Cross compass unity confirmed???!!


Link to thread: https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1533910149420797959

An ‘anarchist’ should be treated the same as Azov. The fact that MLs in the west do not comprehend this, and think anarchists are ‘fellow leftists’ is one of the main things holding them back.

Anarchism is genocidal nihilism and bases itself on nothingness and individuality. Marxism-Leninism is, in Lenin’s words, based on ‘the treasures of mankind’ and bases itself in civilizations, cultures, and histories of peoples.

‘Anarchists’ reveal their genocidal mentality by dismissing all civilizations as ‘oppressive’ to the individual, revealing their individualistic colonial view of what constitutes a people. They think a people is just the sum total of special snowflakes.

Meanwhile, almost all humanity believes a people is a deeper reality than the individual. The ‘anarchist’ thinks all humanity is wrong and illegitimate, and their latest trend is to co opt ‘indigenous’ tribes as realizing their model, despite this being wrong.

In a racist way they say indigenous people don’t have ‘civilization.’ That’s wrong, almost all ‘indigenous tribes’ do possess civilization and ‘oppression’ of some kind. The anarchoid is a creature of d*generate liberalism and has nothing in common with any substantive humanity.

The anarchoid claims it’s absurd to accuse them of being state assets, since they represent ‘negation of state.’ But every negation is tied to the determinate principle it ‘negates.’ Independence from this principle is only achieved in ‘negation of negation,’ a new one.

In this way, anarchists who seek to ‘abolish everything’ are tied to the status quo. Pure negation does not arrive at anything determinate except the object of negation. By default, anarchism is just a criminal excess of the bourgeois state itself. Part of status quo.

    • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      He definitely has fascist vibes, but in OP (among the incomprehensible word salad), he criticizes a fascist state for its subservience to the capitalist class.

      Maybe he has a wacky understanding of fascism that can be divorced from capitalism or is being disingenuous for his audience but that seems like a general attack on fascism.

      I'm not going to look this guy up, but I suspect he's one of the libs whose completely non-systemic criticism of capitalism amounts to

      a. capitalists and politicians are making immoral choices that benefit them instead of helping the people they have power over.

      b. marginalized groups enable this.

      So yes a fascist.

      • AcidSmiley [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Maybe he has a wacky understanding of fascism

        well he has a wacky understanding of about anything.