Means and Ends: The Anarchist Critique of Seizing State Power 

That's a really nice sentiment even if we(I've just tried) can't find the source of the quote.

Never mind I found it. “One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves.” -Martin Buber

@@Iktomeone I actually like your paraphrased quote better

This is a beautiful quote.

@FiggyG Definitely an issue with worker-owned cooperatives - I would argue that they can posit as a revolutionary dual power counter-institution if tied to a broader solidarity economy and a vision of a cooperative commonwealth predicated on non-hierarchy, federation, solidarity, and class struggle. At the very least, worker-owned cooperatives reflect an ability for workers to collectively own the means of production, operate in any internally horizontal manner, through consensus, and with completely equitious distribution of patronage to all worker-owners. We are always operating in a capitalist hegemony, but this is one method whereby we can gain control over our immediate daily circumstances as workers. Mission drift can and must be guarded against with bylaws and membership in an industrial union (like IWW) that reflect a continued commitment to anti-capitalist struggle.

@@luciennoxisou9502 depends on the organizational structure of the co-op. Employee owned is meaningless, is it employee organized/managed...

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Socielist policy ? Where ? US is a colonial-settler capitalist State with a reactionary social welfare policy (if you could call it that). What we need is more libertarian socialist counter-power institutions that challenge the capitalist hierarchy and the State. Self-management (autogestion), autonomy and liberty of the working class depends upon the abolition of all forms of hierarchy and domination.

@@circleasylvan8802 Worker-owner cooperatives are self-managed enterprises, guided by directly democratic internal governance and equitable remuneration of patronage (profits in coop world). It’s really a model towards self-management (autogestion) whereby the workers own & manage the means of production.

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 workers suffer consequences if a business fails anyway - they lose their job. What additional risk are they taking on by collectively owning the business?? Remember the risk the business owner is taking is just that of having to become a worker if their business fails.

Thank you so much for this comment, this is a concept I will familiarise myself with (I'll do my best, I just study politics and media).

Hey I'm a nursing student and syndemics sounds absolutely great! Do you have any like introduction articles or books you would recommend? Because I am learning about the 12 determinants of health and the more time passes, the more studies I read name; power imbalance, inequalities, and capitalism, as responsible of most health problems. I would love to read on syndemics!!

Thanks for this comment, ill try to do some research on this

@@Surroundyourbases I sure hope they respond lol. I'm a nursing student as well and am very interested in the field of comunitary health. I'd love to see some material theyn recommend but it sounds as an enough interesting topic to really dig on my own

The only Internet stranger I want at my funeral. Keep up the good work.

Malatesta is a GREAT political thinker.

remember what Marx said in 1848 about how the economical emancipation must go hand in hand with the political emancipation of the proletariat predicting the failure of EVERY anarchist movement untill Spain '37 where FAI refused to built soviets - eventually chosing bourgeois reign over proletarian. trotzkiyist analysis of the russian degenerated workers state is the more scientific approuch than abstract definitions of the nature of state power and the nature of human devellopement to the self-determined socialist individual classless society needs. also, it was bakunin n friends who rejected workers education in the sense of building class consciousness as a necessary condition of revolution and socialism. sorry for this polemic kind of response, i just really try to understand anarchy as a marxist, but it seems every time i think now there must come a nice materialist argument, its just another philosophical explanaition that doesn't understand historical materialism. Also please stop calling china an "authotarian-socialist" revolution or likewise. mao did guerilla warfare leading farmers class with the promises of bourgeois-revolutionary accomplishments. chinese workers revolution was strangled to death by stalinist komIntern in the 20s. okay, mao did expropriate the bourgeoisie, but... whatever.

@@untillunrath9765 what the hell was any of this

@@untillunrath9765 You are full of shit.

Do you comment this on every single video? Or am I just watching the same video over and over and keep forgetting?

@Hugo From the Netherlands (Waba Koen) could you point what the concept of class is, then? Also, in context, the discussion of a political class is a sort of "counter claim" to the idea that, absent class distinctions, the state would "wither away". Is it really that hard to conceive of a political class *in the sense that* it would be part of a distinction willing to keep the state (now in the anarchist definition) from withering away?

Economist/Engineer Paul Cockshott has a somewhat similar critique of the Soviet system of indirect elections (which is, ironically, a proudhonist system) and argues for direct democracy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LtlZys7QOO4.html If you don't care about Soviet economics, the discussion of direct democracy starts about 30 minutes in.

@Hugo From the Netherlands (Waba Koen) ROFLMAO! A political class is "definitionally impossible?" Go tell that to Joe Biden, tankie.

@Hugo From the Netherlands (Waba Koen) my guy look at joe biden and bernie they and the people who vote for then betray their own class interest or look at scabs in the workplace so even if there is not a political ruling class there still a political class or even more then just one because there going to be workers at odds with other workers interest

Well, why does the state act the way it does. is it because its a sepperate entity with its own will, or is it just the place where class conflict is driven to the extreme. Since a socialist states only function is to make everyone proletarian, and through that the very exisntence off class becomes obsolete, wouldnt the state lose its motivation to act as its own entity?

Shace Actually, both. State is not a singular entity. There are diverging class interests of different groups in it. The reason it can enforce those and not stay in a standstill is because government has a seperate will. Any organised people really has some independence, no matter how minimal it is. That's why mensheviks-bolshevik division have been able to occur.

@KazuTrash I think you're right that a generic, abstract "state" by definition doesn't have to have specific, inherent interests to begin with- but depending on how it's organized and who designs it, certain interests will be built into it systemically. That's why I'd say to be careful with your line of thinking, because some states, like the US Federal Government I'd say, do have built in systemic interests. Like existential.anarchist said, while any group of people can have some influence on the state, some people have miniscule influence and others have an insanely disproportionate amount of control over it. So a bourgeois state will almost always favor bourgeois interests, and a workers state would presumably favor workers interests.

any authoritarian communists, if they were self consistent, would also be a democratic socialist

Tbf the Soviet Union did eventually fall apart so I guess the MLs did have something there.

WEF wants state abolition and corporate rule lol

Can you give me any recommendations to learn about the USSR pretty pls?

I'd recommend looking into other anarchist youtubers as well. Specifically andrewism and Anark, who has some of the best video essays on anarchism and the state on RU-vid.

Anarchists historically used democracy to mean a government of the majority. I'm using the term in a different sense to refer to decision making procedures within assemblies in which everyone has a vote. I deliberately didn't specify if this would be done using majority voting or consensus because I know its an area of significant disagreement. Historical anarchists used both what we call consensus and majority voting. It was common to use consensus in affinity groups and majority voting in mass organisations or when making decisions where a majority decision had to be taken eg when the next meeting will occur or who will edit the paper. Malatesta, for example, advocated majority voting if consensus was not reached. He wrote in between peasants that, "By rights, no, because where truth and justice are concerned numbers don’t count, and often one person alone can be right against one hundred or a hundred thousand. In practice one would do what one could; everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on." Crucially Malatesta thought that majority decisions should not be imposed by violence and thought majority voting and voluntary association should occur together. Or to give another example, the CNT made decisions using majority vote. Its constitution, which was printed in every membership card, says that since “Anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism recognise the validity of majority decisions” it followed that, although the CNT recognised “the sovereignty of the individual” and a militant’s right to have their own point of view and defend it, members of the CNT were “obliged to comply with majority decisions” and “accept and agree to carry out the collective mandate taken by majority decision” even when they are against a militant’s “own feelings” because “[w]ithout this there is no organisation”.

@@anarchozoe thanks for your response! I was half-expecting not to get one, not that fast anyway. This explains a lot though, I guess that in reality it's very difficult to use such an "ideal" system, and certain compromises have to be made. At least in the early stages. Again, thank you.

@@SMPKarma One point on this if I may, an anarchist society wouldn't guarantee that no wrong choices are made nor that injustice disappears. But would(should) guarantee that everyone has a voice to point out such injustices or wrong decisions in order to be reconsidered. Another point is that in cases where a structure like the one Malatesta described in Zoe's respond, where the goal is always unanimity and consensus but majority voting could be used if no consensus could be reached, an addition could be that the minority could also proceed with their preferred course of action using the collective's resources (supposing they suffice) as long as it is not in direct contradiction of the majority's decision (i.e. community discusses education and there is no consensus between the majority that wants to adopt Ferrer's "Modern schools" and a minority that supports homeschooling. The majority takes the vote and proceeds with establishing their "Modern School", the minority in this case could possibly be allowed to carry on with their preference of homeschooling with resources provided by the community).

Watch this video series by red plateaus. It explains some of Marx's ideas which I think can be combined really well with anarchism. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PfNM2k9PwVo.html

Forgive me if I’m wrong here but I believe what you’re describing would not be anarchist but rather democratic.

@@JohnDoe-mj6cc So how are collective decisions made in an anarchist commune if not by majority vote?

@@NikiTheWreck I’m not really an anarchist so I’m not super sure, from what I understand, decisions require the consent of each individual member. Their consent may be implied, but if challenged, their consent would always be the most important factor. @someone who actually knows about anarchy, please explain this to us

​@@JohnDoe-mj6cc there's no rulebook, but principles, practices, etc - the precise functioning would depend on context, the people involved, the stakes, etc. Part of the idea of praxis is also figuring this kind of thing out, or at least getting a taste for it, in your own context. That being said, in general you could expect to have different kinds of decisions being handled not all the same. You could have a sort of thing you agree anyone can veto, while some other sort of thing is deemed to be okay to be done given a simple majority. In general, you could expect much more room for building new proposals and trying to balance things. If a minority has a problem with a proposal, maybe you can work on a new proposal which at least alleviates that, for example. It's important to note as well that for any large collection of people you'd probably have interlocking levels and areas of organization - not just a "single assembly". That can include both local organizations federating up to regional levels and etc, as well as specific-issue groups. So "being a minority" is a lot less binary than say on present democracies. But again, any anarchist society can only be a living social organization in the world, and as such will have it's own, contextual, way of organizing. The book "anarchy works" can give some ideas. Rojava and the Zapatistas might be interesting pointers too.

Mate Dehat If that is the case than Lenin and most Bolsheviks were completely wrong in launching the revolution in 1917. (I think it is now very obvious they were very wrong indeed!) At the time many other Revolutionaries, including the Mensheviks were stating the same thing. Many were predicting that given that the time wasn't ripe for a Communist revolution that the result would be a authoritarian regime under siege whose only choice in order to stay in power would be mass coercion. Also to blame the conditions at the time is only to lay further blame on the Bolsheviks for seizing state power. Why? Because since the time was not in the least auspicious for taking over the state by the working class than opposition, massive opposition, was absolutely inevitable in which case retaining state power would require massive coercion against the opposition. One must also remember that given that the Bolsheviks believed, stupidly, that they were they Vanguard of the Working Class representing it's "real" interests, a mindset that was very, very conducive to justifying coercion, at all times. And of course anytime the Working Class goes against the party that can be dismissed has not representing the "real" will of the working class. And of course all this coercion could be justified has defence of the Working Class and defence of the Revolution. It is of course not in the least a coincidence that this stance just happened to justify the power and privileges of the Bolshevik party and their "right" to rule. The Bolsheviks justification of their right to rule was very similar to divine right of Kings nonsense. And of course Lenin's justification and later Stalin's justification of the Bolshevik right to rule was based on the inane notion that Bolshevik part members were pure, virtuous men who would not be corrupted by power and would act selflessly etc. Their position of power would have no effect on their attitudes. Lenin later admitted that Bolshevik bureaucrats were becoming corrupt etc. His solution was having workers appointed by a government agency oversee them The simple minded idiocy of that is obvious. Lenin never seemed to understand that the social origin of individuals was no iron clad defence against a change of attitude etc., once some one's social position changed. The bottom line is that the Bolshevik decision to hold onto power once it became clear that the time was NOT ripe for a Revolution of the type they were waiting for shows just how quickly the goal of retaining power took over complete with false conscience justifications.

@FiggyG Typical Tankie nonsense. You do realize that once the Bolsheviks started to lose Worker support they resorted to all sorts of tricks and various kinds of coercion in order to stay in power. That they defined has the enemy anyone who didn't support them completely. Faced between losing power to other Socialists, to a large extent because of their incompetence, War Communism anyone, they resorted to coercion as a substitute. The results were utterly predictable. And do I have to really list the number of Leftists who the Bolsheviks arrested and murdered during their first years in power. Where they "the enemy" or were they simply the enemies of the Bolshevik monopoly of power. By 1920 a new ruling class was being established in Russia with power and privilege for a new elite that of course was eager to guard it's new privileges, and of course a monopoly on power. If the elections for the Constituent Assembly are anything to go on the Bolsheviks never had majority support. But that didn't stop them did it? The bottom line is those who said the time wasn't right were right!! Both Lenin and Marx seriously and radically underestimated the power of Capitalism to transform lives / society. Their optimism was misplaced. The bottom line is that those who warned against the Vanguardism of the Bolshevik party on the grounds it had very strong Authoritarian tendencies were right. Again and again in the 20th century Leninist Vanguard parties took power and again and again they became Authoritarian states. And did it produce a better life for ordinary people? Well yes, at least some of the time, but then so did Capitalism. But like Capitalism the exploitation of Workers was considerable. (Look up Turnover Taxes in Stalin's Russia.) The Societies created were almost entirely State Capitalist states dedicated to modernization and the consolidation of Elite Party rule. And so a Minority ground a majority under it's heel. And in the propaganda of the new regimes. it's enemies were demonized has Reactionaries, Enemies of the people etc., and etc. Excellent examples of othering. And of course the masses suffered. This experiment has been tried multiple times it has with boring regularity created a new class society, complete with terror Secret Police and Authoritarian rule. It's time to think of a new way of doing it. By the way the majority of the victims of terror from these states have been "Ordinary people", Although I am amused by your othering of certain Social categories. But like so many Tankies it appears you want the whip hand.

@FiggyG So I'm a "cancer", a disease and not a human being? Or are you just using a metaphor? But regardless you are othering another human being. Hitler was fond of doing that also. So was Stalin and his propagandists. So if I'm the other what should be done with people like me? Should I be shot, tortured etc., by the infallible party, supreme leader? I am amused that you accept the utterly stupid conspiracy nonsense concocted during Bukharin's trial. I suppose the interrogators did not threaten the life of Bukharin's wife and son? (Snark) You might want to read her memoir. And thank you for showing once again that you are indeed a Tankie. As for me being "evil", and "dumb". Very funny for someone who "handwaves" away the stupid, idiotic brutality of so-called "Socialist" states. As for Napoleon and Pinochet I despise both of them, along with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, etc., etc.,

@@makinapacal Strong in-group bias is directly in the center of the ML/Fascist Venn diagram. Along with way too much other shit. Ideology is one hell of a drug.

@Jean Sanchez Since the revolution the Bolsheviks wanted didn't happen and instead the predicted outcome of either a Capitalist restoration or an Authoritarian bureaucratic regime if the Revolutionary take over succeeded were the ones in play. Why? Well because the time wasn't ripe for a revolution of the type they, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wanted. It was the Mensheviks who were right. What happened was indeed a revolution but not a Socialist one, instead it was a revolution in which a Bureaucratic New Class seized power, both political and economic, from the Tsarist Bureaucracy and the Russian Capitalists. This was not the revolution that both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks wanted. The time was simply not ripe for such a revolution and about that the Mensheviks were right, the Bolsheviks totally and utterly wrong. But the time was indeed ripe for, if the "New Class", could hold onto power for a Bureaucratic Elite to seize and hold onto power has a new ruling class which is what happened and was predicted by the Mensheviks. In the late 19th and early 20th century so many Socialists were convinced that the last days of Capitalism were at hand. In retrospect they spectacularly underestimated the power of Capitalism to transform the world. In 1918 the world wide effects of Capitalism were minor compared to what was to come. Capitalism was not on the ropes in 1917 and bluntly not on the ropes today although the climate situation may change that in c. 10-30 years. And of course the Russian Revolution, Leninism, Stalinism have served the useful purpose of shitting on the Socialist idea and thus aiding Capitalism. As for the "right" time? I have no idea. I only know that in retrospect 1917 was most certainly not the right time for a Socialist Revolution but it was the right time for a Bureaucratic elite to seize state power in Russia.

Curious what are you and why that rather than anarchism

@@georg5475 If I had to define, I'd say I'm a social democrat. I believe that government can be and often is a source for good rather then ill. I don't think it is possible to have a well organized society without government.

@@NikiTheWreck I was believing the same, but after reading more and more about history of more 'silent' groups (you know, people that 'your' or 'mine' government exterminated, marginalized, or oppressed) I started to become more and more curious about what else I didn't know about our world.

@@uyaratful I am aware of the history you refer to, just think it could and often is much better and I don't see a workable alternative

@@NikiTheWreck you know you can have an anarchist government right

why would we not be able to do that thru non hiearchical organizing? "The same position was consistently advocated by Kropotkin over several decades. In 1877, he endorsed "the expropriation and suppression of the bourgeoisie."

I can’t speak for anarchist thought in general, but in my view I don’t see why we would need the state at all for this. Organising isn’t a state, resisting isn’t a state, movements aren’t a state. I can see why it’d be difficult to organise effectively in an anarchist way, compared to in a statist way, only because people are so used to the state and believe it’s the only option. On a surface level it makes sense to have a big centralised system but, from what I see the issue is very similar to that of capitalism. It’s like when stock holders, CEOs and other capitalists claim the economy and factories couldn’t possibly operate without their expert organisation and leadership. Usually, companies preform well despite its leaders, not because of them. Movements and revolutions on the ground work so well, in my opinion, because it’s always controlled and operated by the people on the ground. Decisions come from the bottom up! When decision come from the top and trickle down to the people, it tends to be flawed.

I think michael lebowitz's ideas are a really interesting middle path. I disagree with it but think you'd really like it based on your comment. Check out - The Socialist Imperative: From Gotha to Now

@@anarchozoe Thanks for the tip!

Yes

The key is that, in an anarchist system of federated councils, each delegate is just that: a delegate, a messenger. Unlike an elected statesman or appointed bureaucrat, they do not have the ability to act independently. They do not have the ability to make decisions on their own (being beholden to the councils beneath them), and posses no subordinates to carry out any agenda they might have. Moreover, these delegates are delegates only temporarily; the duty would be rotated, similar to taking turns doing the dishes.

I personally am okay with it. Although this kind of porn probably should not circulate in public openly. It gives a wrong message.

Isn't that pedophile shit? Or do you mean people with rabbit ears? If it means pedophiles, then no civilised people especially anarchists would allow such a thing.

that's not quite the truth. there are plentiful non-ideologial and ideological examples of anarchism that have manifested in the past few centuries, such as the southeast asian massif, spanish rebels, ukrainian and russian peasants, mexican revolutionaries, kurdish separatists in rojava, the list goes on to be honest. some of these are even still around to this day. in terms of stability, i could name the mexican revolutionaries as a non-ideological manifestation of anarchist principles and resistance, which holds pretty well to this day.

This is an anarcho-communist channel my friend.

@@OjoRojo40 Okay? That changes nothing when this concern would be eliminated by qualify "anarchism is ..." with "to me, anarchism is ..."

@@xyzasdf Dude, he doesn't have to do that unless you are new to the channel. In that case, it's your duty to inform yourself in advance. We now he's saying anarco-communism weh he talks and not mutualism or whatever color of the rainbow you like.

@@xyzasdf I kinda agree with your point, however anyone who's gonna dismiss an entire family of ideologies just because of some slight inconsistencies in one person's politics was not arguing in good faith

@@xyzasdf I kinda agree with your point, however anyone who's gonna dismiss an entire family of ideologies just because of some slight inconsistencies in one person's politics was not arguing in good faith

decentralized autonomous affinity group cells are a surer way to bleed an invading empire (particularly one with a stronger military) than in direct battles between armies.

What happened in Spain demonstrates anarchist theory. Key members of the CNT choose to abandon anarchist theory and instead of abolishing the state in favour of workers councils choose to join an existing state, due to not wanting to fight against both fascists and republicans at the same time, and were then transformed through their participation in the state irrespective of their goals or intentions and the existing state became a key source for counter-revolution eg Barcelona May Days.

To paraphrase Emma Goldman, If I can't have dank memes then its not my revolution

It does work in practice. look to Rojava or the Zapatistas as examples of non state revolutions that work. and yes they do get trash picked up and sewers maintained in Rojava. You do not need a state to force people to work in order to have basic things in a society.

You comment is naive and you idea about what a state does and how it works is childish at best. As the other comment points out, you can find many examples of non state societies solving all these problems without using the state. Also some of your questions are so easy and obvious I fail how you can think they are good arguments, How will building safety be regulated? By the workers who work in the building since they would not want to die maybe? And since they own the means of productions and a Capitalists bussiness is not in control you don't need the state to force safety regulations. Only reason you need to do this today is because Capitalists put profits over people and want to cut the costs even if it means more deaths due to unsafe conditions. You think if the place if filled with garbage everywhere people won't clean it or if a road is damaged they won't repair it? Why do you think people will not do anything to fix things that directly cause inconvenience in their lives. I would even say that a centralised state would be worse at fixing these issues since the people directly involved would have no say and would have to wait until the state realises there is a problem there and sents someone to fix it.

This really reads like you didn't understand the video very well. I mean he addressed all of this except for the Stalin part which I personally can't attest to whether it's true or not. I need to read some history of USSR

The USSR was bureaucratic way before Khrushchev. Stop scapegoating. Even Lenin became concerned with the bureaucracy before he died. You don't need a state, all your states suppressed the workers and are capitalist or were overthrown by other bourgeois movements. You don't trust the masses to run things, so you advocate for a privileged group of people to make the decisions for people. At no point was the USSR in the process of the state withering away, instead it grew stronger and carried out purges and deported ethnic minorities. The state was the new ruling class. The people can rule themselves, you just don't trust the people. Hence the defence of the state. And it's anti materialist to say that one man just all the sudden made everything bureaucratic, that's a mechanical argument that you're making. Though CNT had made many bad decisions, it never was on the same scale as the USSR. And the USSR had their goons sabotage Catalonia. The people there began to lose moral and were less affective after the republic took over. The bourgeoise came back into power with ML states, so you can't tell me that the state is good at preventing that.

@@nickallbritton3796 This person doesn't understand the video. They're probably a finbol fan. By the way, Zoe is a she.

@@SorceressWitch yea I was new to her channel then.

Complete environmental destruction and the threat of global nuclear war, to name two.

Never knew Pallet Town was ever under communism

@@Kevin-jv7mz what non existent communist society in particular?

@@Kevin-jv7mz thomas sankara lasted 4 years and the economy of burkina faso could not be described as communist, not even socialist, it was a primitive subsistence economy. Cuba is not even socialist anymore, it is a mixed economy like China and even if it has great healthcare its economy is shit, doctors are not everything. Do you even understand the definitions and differences between socialism, communism, mixed economy and capitalism? None of those two countries are or ever were communists in any case

@@Kevin-jv7mz socialism is the control by the state of the means of production and in general of the economy(this is resource, production and consumption allocation), capitalism can be defined as an economic system on which resources are not allocated by the state but by market mechanisms. Obviously both these models are too pure to exist in reality so all societies have elements of both, this is what we call a mixed economy, even though this term is usually used to refer to advanced european welfare states, china is also a mixed economy(and all so called socialist countries, with perhaps the exception of the pdrk) but we use the term state capitalism to refer to these economies. Communism is an ideal arrangement of society in which there is no state(so it cant be socialism) and in which there is no private property(so it cant be capitalism). Of course this is a superficial summary of these concepts, for example it is useful to develop the concept of crony capitalism which is a mixed economy in which the markets are perverted by the collusion between private and public interests, this is:coorporations and politicians.

well, while I can see how the academic language of theory can muddle the conversation, I really doubt Zoe or for that matter the overwhelming majority of leftists are screaming at their boss like they were a boxing dummy. We see bosses as people yes, but they're openly exploiting their employees for their own profit, and we take that in with their other personality quirks to see how much we value them as people, just like everyone else. Unless you're talking about like jeff bezos, we just see bosses as flawed people.

"So like, you actually see your boss as a “class enemy” and want them to be afraid of you?" Yes. And the problem is...? Lmao, we're talking about taking drastic action to overcome and to resist the actions of class oppressors. Who cares if they didn't choose for the system of that oppression to exist in the first place? You understand that "treat[ing] them as a human being" and handling your boss with kiddy gloves isn't what got you an 8-hour day, right? Making them "afraid of you" via armed revolution, or a mass general strike, or at the bare minimum forms of organised labour are effective and fully justified means of resisting the institutions of capitalist class society, even if the particular people you're targeting are just cogs in a bigger machine. Like, why are you getting this upset over people's tone of voice, lmao?

Capitalism is like an abusive relationship. We are the abused. The capitalist is the abuser. It is both bad to be the abused, and to be the abuser.

average American neo liberal take: