It wasn't a hostile discussion or anything, i didn't even go full "the kulaks deserved it" (although the mod that single-handedly banned me did go full "the kulaks did not deserve it"). I just laid out plainly and calmly that revolutions are inherently authoritarian, that Luxemburg said "the revolution will be as violent as the ruling class makes it necessary" and that there's one Trotzki quote i 100% agree with: "If the October Revolution hadn't succeeded, the world would have known a Russian word for fascism 10 years before Mussolini's March on Rome". Basically the whole "Jakarta Method" train of thought laid out clearly and without calling anybody names.
Note that this was on an explicitly left-leaning server that does not allow cops and troops to join. Also after several days of another poster starting destructive, aggressive bad faith arguments in the politics channel until a number of users went "disengage" on her and the channel had to be frozen until recently, when she immediately started being hostile and arguing in bad faith again, which got her not one, but two warnings from the same mod without further consequences. Meanwhile, when i defend AES without attacking anybody, that's apparently too much for her to handle. No advance warning, no "sis, you're talking to me as a mod here", not even a notification that i got banned.
The best part is that according to screenshots a friend just sent me, she's now completely going off about "authoritarians". The nerve some people have.
Sorry for posting pointless internet drama here, i just needed to vent.
I think my newest take is that anti-authoritarianism is not left-leaning, it shares the aesthetics of the left but should be seen as a unique ideology in and of itself that ultimately serves the status quo. Efforts should be made to distinguish it as a unique ideology and define it firmly away from the left.
In application anti-authoritarianism opposes all revolution and all construction of anything post-revolution. It opposes authority use within the existing state but it also opposes authority use to end the existing state and in doing so it upholds it and takes a position against any and all people that seek real change.
Anti-authoritarianism is weird because it sees government authority as an ultimate evil but private entities authority as the status quo.
Private banks forcing people out of their homes? Thats a good society. Government doing the same and distributing it? Authoritarian evil.
Then if there is a successful revolution - anything the revolutionaries do is now authoritarian because they took over the government.
The problem is authoritarian doesn't have a precise mechanical definition at all. Anarchists and liberals don't use the word in the same way. A lot of my anarchist comrades don't even use the term because of how imprecise it is. Instead I'll see anarchists mention lopsided hierarchies in general, imperialism, or how a hierarchy can lead to abuses of power. Or more broadly they might disagree with seizing state power as a tactic, but I think well-read anarchists realize that authoritarian is not a coherent ideological position. No one identifies as an authoritarian, for instance.
Liberals use it as a way to conflate fascists and communists. They use it to mean there's a lack of representation from groups/interests they believe are inherent to any society. Since all socialist countries exclude or restrain representation of the capitalist class, that makes all socialism authoritarian by a liberal point of view. They see a single party state as tyrannical, because they would prefer to see a state with various competing bourgeois elements rather than the single uniting interest of the working class.
Liberals also use the term (and tankie) in a completely racist way. White countries aren't authoritarian, that's reserved for scary foreigners
it's also why, for instance, the political compass is such an awful concept in general
but yeah, I try to be cognizant of how different parts of the Left just have fundamentally different definitions behind the same words, like "authority" for instance, and so bringing up e.g. Engels to somebody who doesn't think authority means what Engels defines it as is kinda pointless, but the liberals have turned "authority" into such a meaningless term now that I can understand why your anarchist comrades don't care to use it
There's a line in the explanation of that compass, I guess written by the authors, saying that Stalin and Hitler could have a cordial discussion about politics so long as economics aren't mentioned. Which is absurd. Stalin was a Marxist and Hitler believed politics was a matter of skull measurements and racial destinies.
what the fuck? did they think WW2 and millions of deaths was just an economics debate that got too far? the only possible way you could think this is true is if you literally didn't know shit about fuck. "yeah, actually, the guy who liberated the Jews from the concentration camps was actually basically the same politically as the guy who put them in there"
It was written by British libertarians, what do you expect?
I think it’s strident individualism masquerading as anarchism.
Both anarchism and socialism heavily center community. They put slightly different emphasis on different parts of community and anarchism is more decentralized but anarchism still places community and a persons place and rights vis a vis their community as well as the expectations a community can have of its members at the center.
It’s less obvious with anarchism since anarchism is less proscriptive about what form community should take and usually it’s some vision of a decentralized variety of voluntarist communes or something like that, but it always has the idea of a person as a part of their community at the center.
Strident individualism, the idea that the individual is more important than the collective, is antithetical to both anarchism and socialism and this is what really separates right-libertarianism from anarchism.
A lot of people make the claim that individualist anarchism is right wing because they just don't know what it's actually about and think it's some kind of philosophical anarcho-capitalism. But I've never met someone who read Renzo Novatore and thought he was right wing at all. Edgy? Extremely so. Kinda dumb? Honestly I think so too. But right wing as in in favour of the reaction and the capitalist class, no way.
You have described neo-liberalism; nothing must change, only managed decline.
Maybe that's the correct way to frame anti-authoritarianism to actually get people to start recognising the need for some authority if you're going to see change.
We might honestly be slowly re-treading ground that the neoliberal thinktanks have already been over in their decision-making to support, back and push this ideology.
You did sort of reinvent anarcho-bidenism and the premise of that FBI anarchist publication.
Not sure if I'm familiar with this one. Do you have a link?
Never been a fan of this phrase. The people that take part in it like it too much and can hide behind multiple layers of irony while unironically supporting it.
I only ever used anarcho-bidenism to ridicule radlibs and "anarchists" who parrot the state department, and on the website people only really use it that way.
Here's the FBI thing: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
To counteract this common narrative... https://archive.ph/GnQtp#selection-483.18-483.151
Here are FBI MLs too, which actually existed: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167878
I could have told you about Maoist feds upon request. I have zero doubt that the Austin Red Guard has those connections, Black Hammer was sponsored by a Russian agent, etc. etc. The US takes impotent enemies and pits them against its threatening enemies, especially the ones with more chaotic ideologies (as, it cannot be stressed enough, the original memo does still say). That does not mean there are not good anarchist and maoist movements or that either is a State Dept. plot, but that on a sociological level the nominally-anarchist/Maoist cultural trends in the US are easier to steer in the direction of useful idiocy against actual opponents of the US. Remember, Trotsky was the biggest useful idiot of all, not any anarchist or Maoist.
My point is, the actual declassified papers of the FBI show that this "anarchist infiltration zine" never happened. It was proposed and then discarded. Either they didn't think we were enough of a threat to put the effort into subverting, or they thought they wouldn't be able to make anarchists fall for it.
ML feds did happen though, and were rather succesful, because when the State Dept. plants reached a high enough position of authority within the party, no one dared questioning them.
You may not be saying it intentionally, and I believe you aren't, but it's a massive narrative in mainly ML circles that us anarchists were just useful idiots, and we're against leftism as a whole, and we're easy to infiltrate, and most of us are CIA/FBI plants etc etc, and the only source of this is that one zine, which didn't actually happen. Continuing to post it and show it without further context just keeps reinforcing that narrative.
I'll need to look more at the reporting.
What I said is that anarchist cultural trends in the US are vulnerable to useful idiocy, which is exclusively my point and which I am generally pretty clear about with discussing "anarcho-bidenists". My instance is one with anarchists, including among admins, and they know that I'm not talking about them even though some of them are literally American anarchists, a matter made clear by the fact that they, unlike those I complain about, don't fall for this "third campist" bullshit that you see some American anarchists go off about so frequently online.
Can you tell me with a straight face that anti-"tankie" hysteria isn't useful idiocy or that those spaces aren't frequently brimming with people who fashion themselves anarchists or ""libertarian socialists""?
I think I do believe that early on anarchists tend to demonize socialist countries, and give them no real nuance or charitability, which does lead them to believe things that are objectively just cold war propaganda, and often times it is difficult to call this out because it's viewed as siding with the enemy. In my experience most do end up moving on, while still firmly opposing them but for more theoretical and pragmatic reasons and not because of an abstract notion that they are evil. I do agree this is harder to happen if one became an anarchist via people that call themselves anarchists but advocate for completely antithetical things in practice like NonCompete, or straight up co-opters like Vaush.
I don't believe as a whole that disagreement, callout and suspicion of tankies and MLism is something bad or that it benefits the U.S. I don't really see how you could expect us not to be wary, given the constant history of hijacking, blackmailing, crushing and undermining by MLs to us. It's not even something "in the past", not a lot more than just 10 years ago, greek MLs allied with the cops to stop us. I myself think we are capable of working together but I don't blame anyone who doesn't.
Also, why do you put libertarian socialists in quotation marks?
NC is weird because he calls himself an anarchist but is invested in Luna's projects with Ho-Chi-Minh thought. I think he discusses this in some videos but I just can't be arsed to be interested. He seems okay but that's not enough for me to invest time in his lore. V**sh is just a repugnant neoliberal who belongs in a reeducation program or a pit.
Regarding this specific part: Get a grip. Internet anarchists are completely full of shit on this but they just love playing the victim like some internet ML wants them to be put in a gulag. You can see how so many of them are reared as radlibs because they are are so ready to use their "affiliation" to act like a persecuted minority when all they ever did was post on Reddit and have never even met someone who faced this violence. They whine about anarchists who were attacked by Bolsheviks when a huge portion of those anarchists were objectively counterrevolutionaries trying to overturn the October Revolution and generally instigate chaos and violence ("Oh, but Makhno eventually put down some of the antisemites doing pogroms that he first armed and trained!" Fuck off.) There were good anarchists in Russia -- some of whom did get caught in the crossfire -- but there were many "anarchists" who regarded the gains of the bolsheviks as being incidental to tyranny and treated them as fascists to be fought militarily.
But this is still an excellent display of the very useful idiocy I mean, this politics of being aggrieved because some maniac with a black flag was wounded by the most besieged country on the planet in the latter's efforts to protect the revolution. Are you an ally of attempts to establish a DotP? Cool, I don't care what your boutique sect is. Are you not? Then stop trying to claim Marx or pretending that the antagonism is not at all coming from you. Did the Panthers shoot your grandpa? Then
he probably had it comingwe can talk.Because, in addition to polcomp shit, it's a label taken up by useful idiots (including nominal Marxists!) to distinguish themselves from "authoritarian" socialists who are a red scare boogeyman that only exists in the former's mind. It's also taken up by even more detrimental morons like Chomsky. Anarchists can just call themselves anarchists, Zapatistas, Zapatistas (no, they are not anarchists), and Chomsky can take a long nap because he's old and done quite enough talking.
You can say whatever you want, I'm not even advising you to stop using the term like with "statists," just explaining my scare quotes. You are whatever you say you are, that's how names work.
"Statist" pisses me off significantly more because, aside from putting words in my mouth and being used to misrepresent Marx like someone tried to at first in this chain, there are people who actually do support the indefinite existence of a state and those are not the Marxists. "Tankie" at least refers to a real dispute where I am on the side it represents (I hate Khrushchev and wish he was killed in the purges, but he was right with Hungary).
Ah, I almost forgot:
Because there is no anarchist threat to the US. Marxist states have consistently represented an ideological and geopolitical problem for the US for more than a century. The whole purpose of the red scare was to avert solidarity with these states and recognition of their successes, as well as to galvanize support for aggressive measures against them. This has leaked into opposition even to other liberal states that are trying to undo unipolarity (Russia especially). This is kind of the crux of the anarcho-bidenist thing, that scoundrels like V**sh claim a mantle of radical progressivism while parroting State Department talking points against enemies of the US, the biggest one being a Marxist state with substantial (and more conventionally) Marxist allies!
You're antagonistic as I'm used to when talking in here but you've at least been more respectful to me than most MLs I've talked to here so I wanted to say I appreciate that.
People calling themselves anarchists and then advocating for archism is very common. We just don't have that big of a theory culture, and when we're believing in something so against almost all of the hegemonic thoughts implanted in our heads for all of our lives, it's very common to see people who want anarchy but fail to see how some anarchism things could work and propose alternatives that have heirarchy or a state. NonCompete is one of them. I've taken to calling them "somearchists" just because that is really funny, I'm not sure if there's a better term.
If you're interested in an anarchist youtuber, Anark is honestly one of the best, he even has a series directly synthesizing a modern view of anarchism that explains both the collectivist and individualist ideologies, I genuinely believe his videos are worth watching even for MLs because they're very well thought out.
https://piped.kavin.rocks/channel/UC1CjJYTUeor8EUFsbgwu5TQ
I fully agree that Vaush is a moron, it's nice that we can agree on that.
It is true that we are a minority, and it is true that in most leftist spaces that aren't made up of mostly or exclusively us, we aren't very well tolerated. Even in this left unity instance, most of the members and mods are MLs, the anarchist communities are extremely inactive compared to the rest of the site, almost all of the posts are pro-USSR and pro-China, it's very friendly with an explicitly anti-anarchist lemmygrad, I've even found posts of anarchists having to beg to not be disregarded:
https://hexbear.net/post/48138
etc.
Now, I do genuinely believe that no matter how often it's happened and no matter how disregarding online ML communities are of us, to use these events to decide to never ever work with a marxist or even just an ML for any reason is very stupid. We are literally dying right now thanks to climate change, we have like... a few decades left. If we have a shot it will probably be our only one and if we ruin it because we don't work together it's going to be one hell of an end story.
It doesn't change that these things have happened though, and treating them as taboo is just something I don't agree with.
Anarchists in general don't have a big problem with the october revolution, but rather with what was done to it by the bolsheviks. That we do see as tyranny and usurpation. Definitely not fascism, that's a very specific term that I believe we shouldn't use liberally.
As for the Makhnovists, a lot of the very awful things are disputed since the only accounts of them happening were written by bolsheviks. In general, I don't really look up to them that much. They were very flawed and committed a lot of mistakes. Particularly, their movement had no theorists at all, so I've often heard people say that, more than an anarchist revolution, it was a peasant revolt inspired by anarchist ideals. Here's a nice and pretty short text about the subject that summarizes my views on them:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kolbj-rn-markusson-to-what-extent-was-makhno-able-to-implement-anarchist-ideals-during-the-russ
Here's a reply of some of the most common ML talking points about them:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarcho-on-the-bolshevik-myth
It's not just them though. Catalonia was just as bad if not worse, Cuba's anarchists, Korean anarchists, I've even pointed to a relatively recent example in Greece. You really can't ignore the history we have between each other, it shouldn't be dismissed, it shouldn't be hidden or ignored. If you truly want us to work together we both have to learn from it. We have to try to understand why it happened and make sure it doesn't end up in the same way.
No anarchist is claiming Marx. Anarchism is very separate from marxism. Some "anarchists", mostly vaushites, try to pretend that Marx was on his side, but most of us know he wasn't. Sometimes people try to bring up that Marx would have probably been against the methods and the results of the bolsheviks, I am not sure to what extent this is true. But that's not the same as saying "Marx supported anarchism".
Also again, I mostly agree that we should ally, but an alliance is more than just "we will help you". If you don't plan to consider us when we work together, then we simply have no reason to just do the work for you and gain nothing in exchange. I think that's just common sense.
Okay, fine, I don't really see a problem with this. I will say, I don't view the Zapatistas as anarchists, and I think doing so is disrespectful to them. But I think they do serve to see that some of the things we anarchists are talking about can work and are totally possible.
Also, Chomsky is the worst.
I think we're just having pointless definition wars with this. When I say statism, I mean a belief in the strategy of a transitional state, not a support of its indefinite existence. That's what I've always used the term for. I don't think it's useful to use "statist" to represent indefinite support of a state because... that's just everyone else. That's just every single ideology except radical leftism. But if that's the way you view the word, I can't really argue against you, it's just another definition.
Me not trusting in the methods MLs used a hundred years ago does not mean I endorse the US in any way. I think the main problem is when context is deprived of the critiques. When you say things about socialist states that an american senator can parrot word for word (sigh... like Vaush). A critique from an anarchist perspective, one that wants the destruction of capitalism and the liberation of the working class, is definitely not something any ruling class, much less the american one, can agree with or spread.
I would say internally there is no ideological, organized anarchist threat to the US (there is no marxist one either), but the group of people who get shit done, who protest the most and organize the most, are always anarchists or organizations mostly consisting of anarchists.
I fully agree with you, the co-opting of anarchism by people who want radical aesthetics but refuse to do any introspection about their imperial core beliefs is a huge problem. It really stems from us not having as big of a theory culture as MLs do. It genuinely sucks (especially because theanarchistlibrary is sooo much easier to navigate than marxists.org lmao) and Vaush has done a lot of harm.
Website isn't co-operating with me, so you might get spammed, but I'm going to break the reply up to see if that helps:
There was a prick in this thread doing just that
I'm not an especially nice guy in these discussions, at best I'm just the type of stubborn where I'll be damned if I give you something you can use against me beyond "he's rude". I can see how you'd get dogpiled because maybe 10% of the things you have said here are astronomically dumb, but if you get better at recognizing this and try to have a personable conversation on c/askchapo or whatever, I think you'd have an alright time. Anyway, thanks for trying to be conscientious in that regard.
idc about what you think of particular other anarchists, so we can skip that beyond me also being glad that you disown v**sh. Someone else pointed out something interesting, though.
This one is frustrating and it's emblematic of a persistent issue in your writing. You were not in the gulags. You were not in the Paris commune. You weren't in the trenches in Vietnam. When I say someone isn't in a minority by virtue of calling themselves an anarchist online and "believing" anarchist things, but many people play at it, what I mean is that you are not, by virtue of those traits, a social minority. You are not being oppressed and the Spanish anarchists would probably spit on most of the people who are on Reddit going "They killed us" like they have any personal connection to who was killed beyond agreeing with them (setting historical distortions aside). You are not them just as I'm not a Soviet or a CPC cadre or a Panther. We're just people online and maybe we are involved in organizing, but I sure as shit have never been shot at by a Makhnovist and you sure as shit haven't been attacked by a PLA soldier.
You probably are a member of some oppressed group because most leftists are, but you are not oppressed by the dang tankies, and it's unlikely you are oppressed as an anarchist at all (though some are), so not making even a hint of a distinction between yourself and those historical and current people comes off as a childish roleplay and highlights how the whole thing doesn't need to even be true historically because it's just a fucking vibe and a narrative you've bought into with no material connection to the history. It's all just storytelling.
I mean this not only directed at you but the many "anarchists" who are frankly much worse about this than you.
The interesting thing about lemmygrad is that it absolutely despises the cultural trend of anarchism and the people who were fighting with Lenin, etc., but I don't think they truly categorically hate anarchism (stay with me, now!). I think any of them who isn't a total crank would recognize that Sholem Schwarzbard is a hero and a badass, for example, and obviously the Paris Commune was quasi-anarchist and they quite like that. I'm not saying you should want to be there, but it's not like they are frothing at the mouth for "anarkiddy" blood. Mainly I think they are just sick of red scare shit and really spurious accusations. Speaking of which . . .
The October Revolution was the Bolshevik revolution, so I must assume you mean the February Revolution, in which case every single person who has the opinion you wrote was/is a useful idiot. Who is the tyrant, the liberal government that got into power on the basis that it would stop Russian participation in the pointless, imperialist First World War, or the Bolsheviks who then took power and brought Russia out of the war? Oh, but I'm sure the tyranny only happened after, with the ridiculous increase in every metric of human welfare when the country wasn't actively being invaded by fascists (and, to be fair, at least one mostly-unrelated famine).
Oh, but tell me more about "usurpation", my friend of revolutionary leftism. Can't have people trying to "usurp" liberal governments. If your anarchism has you caping for Alexander motherfucking Kerensky, you should ask yourself where your supposedly radical, anti-capitalist ideology is really leading you.
Not true! My accusation against Makhno was 100% what he admitted to while he was defending himself when he lived in exile in France. He couldn't spend every waking hour alienating other anarchists and trying to save the lives of fascists, so he filled most of it with other types of squabbling in his shitty newspaper.
The Bolsheviks had much, much harsher things to say about him and I have no interest in discussing those claims with you or really anyone, though I don't think we can just dismiss them as totally false out of hand.
Interestingly, he did develop "platformism" once he was in exile, which doesn't contradict what you say but suggests that he had some realization that what you said was true and a problem. Perhaps in some respects he did learn from his failures, though it seems he mostly doubled down from what I've read.
Part 2/2
Again with the "us" business. Neither of us were in Korea, comrade. You were not personally aggrieved by this, your identifying with it is a matter of your personal psychology.
Do you want to just relitigate all this shit? I think this website has a monthly debate on Catalonia (use the search function), but I struggle to imagine that in Cuba or Korea it was all that different from the people crying for Makhno, just more counterrevolutionaries and maniacs causing problems and probably also some good anarchists and honest rubes getting caught in the crossfire. If you do want to relitigate it, whatever, I will humor you, but first I want to propose a more useful direction:
Ideology is not religion, you don't get to just put up a flag and make demands, your input is fundamentally the same as that of any other person in a proletarian democracy. Now, this may look like a denial (aside from that it already isn't) but I want you to consider this: What do you want?
Do you want the people to eat? Do you want them clothed and housed? Do you want hospitals and schools? Protection from hate crimes? Maybe some roads and railways?
Wonderful! So do they and so do MLs, let us work to make that happen.
Do you want an unaccountable death squad armed to the teeth so you can run around shooting people at your own discretion? We're going to have a problem.
What gets you a seat at the table is not opposition but freestanding competence (see Tito, despite all of his failures and revision). Opposition correctly gets you liquidated.
Do you want "Wins for anarchism" or better conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake?
"Oh, but we only want anarchism so it can help people"
Cool, if what helps people is anarchism, then call me Peter Kropotkin, I don't give a shit! What matters is that the revolution is protected and lives are improved.
If you think the revolution is better protected by causing more pointless fighting to paint the flag black so you can run your "I can't believe it's not a state!" commune, but really just get obliterated by capitalists exploiting the infighting, then fuck off.
Here's Michael Parenti saying something that I find relevant
At least we agree here.
You don't need to endorse the US to be a useful idiot, that's not really what a useful idiot means to begin with. You can act in the US's favor while believing you have your own boutique radical ideology, and that's much more what being a useful idiot is, and encouraging people to, for example, hate the PRC is a perfect example. Look at any of the threads on this shitty network of websites where the liberals are louder and you will see in their discussions of any AES project the "anarchists" and neoliberals arguing side by side without even batting an eye at this fact. Neoliberals are happy to co-opt anarchist attacks on AES because, even from the most charitable view, anarchism still poses no immediate threat to them while Marxism does. Not internally, as you seem to think I meant, but externally. Internally, what I am speaking of is having solidarity with those foreign socialists and encouraging solidarity with them even with whatever our personal misgivings may be, because they are enemies of the global hegemon and represent a historically progressive force, even if they didn't take their constitution from your manifesto.
Most people are not ideologically coherent because ideology is downstream of one's own conditions. You can say "Oh, but I'm critiquing it from an anarchist point of view" and it matters zero fucking percent. Do you know how many smug liberals I've seen quote Bakunin's "The People's Stick" line? It doesn't fucking matter that he's an anarchist and believed himself to be speaking from a certain ideologically coherent position, the takeaway is fundamentally "AES is oppressive and disingenuous huehue 1984" and that's all there is for the vast majority of people who encounter such things. Radlibs particularly have mastered the art of attacking Marxism from both the "left" and the right at their leisure.
Some more discussion on a similar topic that rambles even more than I do but is still one of the most insightful essays I've ever read.
Even if you quite understandably don't like me on a personal level and disagree with a lot of what I have to say, I hope there's something here that you find informative in the way that I intended it to be.
Our posts are getting longer and longer, and more and more unrelated to this thread. Would you be interested in having this conversation in DMs maybe?
1/2
I assume you mean the person who posted "Marx against the state"? I assume what they were trying to do is to say that he wouldn't have been in favour of the methods of the bolsheviks, not that he simply would have fully agreed with anarchists. I don't know, I haven't read that essay, I'm not very interested in it. I genuinely think anarchism and marxism are very separate. I concede this person is wrong and shouldn't be trying to do that.
You're genuinely one of the calmest and most reasonable people I've argued with on this site. At least despite everything it seems like we are having a fruitful conversation and even reaching agreements on some parts. The worst thing you've said is "get a grip" which is really nothing. I have to remark that I appreciate it because every other time I try to reach out and show my perspective to online ML places I just get viciously mocked, belittled and talked down to in an extremely smug way. Honestly I think the reason I'm not getting dogpiled is that we're very deep into the reply thread and people don't bother reading it.
It's very rare that anarchists and MLs treat each other as equals in an online conversation, I do agree that sometimes anarchists are the ones at fault in this, but it sucks that it's hard for me to reach out and have like, you know, an actual exchange where I'm not being belittled every two sentences. And don't let me even get started on Discord, oh my god it's a million times worse.
I mean minority in the objective sense, as in, we're a lot less than you all in virtually all spaces that aren't anarchist focused or anarchist exclusive. And that does lead to us being considered less, treated as less important and disregarded. I illustrated this with an example, even in this instance which makes a point about unity and anti-sectarianism, an anarchist felt the need to make a post basically begging to not be disregarded and demeaned because everyone was doing it anyway.
I agree that this is nowhere near the things that historically happened, it's an online forum, and in my experience with real life MLs they're a lot better. I mean, I did make a point that using these events to refuse working with other leftists is very dumb. I just don't think we should go to the other extreme and completely disregard them either. Once again it's important to understand why it happened and reach an agreement. If you stick to your guts and just keep believing that the anarchists we're talking about were all maniacs and bandits and didn't do anything good and none of their actions were justified and the crushing was a 100% the right thing to do, then of course anarchists aren't going to listen to you. We definitely are guilty of idealizing Makhnovshchina and excusing or ignoring the very awful things and grave mistakes they did, but it's not like MLs are any better. It's more of a general problem of worshipping the past instead of focusing on the present, in my opinion.
I haven't dug as deep into lemmygrad as I have into hexbear, but every time I've visited and read on what its members think about anarchism it's been something extremely hostile and insulting, and everytime an anarchist has decided to come reply to them, I see them get dogpiled and replied to in the usual leninist extreme smug by two, three, sometimes four people. I don't think it matters if you think they're wrong or said something "astronomically dumb", the bullying is something I just don't support. Bully liberals, if you really want to bully people online.
Anyway my point is that despite hexbear being "strictly left unity" they have zero issues federating, supporting and endorsing lemmygrad which is very hostile to anarchists. There is no anarchist Lemmy instance, but I can only hope that if it forms, the same accomodations are given to them - seeing what they think of and post about Raddle, I doubt it though.
2/2
No. The October Revolution was much more than the bolsheviks taking power. I don't really think it's relevant to this discussion so if you're interested in the perspective we generally hold about it I will once again point to Anark:
https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=uwU3STgBknQ
I've looked this up and you're right, my apologies.
Reading post-exile Makhno is kinda depressing so I haven't dug very deep into it. As far as I know, he deeply regretted a lot of things he did.
I can see what you mean? I don't really see how it makes my point any different though. Once again all I'm saying is that there is a big history of ML betrayal of anarchists and I don't think it should serve as an excuse to not work together but I also don't think it should be discarded or it's okay to believe it was all always purely and 100% the anarchist's fault and everything that happened was justified, much less that anarchists should accept that narrative from y'all.
In Cuba and Korea, the anarchists were there before the marxists came. If anything, your narrative is backwards, you just don't see it as counterrevolution because the usurpation succeeded, and thus became the revolution instead.
I don't think it's productive to engage with this, because we're just gonna keep pointing the finger at each other and refusing to budge. If you want to listen to an anarchist perspective on these events there are plenty of places to, if you're not interested and just want to keep believing in the same nothing I say will change your mind.
That's the thing, often anarchist input isn't "fundamentally the same". It's not fundamentally the same if we are never listened to, much less if our input is met with bullets or jail cells. It's not fundamentally the same if there isn't even a discussion and everything we say is just discarded. Working together is actually working together, reaching a consensus and a compromise between each other. Anarchists who support left unity try to do this, but obviously, in exchange, they expect the MLs do the same. Otherwise, they're just being useful idiots.
If you stick 100% to your guts, then objectively speaking there is absolutely no benefit in working together. Demanding that we ally but refusing to listen to our input on things is basically just wanting to use us. That's what most anarchists are afraid of when talking about left unity.
You're talking like if it's an exclusively binary choice of completely separate things. Anarchists want anarchy because they believe it is what will bring the best conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake. I am sure that most, even despite what they write online, would be willing to sacrifice their anarchism to an extent if they see that conditions are being genuinely improved, but they have to see that, and it's obvious that if what happens is a fully by-the-book ML model, they wont see that. Because they're anarchists.
I mean, MLs are the same too. No one can escape bias. So the only reasonable thing that can happen is a compromise. If MLs are not willing to compromise, why should anarchists work with them if they're so different? This goes both ways. Everyone needs to be held to the same standard, the complaint is that most of the time it's the anarchist that has to sacrifice and the ML sticks to their guts. Either both sacrifice and compromise, or both don't and work separately. This in-between MLs want where anarchists work with them but they also don't have to listen to them in any way is just not going to happen.
This is exactly what I said. The problem is not the critique but when it's completely stripped of context. When anti-PRC statements are just parroted with no real alternative proposed or philosophy behind them. It's not a problem with anarchist critique per se. By your logic literally any anti-PRC statement is helping the US, even ones made by marxists. Rather than "just stop talking bad about socialist states!" I think it's better to make sure you're doing it in proper context and making sure you're not going to be misinterpreted. Shutting down critiques alltogether is not useful. We should always have conversations about these things, to learn and improve and change.
Sure, but give those liberals just the essay where that line was written and they will despise Bakunin. This is what I mean, what matters is the context, that's not just the ideology behind the person who said the thing.
As I said before you've given me no reasons to dislike you. But this illustrates what I've been talking about all this time. The fact that you view me as someone you need/want to "inform", and not someone you're having an honest exchange with. Most MLs do this, they see us as misguided, silly weirdos, and simply assume there's nothing they can learn from us. They do not view us as equals even when we try to reach out. This creates a power imbalance in the "unity" that a lot of anarchists just don't want to deal with.
Its just crypto-libertarianism, right?
I mean, sorta?
The distinguishing feature of anarchists is that they do in fact want revolution and are willing to shoot guns over it. While there is no such feature of ancaps, the NAP is explicitly anti-revolutionary, and opposes all capability to effect change within the system through any means other than the use of money and property.
So yes. I can kinda see that comparison. The only thing I will say however is that the anti-authoritarians that can be pipelined leftwards are usually still in favour of use of authority for some things, such as enforcing the age of consent. Whereas the libertarians seem to be against authority in even that case too. This distinguishes which group of anti-authoritarians that pipeline left vs which group of them pipeline right.
I wrote a longer rely to op but I think it’s when the rights and liberties of the individual are made supreme to the point of overriding the rights of the community, that’s when it’s just crypto-libertarianism masquerading as anarchism.
I don't think anti-authoritarianism (as you describe it) can be separated from leftism (anarchism is right there), nor should it be (it's largely correct in many cases and also a powerful organizing tool). Rather, I think anyone who digs in on that front should be asked two questions:
Either they will have practical answers that lead naturally into discussions like "when is authority justified, and what actions can a justified authority take?" or they'll show their ass with some "abolish bedtimes" baby anarchist stuff.
Anti-authoritarianism is distinguishable from anarchism because anarchists do not oppose use of authority for revolution nor to maintain post-revolution, they support authoritarian means in those cases.
Anything that opposes revolution upholds the status quo.
The anti-authoritarians might be a pipeline into the left, but are not yet among the left in that their ideology literally upholds neoliberalism by opposing all use of authority to change it. You could view them in the same way that belief in alternative medicines isn't right wing but is a pipeline into right wing conspiracy thought. Distinguished from the right but you can see how it leads into it. Anti-authoritarians are distinguishable from the left in that they oppose all the things we need to bring about any real change, but they can be a pipeline into the left by making them realise this.
This is also why the anti-tankie rhetoric is so necessary for liberals. It makes it harder to do the work to pipeline the anti-authoritarians into the left by aiming to kick all real leftists out of the anti-authoritarian spaces and shut down all thought-processes of anti-authoritarians if/when they speak to people that are part of the proper left.
This seems to be the case mainly because the principal authorities in capitalist society are ones that should be opposed and destroyed. That doesn't make it a coherent political position. See Gramsci's letter to anarchists.
So,
?
Sure, but we must articulate it in a specific way or people continue to join them in the genuine belief that they're not.
Absolutely agree 07
In addition to what everyone else already said, being against something isn't the same as supporting something.
Anarchists are pro-anarchy, communists are pro-communism, but anti-authoritarians aren't necessarily either of those two. They're anti-authority, which is often a word they themselves can't even define. And because it's impossible to exercise in reality, they have to pick and choose which powers they consider "authoritarian" and which aren't. Since these people don't read, this just ends up looking like another flavor of liberalism.
American actions abroad since WW2 are definitely not authoritarian!
and then the counter-argument is always just "I don't know anything about American actions abroad since WW2"
The nifty thing about never claiming to support anything is that you never have to defend anything either. Anti-authoritarians can just say that they oppose the US along with China, the USSR, Cuba, their teachers, and their parents.
Great point. That's exactly what they do to.
nah
Like, there's a word for an antagonism to authority. It's anarchism. This doesn't imply an ignorance of power or of its present application in the real world, nor does it imply that all authorities are indistinguishable, but it does imply that we hold no structures so sacred as to be above question. That's not counterrevolutionary: it's the very thing that revolution consists of.
I don't have the time or energy to argue for/against a state at the moment but I'd like to leave some stuff for anyone interested in an actual anarchist analysis of the state over idle speculation from people who have a clear bias against left-libertarian politics. Plenty of anarchists read statist material to gain an understanding of the statist perspective. I've personally read enough of Lenin (including the state and revolution), Trotsky and all that to know it isn't my jam. Not to mention, Marx and Engles were against the state as a revolutionary apparatus (it's included in the link, don't @ me).
The State is Counterrevolutionary
And for an anarchist analysis on revolution, complex systems analysis, etc. The Revolution Series
A Modern Anarchism
Marx Against the State (article)
I'm only linking the one channel because it's relevant. Anarchism, as an inherently decentralized ideology and movement has a wide variety of theorists, analysis and opinions. Anarks material is well imformed and comprehensive. I'm not looking to convince anyone to "switch teams" but if we're going to criticize one another it would help to know what we all actually believe and stand for
I've literally read all of these before.
Nothing I said is a critique of anarchism.
No. This is definitely nonsense, I don't want to get into sectarian bollocks but you deserve correcting. Marx is completely explicit about it here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
But again. Nothing I fucking said was a criticism of anarchism. This isn't about anarchism this is about something explicitly different to it, anti-authoritarianism is not the same thing as anarchism, anarchists are not universally anti-authority.
Stop trying to turn this into sectarianism. Nothing I said was about anarchism. Fuck off. Wrecker somewhere else.
Pretty much every anarchist I know would be okay with suppressing the rights of capitalists, as well as their ability to use the state to enforce private property. That would be pretty "authoritarian" from the perspective of a capitalist, but fuck them, they do the same to us.
I would like to link to this article, it goes deeper into the anarchist conception of authority. TL;DR: These are pointless definition wars. All anarchists are fundamentally against the same thing, it's just that some prefer to not describe it as "authority"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/london-anarchist-federation-the-problems-with-on-authority
Did you actually read the article on Marx? It misrepresents Stalin tremendously and slightly misrepresents Lenin (who was at first the biggest proponent of a "state capitalist" DotP), but it clearly and explicitly defends the notion of the DotP as a socialist state preceding stateless communism, as all Marxist-Leninists do. It would have been better to include more of the writing Lenin quotes in his own work about the paradox of the "free state", maybe even Lenin's own thoughts, but we can only expect so much from a Trot rag like this.
You aren't making a good case for your "informed criticism" plea, as though it had a chance when you call Leninists "statists". Just say "tankie" if you refuse to say ML, it is unironically less irritating.
What is one supposed to call leftists who advocate for a state if not statists?
It's a distortion to say that they "advocate for a state". They, including Marx in the very article that was linked, say that a transitional state is necessary in order for there to be a successful stateless society subsequently. No ML advocates for the permanent existence of a state or even the existence of a state that is not designed to fundamentally tend toward the destruction of all states.
Again, just say ML (or "Marxist" if you want to include the older figures like Marx, early Kautsky, Luxemburg, etc.)
So they want a state??
Also, my problem with just saying "ML" or "Marxist" is that there are plently of libertarian socialist that reject basically all Leninism, yet what they propose instead is a state too. Vastly different from ML states, but a state nonetheless. Therefore "statist leftists" is a better catch all term than "leftists who advocate for a transitional state" because that's just a mouthful.
They believe statehood cannot merely be abolished but must be destroyed in a more gradual and thorough manner. Any attempt to merely declare the state abolished will, at best, create a vacuum that neighboring state powers will rush into with the same violence as the physics analogy. The destruction of the state is necessary, but it cannot be done so easily.
Are we talking about appeasing r/polcompmemes and HoI4 modding forums or actual political movements? Because Marxists have a real historical presence and regarding what few real demsoc-like countries actually exist (such as Bolivia and to a lesser extent Venezuela), even calling them "statist" seems to be missing the plot of what their ideologies actually are. It's like when Trots call real anti-imperialists "campists," it's just a name you made up to flatter yourself that doesn't reflect the living and practiced ideologies that far overshadow yours.
This is also, again, completely sidestepping the point that Marx is on my side here, not just Lenin.
This feels like definition wars. I am aware marxists believe in the destruction of the state in the end, but it doesn't change that they advocate for a revolution that takes control of the state and keeps using it. That to me is statism, the strategy. I don't really use it to mean "the belief in a state" because the only ideology against the state is anarchism, so I just say not-anarchists or archists.
They are political movements, they're just very niche and small. I don't see why I have to pretend they don't exist just because of that though.
Never claimed he wasn't. I'm saying there are people who follow marxism and want socialism with methods and endgoals that have nothing to do with Lenin so calling any leftist who believes in a transitional state ML or tankie is just a lazy generalization that I don't see why I should use when statist is a perfectly fine word to me, you disagree with my use of it but you understand what I mean when I do so either way, no?
This is beside your point, but Lenin is pretty clear about smashing the state machinery and replacing it. You said you read State and Rev, right?
Because coloring your language over niche issues out of ideological convenience is annoying. Who gives a shit about those niches in general conversation? If you want to talk about them, talk about them, but when discussing the Soviets and CPC and their supporters, there is no need to hedge our language to include the idiosyncratic theorizing of a five-member book club/gaming club in a run-down coffee shop in exurban Milwaukee.
Pretending that classical Marxists still exist and matter, I did volunteer that you simply say "Marxist" and you ignored that too
Yes, I feel like I'm just being terrible at expressing myself, I'm sorry.
I just don't agree. I don't think we should discard or ignore ideals simply because they aren't very popular. It's not like it's a massive effort to do so, you just have to say a word instead of another.
Marxist could probably work, but when we're talking about revolutionary strategy, as I've said before, there are massive differences between kinds of marxists. "Statist" the way I use it describes the specific part about the strategy I mean so I'm not excluding or generalizing anything.
deleted by creator