this argument has some flaws and that the phil majors among ye will eat me alive over it, but that's at least the concept, as far as it's bounced around my mind tonight.