I'm trying to say that the issues I have heard with the KKE is that it wasn't willing to go far enough, and often will still prevent anarchists from being "too disruptive" at their events. I understand why they do, in particular because they may not feel ready for the police response. I see the same thing at protests in the US, it doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's also a far way from being in a position to do a Kronstadt again.
There's a historical background to a lot of this, and a lot of historical violence tend to also be in the broader historical context of things like civil war, which is how a movement will end up in the situation of: "do we forcibly conscript people or do we let the fascists overrun us?"
My perspective is: Give people their freedom and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves losing it again. We've seen this play out many times in history. However put just yet another red boss on top and you will need that conscription and all the authoritarianism that will come after and will crush any advance towards socialism.
I don't think KKE will ever get into power either. But that irrelevant. My point is that authoritarian praxis will lead to authoritarian outcomes, which will also inadvertently include things like purges of dissidents at the start and lead to a collapse back into capitalism eventually. This is why I don't trust any ML "left unity".
Give people their freedom and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves losing it again
"freedom" is the most meaningless word in politics. People use it to mean both "freedom from" oppression and "freedom to" oppress. Socialists, Communists, and anarchists want freedom from oppression but don't always agree on how to get there. The bourgeoisie want the freedom to oppress the proletariat.
However put just yet another red boss on top
this is such a tired trope. you're worried about the supposed "red boss" while is still in power. "We can't do revolution because meet the new boss same as the old boss!" Give it a rest.
you will need that conscription and all the authoritarianism that will come after and will crush any advance towards socialism.
Authoritarianism is the second most meaningless word in politics. The ruling class always cries about authoritarianism as they are being overthrown by the very same people who they have been exercising authority over. A social class will dictate the conditions of production. Is it going to be the proletariat, or the bourgeoisie? Is it going to be the impoverished majority, or the opulent minority?
They had a good back and forth that got to some of the details of the disagreement and aired em out a bit and you show up afterwards to try and just "YOU'RE WRONG!", Ignoring most of what was said.
Regardless of who is "correct" between ML and anarchists here, why are so many hexbear users just so unpleasant in their attempts to engage on this?
Most of their actual assertions are on the level of religious dogma. They gesture at "lived experience" and then make completely incongruous inferences from it
It still got closer to the actual point of the disagreement than 95% of the other comment threads about this. If that is how you see it then help them deconstruct those incongruous references, at least if you want this to be productive and not just more "fun" arguing.
I thought it was a good exchange overall, situational awareness is an important component of posting. I generally try to keep in mind the audience. Sometimes showing up to be combative when things are otherwise winding down can do more harm than good.
I'm trying to say that the issues I have heard with the KKE is that it wasn't willing to go far enough, and often will still prevent anarchists from being "too disruptive" at their events. I understand why they do, in particular because they may not feel ready for the police response. I see the same thing at protests in the US, it doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's also a far way from being in a position to do a Kronstadt again.
There's a historical background to a lot of this, and a lot of historical violence tend to also be in the broader historical context of things like civil war, which is how a movement will end up in the situation of: "do we forcibly conscript people or do we let the fascists overrun us?"
My perspective is: Give people their freedom and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves losing it again. We've seen this play out many times in history. However put just yet another red boss on top and you will need that conscription and all the authoritarianism that will come after and will crush any advance towards socialism.
I don't think KKE will ever get into power either. But that irrelevant. My point is that authoritarian praxis will lead to authoritarian outcomes, which will also inadvertently include things like purges of dissidents at the start and lead to a collapse back into capitalism eventually. This is why I don't trust any ML "left unity".
"freedom" is the most meaningless word in politics. People use it to mean both "freedom from" oppression and "freedom to" oppress. Socialists, Communists, and anarchists want freedom from oppression but don't always agree on how to get there. The bourgeoisie want the freedom to oppress the proletariat.
this is such a tired trope. you're worried about the supposed "red boss" while
is still in power. "We can't do revolution because meet the new boss same as the old boss!" Give it a rest.
Authoritarianism is the second most meaningless word in politics. The ruling class always cries about authoritarianism as they are being overthrown by the very same people who they have been exercising authority over. A social class will dictate the conditions of production. Is it going to be the proletariat, or the bourgeoisie? Is it going to be the impoverished majority, or the opulent minority?
They had a good back and forth that got to some of the details of the disagreement and aired em out a bit and you show up afterwards to try and just "YOU'RE WRONG!", Ignoring most of what was said.
Regardless of who is "correct" between ML and anarchists here, why are so many hexbear users just so unpleasant in their attempts to engage on this?
They've dehumanized me as a "wrecker" so it gives them the moral justification to engage in bad faith and "bully" me.
Eve fartlow-level self victimization
"the liberal had it coming, comrade chekist"
Dude you're still fucking going with this shit? Give it a rest, take the L, move on with your goddamn week, holy fuck.
Why would I stop? I want to make a collection of Ls!
Most of their actual assertions are on the level of religious dogma. They gesture at "lived experience" and then make completely incongruous inferences from it
It still got closer to the actual point of the disagreement than 95% of the other comment threads about this. If that is how you see it then help them deconstruct those incongruous references, at least if you want this to be productive and not just more "fun" arguing.
I think establishing definitions instead of using buzzwords is Good, Actually
Uhh ok. I don't disagree with this?
The other person was trying to establish definitions to buzzwords
Oh you just thought I was taking a stance I'm not taking in this.
Relax, PLEASE.
I thought it was a good exchange overall, situational awareness is an important component of posting. I generally try to keep in mind the audience. Sometimes showing up to be combative when things are otherwise winding down can do more harm than good.