https://raddle.me/wiki/leftunity
Some choice quotes straight from the US state department
The USSR alone was responsible for the de-Tatarization of Crimea, the genocide of the Ingrian Finns, the ethnic cleansing of Poles, the mass gulaging and pogroms of Greeks, the deportation of the Karachays, the deportation of the Kalmyks, the deportation of the Chechens and Ingush (Aardakh), the deportation of the Balkars, the deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, the deportation of the Meskhetian Turks, the deportations of the Chinese and Koreans, the execution and deportation of Latvians, the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe and the Holodomor famine that largely happened due to the USSR's confiscation and export of all the grain stores in central and eastern Ukraine, and preventing people from acquiring more food by banning free movement. Then there's communist Czechoslovakia's Romani sterilizations, the Cambodian genocide, Bulgaria's "revival process", Vietnam's Montagnard persecution, the Isaaq genocide in Somalia, the Hmong genocide in Laos, the Gukurahundi massacres in Zimbabwe and the mass starvation of anywhere between 15 and 55 million people that happened in China during Mao's "Great Leap Forward".
LMAO
Marx really made his career shamelessly ripping off Proudhon's earlier work point by point, but piling on a thick authority sludge before serving it up to the world as if he were presenting something new and not just an authoritarian perversion of Proudhon's ideas. Once Marx found fame with his plagiarism, he then decried Proudhon as being detestable; a bad economist, a bad philosopher, whose critiques were worthless and unevolved.
MARX STOLE COMMUNISM FROM ANARCHISTS!!! LOL
identifying as a leftist is a statement to the world that you support nationalism, states, borders, a monopoly on violence, being ruled by kings or presidents or central committees. Anarchists aren't left or right wing, we're anarchists. We reject the power machinations of both wings of government. We reject all authority.
LITERALLY A LIBERTARIAN
If the concept of community is authority-based e.g. steeped in majoritarianism, then what good is it to anarchists? Since at least 99.9% of all existing self-identifying communities and even theoretical proposals for communities are beholden to states, councils, committees, voter bodies and other forms of rulership, it's safe to say the community ideal in itself is just another vessel of authority. If all organized communities on the planet can be clearly demonstrated to be authority-based, then it's a safe bet that the entire concept of community is authority-forming... By simply looking at every example in the world today, you can bet with absolute certainty that any forced grouping of people around the community ideal is going to lead everyone involved through another abusive and torturous adventure in archy.
Anti...COMMUNITY??? Can't make this shit up omg.
The few remaining free people in the world e.g. the Hadza in east Africa ("Tanzania") don't live in anything resembling what we know as a community. They're nomadic, have no leaders, no gods, no rules, no crops, no property, no marriage, no parents (Hadza children have full autonomy and essentially raise themselves), don't extract anything from the land other than foraged food and are quick to remove themselves from the presence of anyone who tries to rule them.
PLEASE LET ME GO MONKE, I HATE HUMANS SO MUCH
The original National Bolsheviks in both Russia and Germany had the same idea, believing socialism needed more blatant nationalism and racism than it already had under Lenin and Stalin. In the 1980s, the concept of third positionism was taken up by the far-right, fascist political party National Front in the United Kingdom. Today there has been a resurgence in third positionist fascism under various labels, from modern nazbols to "national anarchism" to neo-Eurasianism to (I argue) Dengism. It's completely unsurprising that an ideology founded by virulent racist and colonialist paternalists like Marx and Engels would find support with so many racist nationalists.
Fucker is trying to cancel Marx using literal nazi propaganda ROFL
Idiot has failed to understand that anarchism is not anti-authority.
This is what happens when you misinterpret anarchism and turn yourself into a vulgar anti-authoritarian instead of an anarchist. They anti-anarchy in their obsession with anti-authoritarianism. They hate authority so much they want ultra hyper atomisation and ultra individualism to the extent of utter obliteration of all community, social or otherwise. Why? Because you literally can't have basic human interactions without some sort of expected etiquette, expected norms that people conform to, and expected behaviours that people tell you off for if you break them. It's how human social relations work. The only way to escape all authority is to not live in groups and the desire this person has to live like that suggests they are a deeply misanthropic person.
This is really really not accurate. The social hierarchy among the hadza is age based, like most tribal arrangements, with elders being respected as teachers.
Anyway how exactly is Ziq expecting to get to this kind of lifestyle with the population we currently have other than through mass starvation and/or murder through intentionally breaking down the structures that currently exist for the current population.
Oh yes. The nazis. Cool. Glad I wasted my time before rereading and catching this fascist supporting shit.
Taking a peek at the thread someone linked in another comment further supports your conclusion:
I really do feel sorry for this person. They're stuck in that edgy 14 year old "everyone hates me" mentality. Friendless, alone, pretending that they hate people because they're so lacking in social skills that they can't ever connect with anyone.
I imagine though, if I met them in real life I would be filled with less "pity" and more of the "violent rage" they describe (though I think they're just misidentifying contempt as rage there).
Purging chuds, strongly encouraging underdeveloped people to do better, and upholding the advanced as exemplary is the same thing as ritual sacrifice and keeping "the rank and file" in line.
Man, if you think that banning fuckwits amounts to the ritualistic killing of people then you need to log off. The only ritualistic killing going on in social media spaces is when ziq ritualistically "killed" their administrator privileges for gross violations of trust before promptly resuming their position as administrator on raddle.
Also note that anarchists enforce community norms in effectively the same way - if you violate anti-oppressive values then you either get "ritually sacrificed" or the community enforces accountability processes to get people to sort their shit out. This isn't evidence of the deep-seated malicious nature of tankies, this is just how communities—all communites—operate and balance the competing demands of negative and positive liberties.
In that same comment thread ziq is playing victim by heavily implying that their life is being threatened by words and inference. Grow the fuck up, please.
Removed by mod
These ultra-individualist types amuse me because they're more or less tacitly stating to the world that they're cowards. They exalt the individual over the collective, so the idea that anyone would care about someone or something more than themselves to the point of sacrificing their life for that someone or something is unfathomable. But someone who would never risk their life for the sake of anything other than themselves is nothing more than a self-interested coward. And self-interested cowards aren't exactly known for being mentally and emotionally resilient who won't completely cave under the slightest of pressure.
And this isn't even getting to the sock puppets, an absolutely pathetic but predictable behavior of a emotionally stunted person.
Removed by mod
I will not be charitable to someone who is not equally charitable to us. When they cut the shit out of calling us fascists I might be inclined to interpret this libertarian ultra individualist anti-community nazi defender differently. But quite frankly they don't act in good faith to us so why the fuck should anyone treat them with any?
One way or another they are very clearly on the yellow side of ""anarchist"" rather than the red.
I think you're right. Most of the people on Raddle openly ID as either primmies or mutualists (fancy word for capitalism). The rest are just liberals. They even hate ancoms https://raddle.me/wiki/burn_the_bread_book
Removed by mod
They actually do mention "wheelchair and drug factories" only to completely dismiss it out of hand as just more industrial authoritarianism:
Ok so what happens to the drug factories, clinics and hospitals?
Oh also who is in charge of them? Do they just operate magically without any authority in charge despite medicine very much requiring seniority for the more experienced and more educated at making lifesaving decisions? Do you want someone to treat your life threatening condition who neither has any education nor any experience in it? Do you want nobody else in the hospital to double check their work and decisions before it goes through? Do you want no systems in place that result in consequences for medical professionals that fail in their duties of care through negligence? Who decides who provides good and bad care and who decides whether they're allowed to continue providing it?
All authority. Medical authority. Authority is essential to the operation of the fucking system.
And authority isn't born in a vacuum, someone needs to provide that authority to the medical authority. Through some sort of organisation that derives its power to create authority from something... A governing authority. Doesn't have to be a "state" as such but it does need to have a mandate for its authority, which means elections, polls, councils, etc.
I consider myself pretty anti-authoritarian myself, and thought that's what anarchism was as well. The whole point in my mind of anarchy is to find small communities that can typically mostly agree on issues, and they then vote democratically (either direct democracy or something like consensus democracy to help against majority rule). So there's still rules, just no power structure. Is that an accurate representation of anarchism? And how would that compare to anti-authoritarianism?
Well, now you're running headfirst into what "authority" even is. How would you enact these polices; throughway revolution? That's the most authoritarian thing there is, it's inherently a small subset of the population enforcing it's will on the rest. When you begin to unravel what the idea of "authoritarianism" even is you can see that any wielding of political power, period, can rightfully be called authoritarianism.
That can lead to greater underatsnding about how it's a term largely used by those in the imperial core to degrade those in the imperial periphery who've had the balls to wage any kind of real revolution. Authoritarianism is rarely applied to imperial core nations, no matter how brutal their policies are, and never in a way that dismisses everything about them; but the opposite is true for socialist countries.
I'm not sure how it would happen to an entire country like the US - obviously no amount of "vote harder" will make that happen - but figured it's already being experimented with on more local levels.
I think theoretically the whole voluntary association part of anarchism would handle the issue of "forcing" (via authority) anarchism on others. Of course, that's easier said then done in a world where just picking up your life and moving somewhere else is so non trivial.
Side note, but it really feels like online communities can do anarchism much better, since the voluntary association bit is so much more feasible online. I could see a nice lemmy instance or something that's run by charging each member a tiny amount, enough to pay for hosting (I can't imagine it'd be more than a few cents per person), and the policies of the instance would be fully democratically decided on. Bans would be decided by the community, etc.
This disregards the sacrifice and strength that those outside of the US have shown in creating revolutions. There are clear paths to victory for those who are willing to create a revolution and there are no clear paths to victory for those who aren't.
There's a reason that the only socialist states to exist are "authoritarian", it's because when it comes down to it they are in a war against the imperial core, yt supremacy, and capitalism because capital is willing to slaughter to maintain class supremacy.
Advocating against revolution like this means, at the end of the day, instead of opposing the abuse of the global majority you'll instead enable and benefit from it as a US citizen. Socialists, and I mean the ones who've fought hard and worked hard, have laid down their lives to find whatever system works. I think dismissing them out of hand as "authoritian" not only denies learning the complex and fascinating reality on the ground, but also reveals unchallenged western and white biases.
For a long time the going theory was parallel power - building community structures that would provide services for the community entirely outside the control of the state. Ie set up your own trash collection network, set up local childcare systems, free clinics, free libraries, tool libraries, bike shops, mutual aid for food and medicine. Whatever the community needs. Then you eat up the state from within as people increasingly recognize that they can provide their own damn services and don't actually need the state for a lot of things. Combine that with the tendency towards regular crises in capitalism, and for example the US's "No one is coming to save us" policy regarding disasters of all kinds, and you can, in theory, weaken the state until everyone just stops paying attention to it and it doesn't have enough soldiers to maintain control.
I have no idea what internet anarchists are doing these days. i really haven't met any with any real theory in a while.
deleted by creator
What you described here has nothing to do with authority at all tho.
If you think none of that has anything to do with authority then your definition of authority has absolutely no social content
The universal definition of authority has no social content then, since the universal definition of authority is having power over others and what Awoo described is simple self-assertion, not practicing power over someone else.
Most "universal" definitions are useless or colloquial expressions of bourgeois ideology that have filtered downstream, and power is inherently relational which makes it a form of self-assertion
That might be true but if you think asking someone to wash their teeth is 100% the same category as what white cops do to black people at traffic stops, we definitely won't agree on this issue.
I don't think anyone claimed all expressions of authority are the same
One of these isn't an expression of authority.
Oh wow I didn't know this kind of hunting-and-gathering fetishist still existed outside private collections. Also, Ziq seems to be confusing a low complexity society, ie one without many fixed or formal social or political roles, with not having any rules or norms.
It makes me question whether there might be neurodiversity in play here and a problem with recognising or fitting into social rules and norms. I don't generally like making that assessment but in searching for a "why are they like this?" it's difficult to completely ignore it. There's a problem there though because generally speaking small communities cast out members that don't conform to them more than larger societies where we build protections into law for people that are slightly outside of the norms.
Word. I hate to armchair diagnose, but then you run in to perspectives that are so bizarre there isn't another lens to really analyze them through. On the other hand, I do often say "being an asshole is not a mental illness". Idk, I think we're at a point in culture where there aren't really good ways to discuss someone who is very strange without at least straying in to mental health language and patholigizitng... pathologizing... shit, umm. straying in to language that accuses them of being sick. It's less of a problem with someone you have no interest in understanding. You can just say they're an asshole and move on. But when you're trying to wrap your head around someone who is very strange "neurodiverse" or "mental illness" is going to pop up as a potential explanation for their beliefs.
I don't think neurodiversity is mental illness is it? It's one thing to say "this person has x illness" and totally another to wonder whether there is non-debilitating neurodiversity at play. I don't necessarily think being different in terms of how things are processed should be considered an illness.