the propagation of anticommunism in anarchism HAS to be an op. I have a huge interest in anarchism but this level of malicious interpretation of the ussr is always mindnumbing. it's especially infuriating in the ways that the author gets it - the failures of anarchism, the looming socialism vs barbarism over the environment, the ways in which revolution is coopted into reaction.

"Unfortunately, however, we do not think that a retread of what libertarian socialists have already accomplished will suffice to help us meet the true challenges of this new century of ours. Indeed, what we lack is very nearly as important as what we have. We have no theory of economic planning; we have no military theory; we have only the rudiments of a science of self-management and organization; our theories of the state are fragmentary and confused; our understanding of recent advances in the natural and social sciences is tenuous at best; and as a result our practical debates on questions of great urgency to the movement – whether and how to revolt, how to build dual power, international disputes, questions of imperialism and decolonization, economic reconstruction, the green transition – go round and round in unhelpful theological circles, all while our enemies outmaneuver and prepare to crush us."

like this is great analysis of the failures of anarchism which I can't believe is in the same essay as

"An honest socialist appraisal of why Soviet planning failed would at a minimum cite its fetish of centralization, its concentration of decision-making power in so few hands, its lack of information flows allowing for proper action, the inability to debate policy frankly due to a near total lack of serious political pluralism, the subsequent decoupling of theory from practice and ideas from facts, and the system’s devastating overreliance on coercion as opposed to persuasion or compromise or positive incentives.22 Yet to critique these things is invariably to critique Leninism itself; when you’ve gone through the checklist, very little remains of the static dogma. Malm has made the Leninists a model for planning, yet the simple truth is that they weren’t very good at it. The bluntest way to put it is that if we actually did implement so-called Climate Leninism, the eponymous Leninists in charge would fuck up, prevent anybody from saying so, then lie to cover their asses until everything dies." :jesse-wtf:

idk if this is a good place to bring it up but this trend in anarchism reminds me of tucker carlson reciting the communist manifesto and then placing the blame on anarcho-bidenism, but a further left version.

also that anarchists need to read mao and lenin please everything anarchist theory is missing is right there.

  • Tervell [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Is it really a trend in anarchism, or is it a trend in libs online labelling themselves as anarchist?

    I just opened up the homepage of that website, one of the top articles was "Voice of a Russian Against the War", and after just a bit of scrolling down I got to

    Far-right politicians don’t occupy any official posts in Ukraine. The most prominent far-right party, Svoboda (in fact, an alliance of several fascist and Neo-Nazi groups), scored only 2.15% in the 2019 parliamentary election.

    and a bit further down

    Why the Left needs to support Ukraine

    ... Because Ukraine is a democracy — admittedly fledgling, even feeble — but still a democracy. Because it deserves to be independent and walk its own path.

    I'm not an anarchist myself, but I feel like downplaying Nazis ("oh, they only had 2% in the election" as if any percentage of Nazis is fucking acceptable) and praising fucking Ukraine as a democracy is not a particularly anarchist stance. A bit further down, the author says they wish for Russia to be "Social-democratic in the short run and socialist in the long run". So I feel like this might be another one of those classic "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism" moments rather than something particularly anarchist. I guess that's just an article they're hosting (from a conveniently anonymous author), but it seems like kind of a weird article to stick on one's anarchist site.

    • pooh [she/her, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Call me paranoid, but making excuses for US foreign policy while using the “anarchist” label absolutely feels like an op, and it’s one of two trends on the left that I’m suspicious of. The other one is the “patriotic socialist” nonsense we’ve been seeing more of recently.

      • Tervell [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, that's definitely suspicious. I remember reading something about how during the Cold War the CIA funded a bunch of magazines from more obscure, non-ML leftist tendencies, for the purpose of having a critique of the Soviets from the "left".

        But it could also just be westerners being westerners, and realizing that actually successful anti-imperialism would be pretty bad for their treats, and as such has to be opposed. That's not to excuse them, if you serve the ends of the empire it doesn't matter much whether you're getting paid or not, you're still a piece of shit. It's just important to consider that people can adopt these positions on their own, because of their material interests, without requiring intervention by the CIA

        • Alaskaball [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Another schism that was exploited by the feds to undermine the socialist movement was to exacerbate the ideological split resulting from the Sino-Soviet split. The conflict between communists and maoists broke one of the legs of the Communist movement - other being Khrushchev throwing Stalin under the bus and crushing the Hungarian counter-revolution.

      • Alaskaball [comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        The other one is the “patriotic socialist” nonsense we’ve been seeing more of recently

        I dunno, those nerds seem like the gamergate losers but painted red. I'd concider the ones more likely to be an op are the leadership of dsa and cpusa. One side's openly a wing of the bougeoise, the other one's dresses up their support for the bougeoise in revolutionary sounding language. Both serve to sheepdog socialists back into the arms of state-sanctioned political party of the international bourgeoisie imperialist hyenas

  • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    the inability to debate policy frankly due to a near total lack of serious political pluralism

    That's a :LIB: moment