You don't have to be a card-carrying anarchist, registered with the CEO of anarchism, to recognize when anarchists have a good point. And it's not as if anyone's self-described political affiliation has ever shielded them from criticism in the form of "sure they say that, but they're actually X."
No but in the same way that Nazi's called themselves national socialists it doesn't make them socialist.
The self-classification of someone's political leanings mean a lot less than their actions in the real world. If people who believe in electoral reform and use that as their main outlet for power call themselves anarchists, they're probably not.
It's not to shield anyone from criticism, if anything it is adding to the list of criticisms due to their ideological illiteracy.
The self-classification of someone’s political leanings mean a lot less than their actions in the real world.
Absolutely.
If people who believe in electoral reform and use that as their main outlet for power call themselves anarchists, they’re probably not.
He's not calling himself an anarchist, though. He's saying "anarchists have some good points; here's one of them."
ideological illiteracy
One of the worst, most counterproductive trends on the left is endless squabbling over what 10 different leftist labels mean and who is or isn't each one of them. As you said, it's their actions that are what's most important.
NJR calls himself an anarchist all the time idk what ur talking about. Hes also a reformist and has constantly shit on Marx and Lenin in the most unproductive and cringe anarkiddie way possible.
One of the worst, most counterproductive trends on the left is endless squabbling over what 10 different leftist labels mean and who is or isn’t each one of them. As you said, it’s their actions that are what’s most important.
You can stan whoever you want but he just has bad takes on this and its needlessly antagonistic and just stirs up this infighting, and he never talks about HIS theory of change which he should be rightfully called out for.
One of the worst, most counterproductive trends on the left is endless squabbling over what 10 different leftist labels mean and who is or isn’t each one of them based solely on their tweets
Also:
he never talks about HIS theory of change
Lol he runs a fucking socialist magazine where he writes about this endlessly. If you're going to argue that someone hasn't done enough homework on leftist theory, do a minimal amount of homework on the person you're bashing?
He literally talks all the time about how hes never read Marx and Lenin give me a break lmao, this guy is a clown and everyone always calls him out for it. He's literally the one starting shit without being able to actually back it up lmao
The guy is obviously committed to "you have to read something before you criticize it," far past the point of reason, and you honestly believe he's never read Marx?
Not understanding that a dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a literal dictatorship, and using Anarchist theory when you're literally not an anarchist to bad faith left punch as a supposed "DemSoc..." that is absolutely ideological illiteracy. Total galaxy brain shit.
Literally, the idea behind Democratic Socialism is that you can peacefully transition to a DotP without a revolution. Opposing is at odds with your literal mission goal. And so are anarchists. That's not anti left unity, that's the just the fucking definitions. You're not trying to abolish the state as a DemSoc, you're trying to peacefully take it over. That's just what that term means.
The left does uselessly squabble a lot, but it has just as many clout chasing, opportunist fucking fools looking to leverage discontent into a clique or a job or some other form of money and fame.
That is bad enough on its own without also being completely idiotic and at odds with itself.
Not understanding that a dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a literal dictatorship
In theory it's not. The anarchist critique is that in practice it is, or at least can be. This is not a new criticism. You can disagree with that anarchist criticism, but it's a response to the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat," not a misunderstanding of it.
No, it's only the former. "States are good, sometimes" is the Marxist take. Bakunin is arguing here that it is impossible to create a worker's state, not that it's unlikely.
And NJR is using that as a bad faith critique to say that they actually did mean a literal dictatorship, can't mean anything else, and is just left punching and red scaring at, frankly, like at a liberal's level. That you can't even include Marx in your analysis because he's scary and violent and power hungry.
As if smashing the fucking state, the position of an actual anarchist, isn't going to require a violent, revolutionary dictatorship. Conveniently, he leaves that part out.
He's jumping back and forth between DemSoc ideology and methods and anarchist critique, which are fundamentally incompatible.
Oh sorry I totally misunderstood your comment to the other person. I thought you were saying NJR was an anarchist and you were quoting him, not that NJR was quoting an anarchist. Whoops.
Does he call himself an anarchist? The only stuff I've seen from him involves electoral politics, which isn't very "anarchist".
He's considers himself an anarcho-social democrat lol
Seems like he can anarcho-deez nutz.
Ha! Good usage. Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyiccilVKM
things that exist for 5000 $
You don't have to be a card-carrying anarchist, registered with the CEO of anarchism, to recognize when anarchists have a good point. And it's not as if anyone's self-described political affiliation has ever shielded them from criticism in the form of "sure they say that, but they're actually X."
No but in the same way that Nazi's called themselves national socialists it doesn't make them socialist.
The self-classification of someone's political leanings mean a lot less than their actions in the real world. If people who believe in electoral reform and use that as their main outlet for power call themselves anarchists, they're probably not.
It's not to shield anyone from criticism, if anything it is adding to the list of criticisms due to their ideological illiteracy.
Absolutely.
He's not calling himself an anarchist, though. He's saying "anarchists have some good points; here's one of them."
One of the worst, most counterproductive trends on the left is endless squabbling over what 10 different leftist labels mean and who is or isn't each one of them. As you said, it's their actions that are what's most important.
NJR calls himself an anarchist all the time idk what ur talking about. Hes also a reformist and has constantly shit on Marx and Lenin in the most unproductive and cringe anarkiddie way possible.
There's a disconnect here. Again:
https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1290111333799665666
You can stan whoever you want but he just has bad takes on this and its needlessly antagonistic and just stirs up this infighting, and he never talks about HIS theory of change which he should be rightfully called out for.
Let me amend this to:
Also:
Lol he runs a fucking socialist magazine where he writes about this endlessly. If you're going to argue that someone hasn't done enough homework on leftist theory, do a minimal amount of homework on the person you're bashing?
He literally talks all the time about how hes never read Marx and Lenin give me a break lmao, this guy is a clown and everyone always calls him out for it. He's literally the one starting shit without being able to actually back it up lmao
deleted by creator
The guy is obviously committed to "you have to read something before you criticize it," far past the point of reason, and you honestly believe he's never read Marx?
He's quoted Marx in his writing, so I doubt that.
Not understanding that a dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a literal dictatorship, and using Anarchist theory when you're literally not an anarchist to bad faith left punch as a supposed "DemSoc..." that is absolutely ideological illiteracy. Total galaxy brain shit.
Literally, the idea behind Democratic Socialism is that you can peacefully transition to a DotP without a revolution. Opposing is at odds with your literal mission goal. And so are anarchists. That's not anti left unity, that's the just the fucking definitions. You're not trying to abolish the state as a DemSoc, you're trying to peacefully take it over. That's just what that term means.
The left does uselessly squabble a lot, but it has just as many clout chasing, opportunist fucking fools looking to leverage discontent into a clique or a job or some other form of money and fame.
That is bad enough on its own without also being completely idiotic and at odds with itself.
In theory it's not. The anarchist critique is that in practice it is, or at least can be. This is not a new criticism. You can disagree with that anarchist criticism, but it's a response to the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat," not a misunderstanding of it.
No, it's only the former. "States are good, sometimes" is the Marxist take. Bakunin is arguing here that it is impossible to create a worker's state, not that it's unlikely.
And NJR is using that as a bad faith critique to say that they actually did mean a literal dictatorship, can't mean anything else, and is just left punching and red scaring at, frankly, like at a liberal's level. That you can't even include Marx in your analysis because he's scary and violent and power hungry.
As if smashing the fucking state, the position of an actual anarchist, isn't going to require a violent, revolutionary dictatorship. Conveniently, he leaves that part out.
He's jumping back and forth between DemSoc ideology and methods and anarchist critique, which are fundamentally incompatible.
Oh sorry I totally misunderstood your comment to the other person. I thought you were saying NJR was an anarchist and you were quoting him, not that NJR was quoting an anarchist. Whoops.