I have considered myself an anarchist communist for almost 20 years now, but in the last 5 years or less, something has just gone seriously wrong with anarchists online. Outright anticommunism, preferring the US government to MLs. It's not the anarchism I knew. I don't know how much is new anarchists holding on to their former liberalism, and how much is disinfo of one kind or another.
I'm coming to consider myself somewhere between anarchists and MLs now, anyway (somewhere around Bookchinite communalism, Apoism, or council communism), but I can't say this hasn't been one of the reasons.
I’m gonna disagree with some people here and say this isn’t the anarchists’ faults, it’s genuine spook shit where the political establishment felt threatened by a rising left tide so they’re trying to drive a wedge between different groups and promote sectarianism. There isn’t a unified left party now like there was with the Panthers, all of our modern success has been disorganized, pan-left movements with no real organization. The tactics to disrupt it have to change so they’re trying to play up the lefty infighting to keep us from actually coalescing into a cohesive front.
Don’t hate your comrades and remember that anything not happening in real life should be incredibly suspect
I'm an anarchist, and online I'm fine to talk to MLs, and I've learned a lot about anti imperialism from them, but IRL none of the local ML or Trotskyist groups are worth organizing with, since they're (true to stereotype) control freaks. The exception is a local university ML group that runs along anarchist lines and has a libertarian bent because of its abolitionist politics.
I don't think it's an op, I think there are genuine differences between anarchists and marxists (especially the older ones, pro prison ones and electoral entryists) that get exaggerated in the internet's acoustics of conflict.
A huge amount of it is disinfo. There is a campaign that is based in the premise "anarchism is realcommunism". By making this assertion they can claim MLs are not communists and simply claim they are not infighting but shutting out MLs from the REAL communists.
This extends into the "tankie" language, which we all know is just anti-communism. But within the new-logic they have created they can claim it is not anti-communism because "MLs are not communists only anarchists are communists".
It's anti communism cleverly hedged inside the premise of MLs not being real communism. It plays wonderfully into the typical moralising shit that liberals do and their desire to take the highest ground in every single topic. It plays into virtue signalling behaviour and it absolutely is part of an intelligence op. It is the kind of thing that has been carefully thought out and planned around meeting tables and focus groups.
I always found council communism to be a confusing one because people say they're against Soviet communism, but Soviet communism just translated to council communism.
I guess it has to do with the inclusion of the party in the council process? They're organized pretty similarly from what I've read too.
I think it's just mostly the huge semantic umbrella of the label, similarly to the term "socialist" (or shit, even "marxist" and "communist" these days). like ML, or MLM comes with a stricter set of assumptions, whereas anarchist is a more inclusive term that can range anywhere from generic internet anti-establishment rage to literal antifa supersoldiers holding autonomous communities together with sweat and blood
a good way to filter the nerds out is literally just discard the opinion of anyone who unironically says the terms "tankie" or "anarkiddie". you'll still have people acting sus and complaining about "the anarchists" or "the stalinists" like it's still 1930's Spain but at least they're easier to spot when you're filtering out most of the sludge
anyone not looking to at least attempt left unity and post-struggle session cuddles in this day and age are just in it for the aesthetic and think posting epic political compass memes is the height of leftism
tbh this is in no way a new development, there's just new topics where it's being revealed - and in new media.
Leftist anticommunism has been the rule in the United States since the 50s, anarchists included. The only "acceptable" socialist was one who would parrot the US State Department, CIA, and related organs of imperialist power, or who would question that narrative without attaching any action or organization to it. It was even virtuous to repeat imperialist narratives, just as it is now. Every absurd, inconsistent dichotomy described by Parenti was repeated by left anti-communists unquestioningly. Whether from a position of earnest propaganda or fear of being delegitimized doesn't really matter given its net effect: support for the US regime-change apparatus.
At the same time, those who did materially opposed imperialism were targeted for destruction by that same apparatus. The assassinations of civil rights organizers, blacklisting of socialists, infiltration, criminalization, and jailing of anti-war environmentalists.
This is why building power and organization is so important: what we create must withstand that violence, because it is coming. No single leader must be too important. No betrayal too off-putting. We must build a self-sustaining movement focused on action to oppose these monstrous crimes and push capitalists to the point that they force a revolution through their violence in response to our very reasonable demands - safe work, housing, food, medicine, anti-war, and dramatic action on climate change.
I think it's because "Anarchism" to many people isn't presented as a well thought out and theorized idealogy with its own philosophers and writers, but rather just "Wow Anarchy cool like I saw on TV!".
So you get a lot of people into it that have no actual idea the history behind anarchist thought yet still want to call themselves the Cool Word, like ancaps as well.
The Anarchism that leftist politics use and the Anarchism that your average person uses are drastically different definitions entirely.
I don't think that's true. I'm quite elderly, and online anarchists circa 2005 were distinctly not like today's. Even on boards that were nominally mutualist/"left-libertarian", there was a sense that conflict with MLs was a conflict "within the family", and that the bourgeois state was a worse threat.
I have considered myself an anarchist communist for almost 20 years now, but in the last 5 years or less, something has just gone seriously wrong with anarchists online. Outright anticommunism, preferring the US government to MLs. It's not the anarchism I knew. I don't know how much is new anarchists holding on to their former liberalism, and how much is disinfo of one kind or another.
I'm coming to consider myself somewhere between anarchists and MLs now, anyway (somewhere around Bookchinite communalism, Apoism, or council communism), but I can't say this hasn't been one of the reasons.
I’m gonna disagree with some people here and say this isn’t the anarchists’ faults, it’s genuine spook shit where the political establishment felt threatened by a rising left tide so they’re trying to drive a wedge between different groups and promote sectarianism. There isn’t a unified left party now like there was with the Panthers, all of our modern success has been disorganized, pan-left movements with no real organization. The tactics to disrupt it have to change so they’re trying to play up the lefty infighting to keep us from actually coalescing into a cohesive front.
Don’t hate your comrades and remember that anything not happening in real life should be incredibly suspect
deleted by creator
I'm an anarchist, and online I'm fine to talk to MLs, and I've learned a lot about anti imperialism from them, but IRL none of the local ML or Trotskyist groups are worth organizing with, since they're (true to stereotype) control freaks. The exception is a local university ML group that runs along anarchist lines and has a libertarian bent because of its abolitionist politics.
I don't think it's an op, I think there are genuine differences between anarchists and marxists (especially the older ones, pro prison ones and electoral entryists) that get exaggerated in the internet's acoustics of conflict.
There's definitely been a serious liberal co-opting of online anarchist communities in the last couple years
A huge amount of it is disinfo. There is a campaign that is based in the premise "anarchism is realcommunism". By making this assertion they can claim MLs are not communists and simply claim they are not infighting but shutting out MLs from the REAL communists.
This extends into the "tankie" language, which we all know is just anti-communism. But within the new-logic they have created they can claim it is not anti-communism because "MLs are not communists only anarchists are communists".
It's anti communism cleverly hedged inside the premise of MLs not being real communism. It plays wonderfully into the typical moralising shit that liberals do and their desire to take the highest ground in every single topic. It plays into virtue signalling behaviour and it absolutely is part of an intelligence op. It is the kind of thing that has been carefully thought out and planned around meeting tables and focus groups.
I always found council communism to be a confusing one because people say they're against Soviet communism, but Soviet communism just translated to council communism.
I guess it has to do with the inclusion of the party in the council process? They're organized pretty similarly from what I've read too.
I think it's just mostly the huge semantic umbrella of the label, similarly to the term "socialist" (or shit, even "marxist" and "communist" these days). like ML, or MLM comes with a stricter set of assumptions, whereas anarchist is a more inclusive term that can range anywhere from generic internet anti-establishment rage to literal antifa supersoldiers holding autonomous communities together with sweat and blood
a good way to filter the nerds out is literally just discard the opinion of anyone who unironically says the terms "tankie" or "anarkiddie". you'll still have people acting sus and complaining about "the anarchists" or "the stalinists" like it's still 1930's Spain but at least they're easier to spot when you're filtering out most of the sludge
anyone not looking to at least attempt left unity and post-struggle session cuddles in this day and age are just in it for the aesthetic and think posting epic political compass memes is the height of leftism
:left-unity-4:
:geordi-yes: :heart-sickle: :af-heart: :ancom-heart: :Care-Comrade:
tbh this is in no way a new development, there's just new topics where it's being revealed - and in new media.
Leftist anticommunism has been the rule in the United States since the 50s, anarchists included. The only "acceptable" socialist was one who would parrot the US State Department, CIA, and related organs of imperialist power, or who would question that narrative without attaching any action or organization to it. It was even virtuous to repeat imperialist narratives, just as it is now. Every absurd, inconsistent dichotomy described by Parenti was repeated by left anti-communists unquestioningly. Whether from a position of earnest propaganda or fear of being delegitimized doesn't really matter given its net effect: support for the US regime-change apparatus.
At the same time, those who did materially opposed imperialism were targeted for destruction by that same apparatus. The assassinations of civil rights organizers, blacklisting of socialists, infiltration, criminalization, and jailing of anti-war environmentalists.
This is why building power and organization is so important: what we create must withstand that violence, because it is coming. No single leader must be too important. No betrayal too off-putting. We must build a self-sustaining movement focused on action to oppose these monstrous crimes and push capitalists to the point that they force a revolution through their violence in response to our very reasonable demands - safe work, housing, food, medicine, anti-war, and dramatic action on climate change.
I think it's because "Anarchism" to many people isn't presented as a well thought out and theorized idealogy with its own philosophers and writers, but rather just "Wow Anarchy cool like I saw on TV!".
So you get a lot of people into it that have no actual idea the history behind anarchist thought yet still want to call themselves the Cool Word, like ancaps as well.
The Anarchism that leftist politics use and the Anarchism that your average person uses are drastically different definitions entirely.
Autonomism?
Maybe! Don't really know enough to say.
Removed by mod
I don't think that's true. I'm quite elderly, and online anarchists circa 2005 were distinctly not like today's. Even on boards that were nominally mutualist/"left-libertarian", there was a sense that conflict with MLs was a conflict "within the family", and that the bourgeois state was a worse threat.
deleted by creator
⬇️
Same, comrade.
deleted by creator