this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
88 points (95.8% liked)
Slop.
753 readers
438 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You made a pretty strong statement, I gently expressed that I hadn't seen anything to corroborate that statement, then you spoke down to me and linked a video essay. After I said I had seen it already, you dipped, then acted like I was acting irrationally and that you riled us up.
You're right, you don't owe anyone a debate, and I wasn't looking for one there either, but you didn't have to talk down to me when we both know I came to Marxism from anarchism and am thus familiar with the usual arguments against Marxism from the anarchist perspective. It's unwarranted.
I like they're trying to play it cool now ๐๐
Sorry but when you say "I haven't seen a good refutation", and then mention you've actually seen at least one refutation, you're effectively disrespecting that one refutation (i.e. Anark's) therefore, you deserve as good as you give. That's my perspective of it.
Yes, I dip, because I very clearly rile people in here up and I am not in the mood to enable in the usual hexbear pile-on. And yes, if you remain in defense of some argument I, and every other anarchist, considers laughably bad and many-time refuted, I will treat you as irrational.
I'm not "disrespecting" the refutation, I just said I didn't think it was a particularly compelling argument. Further, you were the one that told me I must not be looking hard enough before I had even said I didn't think Anark's video was particularly good. It's certainly long, but thankfully I don't need to point out why the whole video isn't great, but just respond to Anark's pinned summary:
This is just redefining what authority is. Engel's arguments are about the necessity of some hierarchies, something anarchists took issue with and he responded to.
-Organization is not authority
See point 1.
-Authority is a structural relation based in monopolization of power
See point 1 and 2, but then we get into the question of monopolization of power, which is the only meaningful point made by Anark. Engels isn't talking about removing power from the working class, but recognizing necessary roles with hierarchy baked-in, which he gave examples for. Anark draws a distinction here, though, and minimizes the impact of class struggle and democracy.
-Authoritarians need to learn about how power works
Kinda teeters into idealism here.
Overall, not really impressed with Anark's argument, it's mostly him pretending Engels was arguing against a strawman and inserting Anark's own definition of authority.
Okay? Go for it, if you want to do that rather than try to have an actual conversation, that's your choice, but you shouldn't be surprised if that very behavior is what returns it to you.
You originally said you haven't seen a good argument. That means either you haven't looked (what I originally assumed), or you think that a clearly well-thought argument is objectively bad (therefore, disrespect)
not going to rehash on authority, but at this point bringing it up as a valid thing is like bringing up flat earth. I'm not even going to waste my time with it when anarchists have been pointing out how laughable it is since Engel's time.
People don't deserve pile-ons because they're not in the mood or don't have the time for endless arguments online.
I said I hadn't seen a good refutation, not that nobody put thought into refuting it. I'm not denying Anark's effort, just the quality and correctness of the points. Doubling down and comparing me to a flat earther is the kind of behavior that gets you piled-on. The fact that anarchists have been laughing at On Authority isn't a compelling refutation of the points Engels brings up on the necessity of certain hierarchies in production and distribution.
Sure, but calling people flat earthers and stupid is a good way to invite that upon yourself.
I get piled on whatever I do mate, that's just what hexbears do
I don't get piled on by Hexbear users, even though we have a lot of anarchists, and I don't see anarchists getting dogpiled here either, assuming they aren't bringing an antagonistic energy to begin with. I can empathize with being pre-emptively defensive, but at some point you have to accept that that brings more dogpiling.
Oh please, I got my first dog pile in my own anarchist comm for not engaging their debate perverts. There's a reason hexbear is widely defederated and it's not because people are afraid of them. It's because most of their members behave like a toxic clique to the point that I've seen ND hexbears publicly express how terrified they are about misstepping and having the rest turn on them.