[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing] I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH
[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing] Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG
[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing] Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS
[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]
[a confused nazi asks] Why… why are they still arguing?
This "anti-authoritarian" recently called for mass execution of their enemies.
Me? Is this because I said the SS should have been executed?
Are you now going to argue that that isn't an authoritarian act because it was justified? Because, guess what, every "authoritarian" believes their actions are justified
Protecting Jewish and other minorities rights to live and safety is not an authoritarian act. It is in fact protecting the most vulnerable's liberty. Anti authorization is not lawless. You are a very weird little person and I have no interest in trying to convince you Nazis are bad. I hope you can figure that one out on your own
I believe what @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml is getting at is that all states are authoritarian, and that there are positive and negative uses of authority. Executing SS officers is a positive use of authority. Since all states are an extension of the ruling class, it is better for that ruling class to be the proletariat, rather than the bourgeoisie, and for the proletariat to use its authority to oppress the bourgeoisie and gradually sublimate capital until all production is collectivized, class ceases to exist, and by extension the state withers away, leaving only administration, management, etc.
No I'm pretty sure they pulled something from another post to try to misrepresent it because they're a bitter terminally online loser. That is a very generous interpretation though
I'm saying it because I've seen them make the same argument, as I have done myself, in different ways.
Their argument is that I'm not anti authoritarian. Afaict you're not making that argument. I'm not interested in fighting about what is or isn't a true Scotsman. This devolves quickly into if you believe in the government having any power, that's an endorsement of authoritarianism and now no one can be anti authoritarian if they believe in any kind of enforceable law.
My point is that being "anti-authoritarian" is meaningless unless you qualify that with how you wish to get rid of the state and class, as until you do, there will always be one class in control of the state that oppresses the rest. "Authoritarianism" as a thing does not exist, what exists is differences in how much a state exerts its authority, and that depends on which class is in control and which circumstances it is responding to.
As an example, both Nazi Germany and modern Germany are capitalist, bourgeois states. Modern Germany doesn't need to exert its authority as much as Nazi Germany because the Nazis came to power in economic crisis, where private ownership itself was in danger. Modern Germany is just as willing to use its authority as it has the same class character, but only does so to the extent it needs to, like crushing protestors for Palestine.
That seems to be your new point and again I don't care to argue what a "true about authoritarian" is. If you think me wanting the ss to have been executed after the Holocaust disqualifies me as anti authoritarian you're welcome to think that, I don't respect your opinion in that case. That was the conversation where you entered.
My point has been consistent throughout, a state wielding its power is authoritarian, but that can be a good thing. Labeling oneself as "anti-authoritarian" is usually a thought-terminating cliché to oppose socialists that support the use of the state against the bourgeoisie.
Then maybe you didn't read the conversation
Or maybe I did, and I disagree with your interpretation.