So, since coming here, I've been accosted left and right by ML's calling me a Lib for not being a ML. Essentially that's what it's come down to.

My personal philosophy aligns with Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Bookchin. I consider myself an Anarcho-Communist or Communalist, depending on the situation, I suppose.

I firmly oppose fascism and authoritarianism. I believe in direct democracy and the inherent goodness of humanity.

I really thought that I had found a place where leftist thought was going to be welcomed, but so far I have not found it here. All I've found are hateful people who want me to leave.

Like I said elsewhere, it's almost as if they don't want new people to join their cause. Like they're actively pushing people away who could have the potential to learn, and who have explicitly come here to learn and to engage in good faith.

I just don't get it. I feel like our cause will never come to fruition because of these types of attitudes.

    • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Sadly, it's probably the best policy. I learned the same a long time ago. Just don't let the trap of not being willing to argue over it cause you to stop seeing the double-standards. Also, maybe find a more productive way to argue than to fall back on tropes like "tankie" and "red fash".

      • comi [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Productive ways are leftcom-ish critiques (or some boomer shit popping round gender expression), as anarchist ones run into problem “all states are bastards anyway”, why spend time on china :shrux:

        • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I mean, I think "all states are bastards anyway" is actually a good argument that China is bad, in the sense that China, as a state, is therefore a bastard. Sure, it isn't unique in that propensity (and no one reasonable should be arguing that it is), but if the point is, "hey, saying China Good is wrong because China is a state and states aren't good", that's an intellectually consistent position. MLs may not care for it, but the answer to "why spend time on China" is pretty clear: because it is one of the most populous, increasingly powerful states in the world. You may not get agreement out of them, but if they call you a lib for that, they only discredit themselves.

          As someone who doesn't particularly sympathize with either position, I have the luxury of taking those lefcom-ish positions, of course, which makes it easier, but part of learning to argue with a specific tendency is learning to understand what arguments it is prepared to answer and then not giving that answer. MLs who aren't critical of China will respond to "China, as a state, particularly bad" with "But what about the US!?" because they are used to it. "China, as a state, bad; China, as a large nation with a lot of power, relevant. US as a large state with a lot of power also bad and relevant." Is not one they have a good answer to, except to go "US worse", to which the answer really ought to be, "Okay, but China still bad and relevant, and I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time". Then you get into "b-b-but imperialism", to which the answer they expect is "China is imperialist, too", which they are prepared to argue with. Instead, you reach for "More than one thing in the world can be bad, and being anti-imperialist doesn't make China automatically good." which, again, they have no answer to.

          Most important is the understanding that you aren't going to get them to agree, no matter what you say, so your goal should be either A. to make them view your position as human and not just a strawman or B. to demonstrate to the audience why you are correct. Nothing is won by playing directly into their expectations.

          • comi [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            But that’s an argument on foundational scale, I think “smaller” disagreements are more important/possible to talk about (well, with China-sympathetic ml) like workers seasonal migrations, dodgy foreign policy in nearest countries, certain institutional elitism etc, where your critique is nuanced and caring about poor people, instead of latest usa think tank bugbear.

            But then again, you never know :shrug-outta-hecks:

            • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
              ·
              3 years ago

              I think that there's plenty to engage-with at the very specific level (i.e. "this very specific action is bad") and at the foundational level (i.e. "philosophically, this is bad"), but the problem is often the connection between the two, which is where I tend to see things get most strident. It's going, "regardless of the position of Taiwan on China, China's continuing claim to Taiwan is imperialism" that tends to get the "just poked a hornet's nest" response, in my experience.

              Dunno, it's obviously very frustrating, and I tend to just not engage, because I don't expect to have valuable conversations.

              • comi [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Eh, taiwan is nest of bullshit tbh, I don’t think china should touch it with tent foot pole as well, even on political level, without going into the weeds of colonization and general dodginess.

                Tis fair enough, but philosophical discussions require more broad net I guess, there are more than 2 countries in the world

      • Guy_Dudeman [comrade/them,he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Just don’t let the trap of not being willing to argue over it cause you to stop seeing the double-standards.

        Yeah. It's just exhausting.

        maybe find a more productive way to argue than to fall back on tropes like “tankie” and “red fash”.

        Yeah, they seem to really take offense. They don't seem to see the double-standards, or they've rationalized them in their minds. I don't know. I'm just fucking over the attitude.