The struggle with such a standpoint is that both Marxists and Liberals have (to a varying degrees) coherent systems of values and understandings. For Marxists, as an example, Dialectical and Historical Materialism is the baseline, while liberals tend to be more idealist and deny aspects of class struggle. If you agree with either premise, then other conclusions necessarily follow.
Plus, I don’t really think labeling Marxists as “auth” makes sense. All states are “auth,” as all states are instruments of class oppression, but the class in charge is what makes the biggest impact on how society is run. Liberalism is “auth” as the bourgeoisie rules, Marxism is “auth” as the proletariat rules. It is only by abolishing class that the state can be abolished, and class can only be abolishef by sublimating all forms of property ownership into common, public ownership.
Either way, tangent aside, I recommend finding instances that match your interest, rather than strictly broad federation. Mander.xyz is a great example of an instance based on science, but it also has broad federation. Check Join-Lemmy.
Edie@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Nah, I’m in the middle, I’m not one of those, I agree with Dialectical and Historical Idealism. (/j)
Ok, the historical part is just basic liberalism, but I’m not sure about Dialectical Idealism.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I’ve been reading a bit of Hegel and authors like Plekhanov’s The Significance of Hegel. If liberals genuinely grasped dialectics to the level of Hegel, they’d most likely just be Marxists and drop the idealism. Hegel’s thought was a specific product of his conditions and his time, to the point where looking back at him and his thought the jump to Materialism feels obvious, but Marx’s advancements were quite revolutionary at the time.
Basically, there are a very small number of people who accept dialectics and follow Hegelian thought over Marxist thought, as compared to Marxism. Would be an interesting stance to take in a world after Marx.