Never thought i would see mainstream reddit talk about surveillance as a means of defending the people’s revolution and not get downvoted to hell.

Wild

  • ʙᴏᴏᴋᴡʜʏʀᴍ [any]@lemmygrad.ml
    19·
    30 days ago

    at its core, any state is a monopoly on violence. while capitalist states use said violence to harass and repress workers’ and other progressive movements, socialist governments should aim to utilise it against reactionary elements instead.

    thus, repressive organs end up serving a generally progressive role in socialist democracies, though this should obviously not serve as an excuse for any mistakes or violations comitted by them.

    • Cris_Citrus (he/him <3)@piefed.zipEnglish
      5·
      30 days ago

      Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. As I learn more about things I think I feel drawn to anarchist approaches to things but its very helpful to understand what people are talking about

      Thanks for your time and energy!

      • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
        16·
        30 days ago

        May I ask what it is that draws you toward anarchist approach vs. alternatives?

        I wonder because there are some in these kind of spaces who at least toyed with anarchist-like views at some point in their political evolution, but came around to recognizing the value that “socialism under siege” has produced (countries like CPC China, the DPRK, Cuba, etc.), as well as the necessity of their power structures for standing up for themselves against the violence of imperialism. Anarchism can seem more appealing, at least in the abstract, if your only experience with a “state” is imperialism and capitalism; but it also struggles to accomplish anything under the weight of that same imperialism. Sometimes it’s hard for people to decouple the nature of the state under empire/capitalism from the nature of the state as a more general means of large scale organizing and logistics.