2 ms·

Abolition (abolishing something) can be an improvement, except when it's not. From one point of view, those reasonable anarchists and marxists are only seeking

by mieses 6y ago

Abolition (abolishing something) can be an improvement, except when it's not. From one point of view, those reasonable anarchists and marxists are only seeking to "improve" the US. From the other point of view they are trying to abolish it. You're forced to pick a side. Jacobin calls for revolution demand binary outcomes. It's exactly analogous to Illych proposing that education can only be improved by abolishing educational institutions. There's no middle ground.

danans 6y ago
> Abolition (abolishing something) can be an improvement, except when it's not. You're shifting your argument. Both AOC and Omar are Democratic Socialists (in same vein as the traditionally dominant parties of Northern Europe), not anarchists or marxists. Neither is calling for the abolishment of the US or its governmental institutions, but rather for its growing wealth and income inequality to be addressed. If anything, the loudest voices for abolishment of state institutions today are coming from the right.
- mieses 6y ago
  I'm sticking to the issue of consistency and honesty which you introduced and I'm avoiding all substance and value judgements in keeping with the dialectical style of the forum. The analogy was intended to help you understand why Illych is not somehow inconsistent or hypocritical. It's not inconsistent of Illych to try to dismantle a system that (you claim) he benefited from. The Jacobin progressives in the US are not inconsistent to try to dismantle the foundations of their host system through the procedures of that system. You would have to limit your observations to prima facie statements to argue that they are not intellectually dishonest crypto-marxists (BLM excluded). Illych and BLM are perhaps more intellectually honest than AOC and Omar. ++good for them. and Northern European Democratic socialist parties are neither traditional or dominant unless you only look at the very immediate past and future.

by mieses 6y ago

danans 6y ago

> Abolition (abolishing something) can be an improvement, except when it's not. You're shifting your argument. Both AOC and Omar are Democratic Socialists (in same vein as the traditionally dominant parties of Northern Europe), not anarchists or marxists. Neither is calling for the abolishment of the US or its governmental institutions, but rather for its growing wealth and income inequality to be addressed. If anything, the loudest voices for abolishment of state institutions today are coming from the right.

mieses 6y ago
I'm sticking to the issue of consistency and honesty which you introduced and I'm avoiding all substance and value judgements in keeping with the dialectical style of the forum. The analogy was intended to help you understand why Illych is not somehow inconsistent or hypocritical. It's not inconsistent of Illych to try to dismantle a system that (you claim) he benefited from. The Jacobin progressives in the US are not inconsistent to try to dismantle the foundations of their host system through the procedures of that system. You would have to limit your observations to prima facie statements to argue that they are not intellectually dishonest crypto-marxists (BLM excluded). Illych and BLM are perhaps more intellectually honest than AOC and Omar. ++good for them. and Northern European Democratic socialist parties are neither traditional or dominant unless you only look at the very immediate past and future.