It really does seems to be that pretend anarchism is attractive for liberals. But on the other hand, there's a duality to this in that it's chuds who are likely to be pretend MLs. Basically the type of person who believes all of the CIA atrocity propaganda against the USSR but also thinks "damn that's based!"
I imagine it's because you don't have to do anything. You can just claim you're an "anarchist" because you don't think anyone should tell you what to do, and then instead of organizing and actually working towards anything you can just sit around being a pissant because you're not telling anyone what to do, so you've already achieved the kingdom of heaven, and it's everyone else who is wrong bc they keep telling people to do things like "wipe your ass" and "go to bed" and "stop hoarding property or face the wall your choice".
Some kid was like "Well what do anarchists do about murderers and violent criminals" and I had to explain that being anarchists means you have no hierarchy with no coercive authority, not that you let people do whatever the fuck they want. If someone's hurting people you can do whatever the fuck you want to them as long as the community agrees. Hang em, exile them, make them pay wergeld, shun them, do a restorative justice process, fucking whatever. The important part is that it's a decision made by the whole community according to whatever process the community agreed on rather than someone who is given, but more realistically takes by force, the right to make decisions on behalf of the community. It doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want and everyone has to let you and no one can tell you it's bedtime. I swear that's just American individualist brainworms. People see "No government" or whatever it is they think they see and since they can only conceive of themselves as an atomized singleton with no community role or obligations they assume anarchy means they can do whatever they want and no one will stop them. Like i'm not an anarchist, I'm not up to date on the latest theory, but that's not anarchism, that's being an anti-social American prick who wants to shoot people for crossing their lawn. Kropotkin's whole thing was that cooperation and acting for communal benefit was a strong adaptation that enabled humans to reach our current dominant position and all the "nature red in tooth and claw" social darwinist every man for himself dog eat dog world stuff was deranged bullshit. I don't think most Americans, at least most white americans, can even understand the idea of being part of a community. Like this set of weirdos who claim to be anarchists but seem to think it means they can do whatever they want and don't have to consider how it effects anyone else don't think that anarchy is being part of a community where people are all engaged in cooperation and mutual aid, and they don't think about a community deciding whether someone's behavior is intolerable and taking action to cause that person to stop behaving that way, whether that means shooting them or explaining why they're being a problem and trying to find a way to resolve the issue that meets the needs of all parties. They just think statism is when people tell you you can or can't do something, and anarchism is when you live off grid in a camper with your dog and a thousand guns and shoot anyone who crosses your property. or they just don't think at all, idk. I ran it to a bunch of people online who called themselves anarchists, but got real mad at the idea of forcibly disarming Nazis because they thought it was authoritarian, And that was so perplexing I don't know what to make of it even months later. Because they certainly didn't mean "Taking another party's guns away is tantamount to coercive imprisonment so you gotta either kill them on the spot or leave them alone", which is a position I could understand and accept. They seemed to mean you couldn't do anything or you'd be an authoritarian, and you just had to wait for hte Nazis to come try to kill you and then try to kill them? Or something? It was really weird and incoherent and I'm probalby overthinking it by even crediting them with having a real idea.
This is why I switch between calling myself anarchist or communist based on which is going to scare (or annoy when talking to leftists) the other person the most.
Yeah, we can't forget the patsocs were an actual thing that happened. If anything there's more of them with some amount of prominence than there are prominent anticommunist "anarchists", the former has Jackson Hinckle and Haz (I know Haz only exists on the internet but it's scary that a somewhat significant number of people follow his drivel), the latter is basically just Vaush who only exists online.
Patsocs only exist online as well. Like 20 people show up in any meatings or stuff. And in online existance something like Vaush is way more prominent and and of course in real life/acedmic/ political sphere influence an anti-communist anarchist like Chomsky and others to a lesser degree and to a lesser degree have been orders and orders of magnitude more popular and impactfull than any of these people in the convo and even defined the convo and intellectual approach against communist from the left for decades. And still i think irl you would find many more anti-ML people in orgs like the DSA whether they call themselves anarchists/syndicalists/libertarian socialists.
That's pretty true. Caleb Maupin does get the platform of CPUSA and unless I'm mistaken Jackson Hinckle was on Tucker's show at least once. They get some presence in the real world which I've never seen the likes of Vaush get, yet there's also people like Chomsky who have had orders of magnitude more sway than anyone else I listed. I think I may be a little brain poisoned by the internet so I had that blind spot.
The Tucker appearences just seem to me like they were fishing for people to just come and shit on the dems and their "warmongering" from non GoP "perspectives" and since the DSA/Vaushite activists dont even have that stance or would refuse to even go they can only call up niche weirdos like Hinckle or whatever their name is to show smth
Right, but you don't see Vaush showing up to Rachel Maddow's show to rant about tankies. Maybe reactionaries are just quicker to bring alternative people to the table for the veneer of being antiestablishment, while liberals have embraced their hegemonic position so bringing anyone who doesn't fit into the tight window of respectability will never get their 15 minutes?
Also i feel like lib media do some kind of background check and care a bit about optics so if they saw any discourse online thought some articles or posts would have been made of them "inviting an alleged pedophile streamer" . And even "we should invite a poltical twitch streamer named vaush" would feel like embarrassing proposal within mainstream media. Like Dore has a radio show and is a comentator i guess, Mauphin and Hinckie or whatever can be described as political organizers or activists . So its easier to get the ok
Vaush wouldn't serve a useful purpose. The libs don't care about the Tankies that actually exist, they're shadow-boxing with bernie supporters they made up in their minds who ruined Hillary's perfect election and are secretly undermining the holy and glorious purpose of the democratic party that would definitely fix things if they weren't such gosh darn small beans. Having some weird dude who claims to be a socialist rant about tankies that no one who wantches MSNBC had ever heard of :walter-shock: wouldn't contribute to her narrative or her ratings.
That is real but i think the scale is much smaller. I doupt it breaks 4 digits in numbers across the US. Unless you go to some country where nazbol isnt a meme like idk Russia (even there its not much). But it seems like chomskite-vaush adjustent watchers that would say "im a syndicalist/anarchist/libertarian" are way more common at least in the US
It really does seems to be that pretend anarchism is attractive for liberals. But on the other hand, there's a duality to this in that it's chuds who are likely to be pretend MLs. Basically the type of person who believes all of the CIA atrocity propaganda against the USSR but also thinks "damn that's based!"
I imagine it's because you don't have to do anything. You can just claim you're an "anarchist" because you don't think anyone should tell you what to do, and then instead of organizing and actually working towards anything you can just sit around being a pissant because you're not telling anyone what to do, so you've already achieved the kingdom of heaven, and it's everyone else who is wrong bc they keep telling people to do things like "wipe your ass" and "go to bed" and "stop hoarding property or face the wall your choice".
Some kid was like "Well what do anarchists do about murderers and violent criminals" and I had to explain that being anarchists means you have no hierarchy with no coercive authority, not that you let people do whatever the fuck they want. If someone's hurting people you can do whatever the fuck you want to them as long as the community agrees. Hang em, exile them, make them pay wergeld, shun them, do a restorative justice process, fucking whatever. The important part is that it's a decision made by the whole community according to whatever process the community agreed on rather than someone who is given, but more realistically takes by force, the right to make decisions on behalf of the community. It doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want and everyone has to let you and no one can tell you it's bedtime. I swear that's just American individualist brainworms. People see "No government" or whatever it is they think they see and since they can only conceive of themselves as an atomized singleton with no community role or obligations they assume anarchy means they can do whatever they want and no one will stop them. Like i'm not an anarchist, I'm not up to date on the latest theory, but that's not anarchism, that's being an anti-social American prick who wants to shoot people for crossing their lawn. Kropotkin's whole thing was that cooperation and acting for communal benefit was a strong adaptation that enabled humans to reach our current dominant position and all the "nature red in tooth and claw" social darwinist every man for himself dog eat dog world stuff was deranged bullshit. I don't think most Americans, at least most white americans, can even understand the idea of being part of a community. Like this set of weirdos who claim to be anarchists but seem to think it means they can do whatever they want and don't have to consider how it effects anyone else don't think that anarchy is being part of a community where people are all engaged in cooperation and mutual aid, and they don't think about a community deciding whether someone's behavior is intolerable and taking action to cause that person to stop behaving that way, whether that means shooting them or explaining why they're being a problem and trying to find a way to resolve the issue that meets the needs of all parties. They just think statism is when people tell you you can or can't do something, and anarchism is when you live off grid in a camper with your dog and a thousand guns and shoot anyone who crosses your property. or they just don't think at all, idk. I ran it to a bunch of people online who called themselves anarchists, but got real mad at the idea of forcibly disarming Nazis because they thought it was authoritarian, And that was so perplexing I don't know what to make of it even months later. Because they certainly didn't mean "Taking another party's guns away is tantamount to coercive imprisonment so you gotta either kill them on the spot or leave them alone", which is a position I could understand and accept. They seemed to mean you couldn't do anything or you'd be an authoritarian, and you just had to wait for hte Nazis to come try to kill you and then try to kill them? Or something? It was really weird and incoherent and I'm probalby overthinking it by even crediting them with having a real idea.
I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened.
I respect your disrespect :rat-salute-2:
This is why I switch between calling myself anarchist or communist based on which is going to scare (or annoy when talking to leftists) the other person the most.
:both-sides::left-unity-4:
Yeah, we can't forget the patsocs were an actual thing that happened. If anything there's more of them with some amount of prominence than there are prominent anticommunist "anarchists", the former has Jackson Hinckle and Haz (I know Haz only exists on the internet but it's scary that a somewhat significant number of people follow his drivel), the latter is basically just Vaush who only exists online.
Patsocs only exist online as well. Like 20 people show up in any meatings or stuff. And in online existance something like Vaush is way more prominent and and of course in real life/acedmic/ political sphere influence an anti-communist anarchist like Chomsky and others to a lesser degree and to a lesser degree have been orders and orders of magnitude more popular and impactfull than any of these people in the convo and even defined the convo and intellectual approach against communist from the left for decades. And still i think irl you would find many more anti-ML people in orgs like the DSA whether they call themselves anarchists/syndicalists/libertarian socialists.
That's pretty true. Caleb Maupin does get the platform of CPUSA and unless I'm mistaken Jackson Hinckle was on Tucker's show at least once. They get some presence in the real world which I've never seen the likes of Vaush get, yet there's also people like Chomsky who have had orders of magnitude more sway than anyone else I listed. I think I may be a little brain poisoned by the internet so I had that blind spot.
The Tucker appearences just seem to me like they were fishing for people to just come and shit on the dems and their "warmongering" from non GoP "perspectives" and since the DSA/Vaushite activists dont even have that stance or would refuse to even go they can only call up niche weirdos like Hinckle or whatever their name is to show smth
Right, but you don't see Vaush showing up to Rachel Maddow's show to rant about tankies. Maybe reactionaries are just quicker to bring alternative people to the table for the veneer of being antiestablishment, while liberals have embraced their hegemonic position so bringing anyone who doesn't fit into the tight window of respectability will never get their 15 minutes?
Also i feel like lib media do some kind of background check and care a bit about optics so if they saw any discourse online thought some articles or posts would have been made of them "inviting an alleged pedophile streamer" . And even "we should invite a poltical twitch streamer named vaush" would feel like embarrassing proposal within mainstream media. Like Dore has a radio show and is a comentator i guess, Mauphin and Hinckie or whatever can be described as political organizers or activists . So its easier to get the ok
That's true too. Fair points all around.
Vaush wouldn't serve a useful purpose. The libs don't care about the Tankies that actually exist, they're shadow-boxing with bernie supporters they made up in their minds who ruined Hillary's perfect election and are secretly undermining the holy and glorious purpose of the democratic party that would definitely fix things if they weren't such gosh darn small beans. Having some weird dude who claims to be a socialist rant about tankies that no one who wantches MSNBC had ever heard of :walter-shock: wouldn't contribute to her narrative or her ratings.
deleted by creator
Caleb Maupin and Jackson Hinckle are also piss babies, I doubt that's the only reason.
deleted by creator
at least one actual american ml party is palling around with maupin and his cult
That is real but i think the scale is much smaller. I doupt it breaks 4 digits in numbers across the US. Unless you go to some country where nazbol isnt a meme like idk Russia (even there its not much). But it seems like chomskite-vaush adjustent watchers that would say "im a syndicalist/anarchist/libertarian" are way more common at least in the US