Certainly, pretty much all of them dealt with the question of justifying authority. That doesn't mean ofc that one should simply accepts the answers given.

That is also why I brought those topics up, bc they are the difficult ones in both ideologies. (justification/corruption of power [Marxism] vs. industrial production/class divide [Anarchism])

Also different Marxist authors reach different conclusions, but a general justification for transitional authority of one class is common ofc. A defense of revolutionary authority that is more approachable from a anarchist/libertarian standpoint is Rosa Luxemburgs "Reform or Revolution", in which she also criticizes the lack of democracy in the USSR. Engels "On Authority" is often suggested, but I find it too short and not thorough enough. Antonio Gramsci is also often credited with a nuanced examination with authority

I can attempt a simple sketch of what I think is a common argument (that doesn't do actual reading any justice) to justify state authority:

Marxists base their analysis on materialism. In their view what shapes the social order first and foremost are the material conditions of society, for the sake of the argument say the distribution of wealth (criminally oversimplified to the point its wrong). Individuals on opposing ends of the distribution have irreconcilable material interests (example: employer wants to pay low wages, employee wants high wages) but they share these interests with others in the same end of the distribution, those form classes.

One class has more influence over society (the owning class) and they shape the ruling ideology justifying them (implicitly) as the ruling class. (An argument that material conditions more so than rational thought shape an ideology is that the philosophers of the so called "age of reason" deemed private ownership self-evident as well as racism as sexism). The state becomes the instrument of one class to rule the other.

Since class interests are oppositional the ruling class will never voluntarily accept the oppressed class as equal (The narrative of "Class collaboration" is actually associated with fascism), therefore "class struggle" is inevitable.

The only seen way out of this is a dissolution of contradictions that arise from a divide in material conditions, this necessitates both the development of the productive forces to a point where scarcity doesn't necessarily begets class contradictions and the disenfranchisement ("proletarization") of the bourgeoisie, in short a dissolution of classes per se. The vehicle to bring about these changes needs to facilitate a power inversion between the classes (i.e. for de-privatization). Since that doesn't happen voluntarily revolutionary authority is necessary and the state is chosen as the instrument, which then acts as a tool of the proletariat to assert themselves over the burgeoisie, hence the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" (dotP). A succeeding socialist state brings the classes closer together until class contradictions dissolve and the material common interests align. At that point the ideals of anarchist and communist align as well.

Re corruption I don't know too much. I know Rosa Luxemburg has written about it too in her elaboration on the Russian revolution, I haven't read it though. Ofc the Maoist "cultural revolution" was somewhat of a (failed) attempt to preemptively prevent corruption. Nowadays the communist party of China follows thought around "self-revolution" which is directed against corruption, but again: superficial knowledge.

Oh I'm sorry

Thanks for the correction - This still needs clarification though. I'd argue that calling it "government funded" is the better mental model and "financed by the audience it is answerable to" is giving the false impression that the audience has any influence on what they are paying for and consuming - AFAIK they don't

The BBC is publicly funded, yes. The fee is however set by the government and accepted by the parliament, in which ususally the ruling coalition (or party) holds the majority, so its effectively set by the ruling party. This does make it technically different from direct state funding but de-facto the gov still has controll over the amount of funding the BBC will receive.

So while the audience pays directly it does not have the ability to pull or increase funding in approval or disapproval but the government does.

Like you said nominally the BBC is answerable to the audience, de-facto it is answerable to the government only.

Other publicly funded broadcasters have a different system, in Germany for example the federal states decide on the licence fee.

However de-facto this doesn't change anything. Its common knowledge in Germany that the publicly funded broadcasters are quite state affiliated, there have been a couple of court rulings confirming that.

So yeah for a bigger picture looking at funding only isn't sufficient

Right they are now on fdroid I found out recently, pretty cool

Ich erinnere mich, das war eine der wenig wirklich guten Nachrichten dieses Jahr ✊

Weiß jemand ob die eine Schwesterpartei in D haben?

I have BraveNewPipe which has the sponsorblock patch too but allows me to follow Greenwalds system update on rumble

Damn your upvote count is 666

Its just not a democracy.

IMO the US is de-facto like the ancient Roman republic, where plebeians, could vote but only for patricians, so "everybody" (ofc slaves and womens rights were neglected back then) could vote but all questions that were ever discussed in the senate were interests of patricians, same goes for political "coverage" and campaign elections.

So there was dissent and processes that were democratic on the surface but they exclusively revolved around the interests of the patricians.

The US is like that where patrician interests are replaced with capital interests. You can only vote multi-millionaires into the white house and the only issues to ever change are the issues of a fraction within the capitalist class (meaning someone living off of someone elses labour rather than their own).

If you belong to those capitalists you enjoy democratic representation, if not you can only decide which capitalist position you find better and vote for that.

God, yes please

Not sure if should upvote you bc this flamewar needs to be picked up again or downvote you for your inferior choice of editor

#ChurchOfEmacs

Ty

I am amazed at the spectrum of specific knowledge that is already on lemmy.

If you count that as both then I agree. I also use emacs with modal keybinds (not vim-style though)

I just wanted to bring back the flame war a little sijce you were nostalgic about it