For clarity, you are referring to dialectics in the traditional Greek sense
Yes, in the sense that a good faith conversation between people of opposing understandings of the world can lead to a synthesized, higher understanding.
The facts and evidence need to be indisputable.
Would a source be automatically untrustworthy if it disputes your claims? If a source reports that Russia is currently undertaking an aggressive campaign of hybrid warfare in Europe, or if it claims that Russia is an authoritarian regime currently engaged in a war of choice and aggression in Ukraine, what could make you take that source seriously? Would that mainly be if the source is sponsored by a communist state?
Authoritarian is a largely meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.
Does it make sense to distinguish the degree of authority that a state wields over its citizens? And by extension, does it make sense to distinguish to which extent citizens can act to hold the state accountable for its actions?
Does it make sense to distinguish the degree of authority that a state wields over its citizens
Not particularly no. More or less authority is largely inconsequential in comparison to the actual important question of class character of the state. Authority of who wielded against who, for what purpose. A workers state that violently represses fascists and the bourgeoisie and a fascist state that violently represses labour organisations are both “authoritarian” however I hope you can agree in reality in every way that matters are in fact diametrically opposed.
does it make sense to distinguish to which extent citizens can act to hold the state accountable for its actions?
Yes but this is not a question of authority but again of class content. For example China is “authoritarian” but we have for more control over our state than for example Amerikans or the British.
Authoritarian obscures for more than it explains and is so broad as to be largely useless for meaningful analysis thus leading it in the modern day of hegemonic liberalism and capitalism to being used as shorthand for “enemy of the EuroAmerikan hegemony” much like regime.
I reject your stated symmetry between fascists and workers. Fascists are inherently violent, workers are not.
A state which only violently represses the violent is far less authoritarian than a state which violently represses a peaceful political group. This distinction is extremely consequential to the inhabitants of said state.
Maybe I worded it poorly but the fact there is no symmetry was sort of exactly my point. While both acts are definitionally authoritarian in reality they are diametrically opposed thus highlighting the fact that authoritarian doesn’t provide any insight of value.
But one is many orders of magnitude less authoritarian than the other, highlighting the fact that it does provide value.
Again no. Both of these things are equally “authoritarian” what’s changing is not the amount of or honestly even type of authority being wielded but the context surrounding it, more specifically the class content. You are effectively using “authoritarian” as a stand in for bad here, which to be fair is what it effectively amounts to due to lacking any real analytical value.
Isn’t it a bit like saying that adding a pinch of salt and adding a kilo of salt to your soup is a meaningless distinction?
To use your salt analogy in both cases you are using 500g of salt but in one you’re using it to bake a cupcake and in the other you’re seasoning a batch of fries. The issue is not amount of salt in the abstract but the context of it’s use which authoritarian does nothing to address and in many cases obscures.
(Not that food analogies are particularly good as changing the amount of “salt” will have knock on effects to the point of in many cases changing the entire “dish”)
Interesting perspective. So authoritarian is not even a binary state in your mind, i.e. that you’re either 100% or 0% authoritarian, but it’s a completely ambient quality of any state? I.e. all states are equally authoritarian?
Does that mean that e.g. Nazi Germany with it’s outlawing of and violent punishment of any “aberrant” behavior is as authoritarian as e.g. modern Iceland which provides legal protection for many of the personal freedoms of its citizens and doesn’t have an army?
If we can’t distinguish these states through the concept of authoritarianism, what concept should we apply instead?
Any working class state will need to protect itself with force against capitalist classes and fascists. It’s still a direct use of state authority against a group of people, but this liberates the majority. That’s why Marxists reject the notion of “authoritarianism.”
The working class state is the next natural evolution of the state, the same way the bourgeois state was the next natural evolution of the feudal state. This is basic Marc.
Only violent intervention could make a state regress from working class to bourgeois, or from bourgeois to feudal. A state that prevents violent intervention is not an authoritarian state. Or at least far less authoritarian than a state that violently suppresses peaceful movements of progress.
Class struggle does not end with the implementation of socialism, this is also basic Marx. The capitalist class does not go away over night, and state authority is still used to protect it. Private property is gradually collectivized by force. It is not more or less “authoritarian,” because such a comparison is meaningless. It wields authority in favor of the working classes, rather than capitalists.
People can certainly say things, but this is all analysis and opinion based on underling facts. Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
Further, all states are instruments of class authority by which the ruling classes cement themselves, so to speak of one in particular as an “authoritarian regime,” it implies European countries are not also “authoritarian regimes” dominated by capitalists. The major difference is that Russia is dominated by the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie, while European countries (especially Germany, France, and the UK, but all are complicit and benefit from it to different degrees) are dominated by finance capital and the big imperialists.
Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
It’s a little unclear to me. For example, you so far appear to have denied the fact that Russia is engaged in a hybrid warfare campaign against Europe. Do we agree that this is a true statement?
Another fact I’d like to agree on is that Russia invaded Ukraine, attacked it’s capital and started a war has led to the meaningless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of common working class people who could have otherwise contributed to the fight for global justice.
Do you agree that these are factual statements? Then we can discuss analysis.
If not, what type of source could change your mind?
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?” Russia is not at war with Europe, except through Ukraine, which NATO is supplying heavily. This sounds like a divergence in analysis, rather than facts.
As for Russia starting the war, no, the West did in 2014 when they backed the Banderite coup. The civil war has been going on since then, and Russia joined in 2022. The war was avoidable if the west had not provoked it, and Ukraine would be better off had the west not supported the coup.
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?”
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare? Or do you not recognize its validity as a descriptor?
In any case, let’s get even more basic and factual. Here is an example, again from Denmark, of hostile behavior from Russia. Do you agree that these events have taken place?
If we extend the war back to 2014, do you agree that after Russia chose to join the war in 2022, which had until then claimed on the order of 15.000 innocent working class lives, the war escalated to immense scales of violence, with on the order of a million working class casualties?
We don’t need to agree on the exact numbers, I just want to see if we agree more or less on these facts.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I. Russia has been defensive since it pulled out of World War I, and occasionally has helped anti-colonial wars of resistance since then. As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous across all of Ukraine, hence why the more Russian Donbass area ran into conflict with west Ukraine.
The war has killed many people, yes, and my question to return to you is if you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I.
This sounds more like analysis than fact - does that mean you acknowledge the factuality of the report I linked? Yes or no?
As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous
Again, that’s your view, but the fact is that Vladimir Putin has fundamentally challenged the concept of Ukrainian nationality. Is this true, yes or no?
The war has killed many people, yes
Good, here at least we can agree on a fact.
Do you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
I reject the dichotomy that either Russia invaded, or Donbass was ethnically cleansed. This is not a fact, this is speculation.
As you mention, nations are rarely homogeneous, but the resulting conflicts can be handled many different ways that doesn’t murder a million working class people. See for example the modern solution to the German-Danish border.
But to be clear, no, I don’t believe anyone has to right to ethnically cleanse anywhere, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to invade another country leading to devastating war. Not Ukraine, not Russia, not America, not Israel, not anyone. I assume you agree?
I’m not sure if everything in the article you linked is true or not. I believe some of it may be, and I believe it’s erasing European aggression against Russia, which we know is ongoing. Regarding Putin challenging Ukrainian identity, sure. However, the question of ethnic cleansing isn’t about a future possibility, it was what was already happening before Russia got involved. Kiev committed repressions against ethnic Russians, and the Donbass region is highly Russian.
It sounds like you would have rather the ethnic cleansing continue, and that you don’t believe Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to ask neighboring states for support.
I think this makes it hard for the Ukrainians to stop fighting. I think the statements of Putin makes many suspect that surrender in this war could lead to the erasure of the Ukrainian nation. Does that make sense to you, or is that nonsense?
It sounds like you would have rather the ethnic cleansing continue, and that you don’t believe Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to ask neighboring states for support.
Not at all. Sorry I gave you that impression. My fight is that of the working class everywhere to be free of oppression and war. I simply reject that asking for support must necessarily lead to a large scale invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
But if you disagree, and that disagreement is not based on counterfactual speculation, which factual events of ethnic cleansing would you point to as justifying this scale of death and destruction? I’m not saying there wasn’t ethnic cleansing, but I think it’s easier for me to reconsider my view if I know exactly what you are referring to.
Yes, in the sense that a good faith conversation between people of opposing understandings of the world can lead to a synthesized, higher understanding.
Would a source be automatically untrustworthy if it disputes your claims? If a source reports that Russia is currently undertaking an aggressive campaign of hybrid warfare in Europe, or if it claims that Russia is an authoritarian regime currently engaged in a war of choice and aggression in Ukraine, what could make you take that source seriously? Would that mainly be if the source is sponsored by a communist state?
Not particularly interested in the rest but,
Authoritarian is a largely meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.
Regime again is a meaningless pejorative. Might as well say designated bad country ™.
Does it make sense to distinguish the degree of authority that a state wields over its citizens? And by extension, does it make sense to distinguish to which extent citizens can act to hold the state accountable for its actions?
Not particularly no. More or less authority is largely inconsequential in comparison to the actual important question of class character of the state. Authority of who wielded against who, for what purpose. A workers state that violently represses fascists and the bourgeoisie and a fascist state that violently represses labour organisations are both “authoritarian” however I hope you can agree in reality in every way that matters are in fact diametrically opposed.
Yes but this is not a question of authority but again of class content. For example China is “authoritarian” but we have for more control over our state than for example Amerikans or the British.
Authoritarian obscures for more than it explains and is so broad as to be largely useless for meaningful analysis thus leading it in the modern day of hegemonic liberalism and capitalism to being used as shorthand for “enemy of the EuroAmerikan hegemony” much like regime.
I reject your stated symmetry between fascists and workers. Fascists are inherently violent, workers are not.
A state which only violently represses the violent is far less authoritarian than a state which violently represses a peaceful political group. This distinction is extremely consequential to the inhabitants of said state.
Maybe I worded it poorly but the fact there is no symmetry was sort of exactly my point. While both acts are definitionally authoritarian in reality they are diametrically opposed thus highlighting the fact that authoritarian doesn’t provide any insight of value.
But one is many orders of magnitude less authoritarian than the other, highlighting the fact that it does provide value.
Isn’t it a bit like saying that adding a pinch of salt and adding a kilo of salt to your soup is a meaningless distinction?
Again no. Both of these things are equally “authoritarian” what’s changing is not the amount of or honestly even type of authority being wielded but the context surrounding it, more specifically the class content. You are effectively using “authoritarian” as a stand in for bad here, which to be fair is what it effectively amounts to due to lacking any real analytical value.
To use your salt analogy in both cases you are using 500g of salt but in one you’re using it to bake a cupcake and in the other you’re seasoning a batch of fries. The issue is not amount of salt in the abstract but the context of it’s use which authoritarian does nothing to address and in many cases obscures.
(Not that food analogies are particularly good as changing the amount of “salt” will have knock on effects to the point of in many cases changing the entire “dish”)
Interesting perspective. So authoritarian is not even a binary state in your mind, i.e. that you’re either 100% or 0% authoritarian, but it’s a completely ambient quality of any state? I.e. all states are equally authoritarian?
Does that mean that e.g. Nazi Germany with it’s outlawing of and violent punishment of any “aberrant” behavior is as authoritarian as e.g. modern Iceland which provides legal protection for many of the personal freedoms of its citizens and doesn’t have an army?
If we can’t distinguish these states through the concept of authoritarianism, what concept should we apply instead?
Any working class state will need to protect itself with force against capitalist classes and fascists. It’s still a direct use of state authority against a group of people, but this liberates the majority. That’s why Marxists reject the notion of “authoritarianism.”
The working class state is the next natural evolution of the state, the same way the bourgeois state was the next natural evolution of the feudal state. This is basic Marc.
Only violent intervention could make a state regress from working class to bourgeois, or from bourgeois to feudal. A state that prevents violent intervention is not an authoritarian state. Or at least far less authoritarian than a state that violently suppresses peaceful movements of progress.
Class struggle does not end with the implementation of socialism, this is also basic Marx. The capitalist class does not go away over night, and state authority is still used to protect it. Private property is gradually collectivized by force. It is not more or less “authoritarian,” because such a comparison is meaningless. It wields authority in favor of the working classes, rather than capitalists.
If this was the case everyone on the lower democracy index should be called authoritarian, like Russia, Ukraine, France, Paraguay and Indonesia.
People can certainly say things, but this is all analysis and opinion based on underling facts. Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
Further, all states are instruments of class authority by which the ruling classes cement themselves, so to speak of one in particular as an “authoritarian regime,” it implies European countries are not also “authoritarian regimes” dominated by capitalists. The major difference is that Russia is dominated by the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie, while European countries (especially Germany, France, and the UK, but all are complicit and benefit from it to different degrees) are dominated by finance capital and the big imperialists.
It’s a little unclear to me. For example, you so far appear to have denied the fact that Russia is engaged in a hybrid warfare campaign against Europe. Do we agree that this is a true statement?
Another fact I’d like to agree on is that Russia invaded Ukraine, attacked it’s capital and started a war has led to the meaningless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of common working class people who could have otherwise contributed to the fight for global justice.
Do you agree that these are factual statements? Then we can discuss analysis.
If not, what type of source could change your mind?
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?” Russia is not at war with Europe, except through Ukraine, which NATO is supplying heavily. This sounds like a divergence in analysis, rather than facts.
As for Russia starting the war, no, the West did in 2014 when they backed the Banderite coup. The civil war has been going on since then, and Russia joined in 2022. The war was avoidable if the west had not provoked it, and Ukraine would be better off had the west not supported the coup.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare? Or do you not recognize its validity as a descriptor?
In any case, let’s get even more basic and factual. Here is an example, again from Denmark, of hostile behavior from Russia. Do you agree that these events have taken place?
Do you agree that Vladimir Putin challenges the very existence of a Ukrainian nation?
If we extend the war back to 2014, do you agree that after Russia chose to join the war in 2022, which had until then claimed on the order of 15.000 innocent working class lives, the war escalated to immense scales of violence, with on the order of a million working class casualties?
We don’t need to agree on the exact numbers, I just want to see if we agree more or less on these facts.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I. Russia has been defensive since it pulled out of World War I, and occasionally has helped anti-colonial wars of resistance since then. As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous across all of Ukraine, hence why the more Russian Donbass area ran into conflict with west Ukraine.
The war has killed many people, yes, and my question to return to you is if you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
This sounds more like analysis than fact - does that mean you acknowledge the factuality of the report I linked? Yes or no?
Again, that’s your view, but the fact is that Vladimir Putin has fundamentally challenged the concept of Ukrainian nationality. Is this true, yes or no?
Good, here at least we can agree on a fact.
I reject the dichotomy that either Russia invaded, or Donbass was ethnically cleansed. This is not a fact, this is speculation.
As you mention, nations are rarely homogeneous, but the resulting conflicts can be handled many different ways that doesn’t murder a million working class people. See for example the modern solution to the German-Danish border.
But to be clear, no, I don’t believe anyone has to right to ethnically cleanse anywhere, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to invade another country leading to devastating war. Not Ukraine, not Russia, not America, not Israel, not anyone. I assume you agree?
I’m not sure if everything in the article you linked is true or not. I believe some of it may be, and I believe it’s erasing European aggression against Russia, which we know is ongoing. Regarding Putin challenging Ukrainian identity, sure. However, the question of ethnic cleansing isn’t about a future possibility, it was what was already happening before Russia got involved. Kiev committed repressions against ethnic Russians, and the Donbass region is highly Russian.
It sounds like you would have rather the ethnic cleansing continue, and that you don’t believe Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to ask neighboring states for support.
Fair. But if some of it is, it goes at least some way towards explaining why Europe feels threatened by Russia.
So is Europe in a hybrid war with Russia? Or is the aggressive naval behaviour described actually defensive without reflecting a state of conflict?
I think this makes it hard for the Ukrainians to stop fighting. I think the statements of Putin makes many suspect that surrender in this war could lead to the erasure of the Ukrainian nation. Does that make sense to you, or is that nonsense?
Not at all. Sorry I gave you that impression. My fight is that of the working class everywhere to be free of oppression and war. I simply reject that asking for support must necessarily lead to a large scale invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
But if you disagree, and that disagreement is not based on counterfactual speculation, which factual events of ethnic cleansing would you point to as justifying this scale of death and destruction? I’m not saying there wasn’t ethnic cleansing, but I think it’s easier for me to reconsider my view if I know exactly what you are referring to.