Edit for clarity: I'm not asking why the Tankie/Anarchist grudge exist. I'm curious about what information sources - mentors, friends, books, TV, cultural osmosis, conveys that information to people. Where do individuals encounter this information and how does it become important to them. It's an anthropology question about a contemporary culture rather than a question about the history of leftism.

I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Newly minted Anarchists have to learn to hate Lenin and Stalin and whoever else they have a grudge against. They have to encounter some materials or teacher who teaches them "Yeah these guys, you have to hate these guys and it has to be super-personal like they kicked your dog. You have to be extremely angry about it and treat anyone who doesn't disavow them as though they're literally going to kill you."

Like there's some process of enculturation there, of being brought in to the culture of anarchism, and there's a process where anarchists learn this thing that all (most?) anarchists know and agree on.

Idk, just anthropology brain anthropologying. Cause like if someone or something didn't teach you this why would you care so much?

  • REgon [they/them]
    ·
    19 days ago

    Everybody is taught that communism is bad and should be hated. It's not how they learn to hate commies, it should be asked how they learn not to. Lots of anarchists I've met like to talk about "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism." Two made-up words created to sound like scary descriptors of evil foreigners. Any definition of those two words is either vague enough to describe any form of state ever, or so precisely crafted to only fit the description of one country, that it is functionally meaningless. I did read about the person who popularised "authoritarianism" receiving CIA funding, but I've lost the bookmarks sadly, so now it's just a kooky conspiracy theory.

    Lots of people realise the system is fucked and there is a need for something radical. They will start out by calling themselves something like "social democrats" or "leftist liberals", which allows them to be very smug online. From this point on many will at some point realise that their ascribed ideology is still just the status quo. This motivates a curiosity, which most often results in them encountering work by a CIA asset. This work prompts a change.
    This change tends to move towards "anarchism" (actually liberalism). These people then decide to call themselves anarchists, which allows them to be smug online, while still supporting the status quo. Other people become trots, so they can be smug in bookstores while supporting the status quo. Other people become left-coms so they can be smug in an armchair and angry online and do nothing to change the status quo.

    Other people get their ideology from memes. Cultural hegemony goes brrr. People are taught commies are bad, but also make memes about shit being fucked. This leads to CIA assets making memes, which makes some people reconsider their ideology. Many of these people end up becoming something like "social democrats" or "leftist liberals", which allows them to be very smug online. From this point on many will at some point realise that their ascribed ideology is still just the status quo. They see more memes. They "change" their ideology (still posting things online) to being "anarchists" (liberals posting things online supporting the status quo.) This allows them to be smug online. Other people become trots, so they can be smug in bookstores while supporting the status quo. Other people become left-coms so they can be smug in an armchair and angry online and do nothing to change the status quo.

    edit: Added a paragraph and made it a bit more tongue-in-cheek

    • bazingabrain
      ·
      19 days ago

      I did read about the person who popularised "authoritarianism" receiving CIA funding, but I've lost the bookmarks sadly, so now it's just a kooky conspiracy theory.

      that would probably be gene sharp, jacobin did a two part series on him.

      • ReadFanon [any, any]
        ·
        19 days ago

        There's a few of these figures who really poison-pilled the left, at least historically speaking - Gene Sharp, Saul Alinsky, Hannah Arendt... they are all on my shitlist.

          • REgon [they/them]
            ·
            19 days ago

            Any other good articles I can read on her and the rest of them?

            • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
              ·
              19 days ago

              here on Arendt

              https://web.archive.org/web/20241108153956/https://www.jpost.com/opinion/hannah-arendt-white-supremacist-456007

              Her own words are enough lol, have you considered that forced desegregation is totalitarian???

              https://www.normfriesen.info/forgotten/little_rock1.pdf

              Mark Tauger on Applebaum’s shoddy Soviet scholarship

              https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/review-of-anne-applebaums-red-famine-stalins-war-o

              • REgon [they/them]
                ·
                19 days ago

                Appreciated. You can always archive an article to avoid giving clicks

                  • REgon [they/them]
                    ·
                    19 days ago

                    I usually use the internet archive https://web.archive.org/ but there's a few different ones out there. You can also use it to bypass paywalls

              • ReadFanon [any, any]
                ·
                19 days ago

                Hannah "Um ackshually totalitarianism is really bad, I'm gonna have a relationship with the Nazi philosopher now" Arendt

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          19 days ago

          I'm extra mad at Arendt right now because "little eichmanns" is such a perfect encapsulation of what we're seeing with libs and both Palestine and trans genocide within the us, and extended to other genocides - indigenous, disabled people - and day to day evils like prisons and homelessness.