It's a tale as old as time of Anarchists absolutely shitting all over communists but god damn I hateeeee it. No self awareness
Edit: to be clear I don't have a problem with Anarchists, just seems like very often MLs are met with so much vitriol with people they could collaborate with. Just sucks. Stupid interner
Beware of any organization that has goals or is organized or is trying to accomplish anything
I'm part of a communist org and I don't exaggerate when I say that black nationalists have been more friendly and willing to work with us than anarchists have.
I'm black, and I've generally aligned myself with anarcho-communism ideologically, but I eventually reached a point in which the "anarcho-" part is silent, and I simply just say "communist" if asked. I'm not a fan of this sectarian bullshit, I find people who use the term "tankie" unironically to be cringe, and this fight about authoritarianism has always just been extremely unhelpful I find. So as someone who would say I'm an anarchist, I don't doubt what you're saying here at all. I'm so tired of it because, ironically enough, people like the one who made that original Instagram post are seeming concerned the most with aesthetics instead of actual leftist causes. By that, I mean they sound like they're more concerned about their label of "anarchist" and being seen as a "non-authoritarian" than anything else.
Seeing stuff like this ig post just reinforces to me that when people say "Anarchists and Communists hate eachother" it really just means that Anarchists hate communists lol. Most people critiquing the post come with actual thoughtful responses and information...whereas a lot of the people defending it just seem to be moving goalposts, posing gotcha questions, uttering American anticommunist talking points and just completely side stepping the fact that the post is OBVIOUSLY speaking generally about Marxists, yet they argue that its about "specific groups only". Like if I were someone who knew nothing about communism, my reaction to the post would be "I need to steer clear of tankies" and not go much deeper than that. Super harmful imo and it sucks because I feel like there is much more in common between communism and anarchism foundationally than not
I find people who use the term "tankie" unironically to be cringe
I identify as a tankie
Very nearly 100% of the time this is the case. I believed myself to be an ancom for a very long time and organized as such and never felt like anything was like… actually happening? Not that we didn’t have events, but literally people could not cooperate with other groups at all. From what I could tell, it was roughly the same within other groups as well.
Eventually joined a pan-left org and it was immediately 1000x more productive and with significantly healthier discourse when there was any
Deeply unserious. The difference between being against unjust hierarchies and being against all hierarchies should be obvious. One is nuanced and critical. The other is contrarian at best and outright reactionary at worst.
I personally think of the anti-sectarianism rule as more of a "play nice with each other" rule. I think people forget, the whole reason there are sects is because there are actual strong disagreements between tendencies, sometimes intractable ones.
I think the enforced cooperation between MLs and anarchists here have caused some people to talk themselves into thinking anarchists are just MLs with punk aesthetics when that's not really true. There's actual conflict between the two ideologies and they tend not to get along great everywhere besides here. All for working together when possible but I don't think we should delude ourselves into thinking the two are 100% compatible, if they were they wouldn't be separated in the first place.
Could you elaborate on intractable problems between anarchist and ML ideologies, please? I ask as someone ignorant of the history of the two movements outside of killing aristocrats and Nazis. I recognize a name like Mao and how the central planning government worsened famine conditions and caused excess death. I recognize anarchist concepts like dual power and mutual aid.
I imagine systemic intractability if it came to things like a draft to fight against capitalist powers or the assignment of labor tasks/location. To avoid jokerfication, I have to believe that there are more salient disagreements between the good faith, acting, theory tempered adherents of both ideologies. Opinions about vets helping in struggle? Stealing? Escalating resistance during protest? Electoralism? Powers of a club's electorate? Punishment of group members? Vocel oathes? Religion?
Bonus question: would somebody who has ingested enough Hexbear slop be uniquely equipped in meditating between the polar tendencies of communists or are we spinning our wheels here?
The very millisecond I see the word ''authoritarian'' being used unironically, I'm done. Everything turns into a complete disregard for anything that was said prior to it, and could be said afterward. Deeply unserious word. It is in fact one of the most charged liberal words in existence, along with ''autocracy'', ''human rights'', ''regime'', ''dictator'' and you guys know the rest. It's one of the most heavy lifting words in the liberal idiom. One drop of it in a sentence, and a liberal mind will construct the rest.
I identify as an anarchist. I see it both as an aspirational goal--a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society, which I think we all agree on as the ultimate objective--and as tactical guide in the face of overwhelming capitalism. Self-organized mutual aid and voluntary affinity groups can and do get shit done, even in the absence of any kind of widespread socialist (or even leftist) movement or power structure. Most of the anarchists I know in real life are more focused on actually trying to make the world better than on sectarian struggle, but I think the ones who care more about purity and less about praxis are more numerous and vociferous online. The good ones are out doing shit, not making Instagram series. The same is true for most MLs I've met: maybe the difference in philosophy will matter at some point way down the road when revolution is in progress, but that's so far in the future that it almost doesn't bear thinking about, much less starting a fight over. For now, we all have exactly the same goals.
an aspirational goal--a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society, which I think we all agree on as the ultimate objective
um, isn't that the same as communism
There are literal children arguing in those comments. That whole post is rage bait
I am convinced that every person who posts in an Instagram comment section, good takes or not, are bots. Except me....unless?
Except me....unless?
Redfash SeeSeePee bot confirmed! You're on comnuno-PutlerXi's payroll!
1st Paragraph: "Hmm yeah I can agree there's some issues with people being overly dogmatic when we don't really know what will lead to a successful revolution in a modern imperialist country"
2nd Paragraph:
Folx, I’m really worried that some of y’all are not talking about the real problem at hand, the people fighting for a Palestinian state! What they should really be fighting for is the abolition of the Palestinian state so they can be truly free.“What? You’re asking me to condemn the Israeli state? I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Do you know how they treat gay people in Palestine btw?”
I keep seeing this 'One-size-fits-all' as an insult. Yes, in fact, having a plan and sticking to the plan with moderate variation is a good idea. Noone has ever said that 'one-size-fits-all', but some plans have actually idk, accomplished something?
"I'm just gonna stop any attempt at a scientific understanding of capital and power dynamics to make sure that communists don't organize too many people at once."
our enemies use guns so using guns is bad don't use guns also don't drink water
The class war is a war like any other, and most wars I know of were won by having a clear plan of battle and strong leadership.
A strong leadership is one that is built from the bottom up.
but which/whose plan is the right one?
and how do you mediate between those with different plans who are all convinced that they are correct?
these are the real questions.
Easy, the one that has the most W’s under its belt and is best adapted to the situation.
and is best adapted to the situation.
and here we run into the same problem again
the one that has the most W’s under its belt
No we haven’t. Filtered.
what counts as a win will be scored differently by each geoup with a different plan.
Congratulations, you quoted... a different part of your comment from the one I quoted? This is the kind of behavior I'd expect to see on Reddit.
The one "best adapted to the situation" is subjective.
The plan that best furthers the interests of the proletarian class and advances us the most towards seizing power
It becomes evident during struggle what ones are the most advanced. You use results to determine this. The most advanced proletarian movements in history are the USSR and other AES. They achieved the most power. Once another plan and type of communism gets further than that, they will become the default
The science of revolution. It's a process. A dialectic process. A means of understanding society through action and changing it through understanding. It's like asking which is the right explanation for things, physics or chemistry? Biology or mathematics? They're all different tools to tackle different problems in the attempt to understand the universe.
Which experimental outcomes line up with reality? Those who achieved revolution. We know some plans worked in their context and some didn't. We can formulate plans of our own for our own context. Those that lead to revolution are the right ones. Those that just lead to navel-gazing and academic debates are not correct.
that will be fought over because there is not hindsight for what hasn't happened yet. obviously.
