• BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    The entire point of the video is Engles misunderstood what constitutes “authority” in a libertarian framework. He created an overly broad conception of authority and proceeded to (poorly) attack that. If you’re going to critique an ideology you should at the very least have an understanding of what the core concept your criticizing means. Engles made some shit up, put that in the mouths of anarchists and acted like a little piss baby about it. How on earth did you get 15 minutes into the video and not pick up on that very obvious point?

    Pure ideology? You’re hilarious. Like y’all haven’t been sucking at the teat of Marx well past the point of his half baked ideas being useful. It never occured to you geniuses that maybe there was a bit more at play than capitalism and anachronistic conceptions of class warfare? Marx’s ideas of power and complex systems are overly simplistic at best, and Engles is a bourgeois pig that somehow deluded your big “scientific socialist” brains into thinking he was one of the good ones. But go ahead and tell me how childish authoritarian conceptions of authority are righ and how I’m a big dumb guy for thinking otherwise

    • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      The entire point of the video is Engles misunderstood what constitutes “authority” in a libertarian framework.

      He’s not misunderstanding what constitutes authority. He is giving a broad definition and proves the existence of authority after abolition of capitalism by referring to the organization of labour.

      minutes into the video and not pick up on that very obvious point?

      Because the “obvious points” are made with strawmen (see comments above)

      Pure ideology? You’re hilarious. Like y’all haven’t been sucking at the teat of Marx well past the point of his half baked ideas being useful. It never occured to you geniuses that maybe there was a bit more at play than capitalism and anachronistic conceptions of class warfare? Marx’s ideas of power and complex systems are overly simplistic at best, and Engles is a bourgeois pig that somehow deluded your big “scientific socialist” brains into thinking he was one of the good ones. But go ahead and tell me how childish authoritarian conceptions of authority are righ and how I’m a big dumb guy for thinking otherwise

      What no theory does to a mf

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        He’s not misunderstanding what constitutes authority.

        in a libertarian framework.

        Can you read?

        • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          He’s proving the existence of authority (with a definition thats wide/encompasses the libertarian framework).

          Are you dense?

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            He’s proving the existence of authority (with a definition thats wide/encompasses the libertarian framework).

            He’s not using that definition anywhere in his article.

            If you know think about going for the “but Engel’s definition is broader, therefore, his argument is still valid” boy oh boy I suggest you study logic. That’s not how widening and narrowing works.

            Say, cooks. They say: “These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads”. Botanists say “These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes”.

            • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Say, cooks. They say: “These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads”. Botanists say “These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes”.

              Ok I can see where the problem is. You don’t know how narrowing and widening works.

              Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier. The proper application would be:

              Botanist says:" These things are fruits. We have tomatoes, etc. I can make fruit salad". Cooks ways:“A fruit salad is a type of salad. I have noodles I can make noodle salad. I use a wider definition of salad which encompasses fruit salads, noodle salads and a bunch of others”

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier.

                Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said “you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes” they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for “fruit salad” (there’s no botanical definition of “fruit salad”, it’s a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.

                On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down “fruit” to “tropical fruit” or “temperate fruit” and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to “banana” and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.

                • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said “you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes” they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for “fruit salad” (there’s no botanical definition of “fruit salad”, it’s a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.

                  Yes we have a category error because you made it The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.

                  On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down “fruit” to “tropical fruit” or “temperate fruit” and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to “banana” and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.

                  Yes you’re right in this example the qualifier is tropical that narrows down fruits. In the previous example we talked about fruit salads. The category being salads.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.

                    The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It’s also not a fruit salad.