Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
Trying to figure out if the people doing the revolution are justified in their violence...
Alright, I think I've got it.
Doesn’t really work, Soviets of all races and ethnicities along with French and German communists are still horrifically despised. Their violence is also seen as “unjustifiable”.
Slavs aren’t “really white.” You expect western “leftists” to know about the Paris commune or German revolution?
Soviets of all races and ethnicities along with French and German communists are still horrifically despised
I don't think they're really recognized as a cohort. When you talk about the German proletariat, its presumed you're talking about some blue collar auto worker or engineer or PMC banker. What's more, any kind of media coverage of Germany always fixates on the far-right elements of anti-government action. You'd never know East Germany was a thing, much less that German communists exist as a political force.
With France, you get a vague acknowledgement of labor unions and riotous dissidents. But they're also traditionally described in the context of far-right parties, xenophobic ideology, and a blanket disdain for Anglophones rather than any kind of Internationalist labor sentiments. French communism as a movement is also heavily occluded in international media monologues.
When you do get into anything resembling leftist ideology, it is typically described as a foreign element - Muslim/Hindu family homes/rejection of modern banking/vegetarianism or anarchism/anti-police sentiment in African ghettos or the insidious influence of the Chinese Communist Party on French/German domestic economies. I guess, we get a bit of an inversion of the trope. Less that "revolt is bad because foreign" and more "foreign is bad because its revolutionary".
Eastern Europeans are a whole different thing. You've got the "good" Eastern Europeans (your Latvians and Estonians and Orbans and Navalneys) who align with the western finance sector. And then you've got the "bad" Eastern Europeans (your Putins and Lukashenkos and Serbs and Moldovians) who operate as a foreign policy boogieman that justify more NATO spending.
I was more referencing the historical elements, not really the current status quo.
But your analysis makes sense.
Anti-communist messaging and its consequences have been a disaster for anarchists. Too many people take the label because they recognize that capitalism isn't great, but don't go far enough to see the propaganda the state perpetuates. I desperately wish these "anarchists" would read theory, or join a cool anarchist group, and see the error in their ways.
It's weird how people can recognize that the government and the rich control what you see, know the terrorist and propaganda pushing actions of the CIA, but will not put two and two together and realize how it follows that they're not getting the complete story on the USSR, AES etc from them.
I know because I was one of them and I still struggle with holding opposing opinions than what is constantly broadcasted by media and propagated by others.
To quote myself "Vaush and "anarch-bidenism" have done terrible things to the online anarchist community."
I used to be an anarchist before vaushites took over all the anarchist discourse. Them and the "anprims," of couse.
That's tragic. We really need to get to work on educating the general populace on what anarchism actually is.
Yeah, we really need to put the theory back in anarchism. I've been having some vague thoughts of putting together an anarchist book club, but I haven't really decided on any details. Maybe IRL, maybe on Hexbear, don't really know.
Lemmy.ml has an anarcho-book club, but in the sidebar it lists Rothbard and Trotsky as anarchists, among others. It also hasn't had a new post in about 2 years.
And it kinda is, even Lenin said things along the lines that and revolution is a group forcing it's view onto society(only those views are dope and for the good of the people), it requires authority and structure therefore anarchists are either anti revolutionary or hypocritical about their revolutionary ideals
Lenin said stuff like that too in state and revolution, partially echoing Engels as well
No, because the overthrow of the government, which every day commits violence against the workers, is the legitimate self-defense of the people. You should read what the revolutinary anarchists wrote. And look at examples of anarchist uprisings, like the Makhnovists or Spanish anarcho-syndicalists
Still, it's the anarchists view of a better world and of defense, which not necessarily is shared by all workers agree, many of them believe the state is something that defends them, so you are still imposing onto people your will, you can beat around the bush as much as.you want revolutions are authoritarian things, furthermore no anarchist revolutions had any lasting success which corroborates the idea that anarchy is not the most sensible platform for ending cptalism
The state protects, of course, but not the majority, but the minority, which has the power. This is the very essence of the state, it was made that way on purpose, because capitalists need the power of the minority, not the majority. The goal of socialists is to give power to the majority so that people can have freedom. You can't use a hammer to drill a hole. About failed revolutions - first of all, they took place in difficult conditions and in fact died because of the betrayals of Marxists, secondly, nevertheless, they gave experience and showed that it is quite possible to organize a society without the state and protect it, even in spite of "objective circumstances", which are justified by the Bolsheviks to take power away from the workers. And as Marxists themselves say about socialism when arguing with the right-wingers - airplanes didn't take off the first time either About authoritarianism - if a thief attacks you to rob you by force, and you knock him out, would that be authoritarian? No, it was the thief who behaved authoritarian, who wanted to impose his will on you, and you self-defended to preserve your freedom. I suggest you read this: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html#sech4
The issue is not just that a society can be organized without the state but one of the main reasons for the socialist state is to prevent the outside capitalist forces from taking back control, and that could have something to do with the lack of lasting anarchist experiences, furthermore the organization of a revolutionary force has issues with some of the anarchists that say that no authority is justified, which makes any sort of army force nearly unsustainable. Furthermore the thief analogy somewhat works but the fact of the matter is that any revolutionary force will impose one view on detriment of others in an authority manner, there is no analogy that makes it less so, the state sucks but how to bring it down and what to do afterwards is a choice, that will be made by the revolutionary force, and that is the authoritatary measure, the thief did wrong I do not deny it, but you are deciding the sentence as well, and unilaterally so. And I think its an inevitable property of revolution, just one that anarchy tends to struggle with.
Because we hold out some modicum of respect for actual, real anarchists and not just some teenage-minded shopaholics at the supermarket of ideology who found some loophole to larp as being leftists while having zero skin in the game and a perfect vantage point to support western supremacy while believing they have a unlimited license to feel smug.
I think "teenage-minded" is doing most of the work here. There is no shortage of immature communists out there who also fit the rest of your paragraph as well.
I don’t know if the solution here is agism/childism/whatever. I’ve met some really stupid kids anarchist or reactionary, but I’ve also met good comrades my age both on here and irl. Yes there is an immaturity in ideology that can correlate with immaturity of mind and body but there are also a lot of stupid adults. Some may go through a radlib phase as a kid and some will be an even more insufferable anarkiddie as an adult. https://srslywrong.com/podcast/265-ageism-misopedy-adult-supremacy-child-liberation-childism-adultism-child-rights-etc/
I agree with you. I was just choosing to engage with my best interpretation of OP's statement.
Nonsense, there's a barrier to entry to being a communist. There's a massive shortage of us. Not so with anarcho-x kids.
Because the anarchist symbol is on more merchandise and is represented more in capitalist media as something "cool" and "punk."
Anarchism is very much marketed as an ideology to be consumed to divert the working class from approaching theorists that revolutionary movements have leaned on to actually overthrow capitalist regimes. This isn't to say that there aren't valuable anarchist insights, just that objectively anarchist movements have yet to lead a successful revolution that can sustain itself.
Red scare propaganda obviously. If it’s “common knowledge” “socialism doesn’t work” but you see capitalism sucks you want a third way. That way is to reject all states and authority especially socialist states. A true anarchist distrustful of authority would support socialism as positive step away from capitalism, but many don’t question the authority of the red scarers and thus trust them when they say socialism is even worse.
As I said above, no barrier to entry. You don't have to read a book. You can deflect away any criticism of the west as "Shur all states are bad!" and then focus all your criticism on AES states while appearing to remain ideologically consistent.
*palatable, for clarity
But I feel like Gramsci's writing on the relative failure of anarchists in Italy has some sort of relevance here.
https://redsails.org/discorso-agli-anarchici/
The most basic and unreflective impulse of social rebellion has a palpable connection to what anarchism is, even if many anarchist activists and theorists are much more sophisticated in their ideology than that might imply to you. Anarchism in a broad sense is also very compatible with the empty, abstract inferences that people raised in liberalism are used to approaching political ideology with. In juvenile anarchists, you can for example see this in the similarity between their "I oppose all states", even those that are historically progressive, and Ghandi saying "I oppose all violence" even in response to Jews fighting against Nazis!
True but you can't credibly do it for long without being found out. I'm actually Xi Jinping.
It's just a slow process of revealing that many are not informed enough, and more importantly, that there are legitimate disagreements to be had that have not been addressed enough beyond discourse and ideological struggle. Most theory is a product of certain perspectives examining specific histories in specific places. But everything is always changing and nothing is truly universal. It's only natural disagreements will be numerous even within perspectives that have similarities. And now days ideology seems reduced down to commodified identities that are developed through outrage and toxic, debatebro discourse so that doesn't really help either.
If you ask me we need better triangulations and to get more comfortable with pluralistic thinking instead of simply purifying and gatekeeping our ideological group. ML thought deserves to not be reduced to something so static, and it needs more opportunities and creative practitioners for it to become more applicable, and thus more credible in more places. In other words we need reciprocity and continuity with other perspectives as much as we need rigor and integrity within our own methods and ideologies.
Most Trots I know are the real deal, not just knowingly spoofing. They're usually well meaning, just misled and unable to get past their western indoctrination.
I don't understand Trots. They don't like the USSR but they seem to be supportive of most other socialist projects other than China.
Its also wierd that many neocons used to be trots. Do they think that globalization is a way for a world government to occur so that one government can be used to build socialism? IDK
It's simple: does the state pose a political threat to the US? Yes? Then believe most of what the State Department says about it, just like they used to with the USSR (and still do retrospectively).
Same here. I guess it's a confusing place to be, you feel like you're doing well meaning stuff but because you're ideologically brainwashed and prohibited from making logical dialectical conclusions nothing really makes sense.
Most Trots are incredibly well-read and very eloquent, but their conclusions are like incredibly uh “stupid”.
they dedicate their lives to hashing out an old feud they lost terribly almost a century ago
Because of the mythical existence of "based real life anarchist" as opposed to the "terminally online anarkiddies".
Idk if those exist, irl anarchists i know or i know of in Poland are and always were without exception anticommunists.
I've run into a number of Greek anarchists whose complaints of the USSR boiled down to "Stalin didn't send enough weapons or troops and abandoned us"
Easy to understand why they'd be pissed about that. Sounds like the same idea as the "Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin" meme but with the opposite sentiment than it's usually used with.
Also the USSR refused to openly support Spanish anarchists during the Spanish civil war.
They just let them get eaten alive slowly by the fascists.
The USSR was also sending weapons to the larger and more effective republicans. It was one of the only countries to send arms to the antifascist forces, if not the only.
Yes but they did so very limitedly and did not publically support them. France also supported them but only in secret and not during the end of the civil war.
The USSR, along with every other government, chose to remain relavitivly silent when their support ( which was repeatedly asked for ) could have opened the door to greater acceptance by other world powers.
You see that is the anarchist critique of the USSR and communism in general. That the structure of communism still requires the state. And thus they will be similar to capitalist regimes in function & form.
During the Spanish civil war the USSR chose to do the same thing as the US and Britton for the same reasons. To turn their backs on a legitimate left government fighting reactionary fascist rebels. Simply because it would cost to much. Or would make them vulnerable to facists attack.
Not fun fact: The only thing Polish anarchists torched after 1989 was... Soviet consulate in Gdańsk in 1991.
I’ve met decent principled anarchists. They’re few and far between considering it’s often just a phase identity and they’ll go back to lib later. But there are decent ones and I wouldn’t expect you to find them in Poland (or much of the west).
There is a Polish IWW branch, you might have some luck finding "based real life anarchists" there.
It seems to me that self styled anarchists use the label because it's an easy, safe way of saying you're a bit of a rebel. It has a common, dictionary definition. At least in my country, you could shout that you're an anarchist from the rooftop and never lose your job.
The same is not true of Maoists, Trots, other kinds of Marxists. Nobody I've ever met claims to be one of those without having read some theory (the 'some' is variable, naturally). Claiming those labels brings heat and everyone knows it. If anything, I know more people who have read lots of Marxist theory who still don't claim the label because they know that it will put their skin in the game and potentially their job on the line.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think anyone would put quotation marks around 'anarchist' when describing or criticising e.g. Kropotkin. To me, it's more of a nod to the fact that 'anarchist' is often used in a meaningless way by people who aren't seeking accuracy.
They just want you to know that in an ideal world we wouldn't have a government or bosses or crime, etc, and everyone would decide all at the same time to share power and work together and all live happily ever after. Quite different to those who participate in direct action or the Catalan anarchists and Makhnovites of old. Or maybe 'anarchists' would like to cosplay as a violent revolutionary anarchist to achieve their goals but idk. That strikes me as more adventurist than anarchist even if both labels 'fit' according to the common psyche.
Like I said, as a broad descriptor, it's not a label seeking accuracy as it's been co-opted so many times. It's a label for those who want the aesthetics of being a revolutionary without risking their job or friendships. The quotation marks make it clear that neither real anarchists nor Marxists accept that breadth.
The online space for anarchists is so weird to be honest. I organize with a bunch in my daily life and I would peg it at solidly 75% are warm on China and more pissed at their landlord than Putin or whatever. It's extremely jarring going into some online anarchist spaces and having it uniformly be the democratic national convention.
75% are warm on China
Which sounds absolutely surreal online but totally ordinary irl. Turns out that people who reject mass society as a whole don't trust the Washington Post, don't see the world with staunch liberal ideals and don't pretend to know everything about a place they never went to
In the US, it's been the ones who are either old punks, or just normal people that gravitate to anarchist organizing, without making it their identity. When I say warm it's not that they're "pro-CCP" it's that they're not knee jerk going china bad, and certainly aren't going out of their way to try to make it a purity test for social interactions.
Maoists have a long history in black liberation movements, it was broken and now has been reduced to anarchist ideology. They are now building up toward it all again.
I wonder if a lot of it is bot accounts in the employ of the security services. Not all the users, but enough in key positions to shape the narrative. A safe and harmless way of neutralising disaffected youth. And for those who won't be neutralised, a little encouragement to commit a crime that can be 'stopped' or let happen to justify more funding. Harder to do that in Marxist spaces (I'm sure there are examples), as Marxists argue against adventurism/propaganda of the deed/lone-wolfism and argue for organising the masses.
Anarchism has so many varied branches as to almost mean nothing. Like how the hell do pacificist anarchists get along with insurrectionary anarchists who praise assassinations and propaganda of the deed?
This is what makes me think of it as a synonym for 'bit of a rebel'; it doesn't hint at what type of rebellion the anarchist will go in for.
Because we don't want to be sectarian and have seen at least two or three good anarchists (like our comrade nakoichi), so we are simply talking about the ultras and other shitheads who call themselves anarchists while avoiding the question of if there is a fundamental problem with anarchism that is substantially connected to those assholes appropriating it.
Also you don't need to put scarequotes on a "Trot" you are insulting because calling them a Trot is a much graver insult. Sectarianism as an ideology in itself deserves no respect.
I mean, I think it also helps keep the anarchists in check about MLs so they don't do the "red fash" routine.
Opinion is split on Trots, e.g. the aforementioned comrade nakoichi is weirdly protective of them (I like him one-sidedly, but he is wrong about that and I will post
to the fucking grave) and has seemingly removed many of my comments about them.And, like, you can easily get fighting between Maoists and MLs, but there again the non-sectarian rule is doing what it should for the most part. Maybe it isn't strong enough and people are still too hard on Maoists, idk. It's especially a problem there because they need to deal with the legacy of the fucking Gonzalites calling themselves Maoists.
A rule against sectarianism doesn't ban substitive critiques, it bans excessive dunking and precludes stuff like mods removing comments on sectarian grounds (as you occasionally see comments removed for being liberal or reactionary).
The trick, as always, is in how it's enforced.
Exactly. Even this site is sadly subject to all biases and issues currently present in the anglosphere.
We do it for the "left" because some of us like to gatekeep it so it stays pure even though it's been mostly shit. Anti-capitalism is treated as sacred and anything that soils it is just a bad actor or someone corrupted by propaganda. It is dogma.
Fair, it’s a low bar to be anti-capitalist and we can’t deny people’s claim to it just because they suck otherwise. However, the way we use “so called” and the like makes sense because these people don’t understand the implications of adopting a label or take the time to read the theory. Or maybe I’m wrong, if enough people use different and convoluted definitions of anarchism, especially if this “no gods, no bedtimes, no reading” form predominates, who are we to deny their claim to anarchy? If they are anarchists and the majority such I’d be more offended associating with these petite bourgeois fools as some of our comrades do than from people dunking on these “Anarkiddies.”
No you are right. Any ideology is going to have a lot of depth and width and so its not going to be easy to just be an "anarchist," or anything, by just consuming platitudes. This is something the post modernists and others try to grapple with. It is very important for understanding ideology and its difficulties, but it is also part of the failures of the left, anarchist or not, that are good to acknowledge.
Yeah, anyone can read memes but not everyone is going to read theory or do praxis. Someone’s ideology shows in what they do irl, not what they say they believe online.
"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is!"
Karl Marx's sugar daddyFrederick EngelsAnarchism and social justice language have and are heavily used by the bourgeoisie to scatter and depower radical social movements.
The eager embrace of anarchism by westerners and the cia “I am a poc with anxiety” recruiter, should be the clear indictment of the current absolute subservience of those ideas to the status qou.
A new Hunger Games movie is dropping next month, I need a few weeks of Libs to stop being so genocidal so I can mentally prepare myself for all the comparisons of (insert X country that libs hate here) and Panem from Hunger Games.
So fucking tired of this. Y'all sound just like the whiney people on 196 trying to get rid of tankies.
" they are just a bunch of teenagers online" "I never met one in real life"
When I am allowed to be a "real" Anarchist?
Where's the fucking line? When I dont critize MLs? I'm an anarchist online and in the streets. And I'm honestly so tired of having to come to the only real leftist community on Lemmy and still have to watch y'all bash anarchy with the same effort libs bash commies.
I have problems with authority. And problems with the ideas of Marx. And the implemntation of communism throughout the life the USSR. Specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the use of centralized authority.
Im anti-capitalist, I'm anti-police and pro prison abolition. But I'm willing to work with other leftist toward the bigger issues. Like Palestine.
When are anarchist going to be accepted in this community?
Y'all honestly make me so sad. I go to Lemmy.world I gotta read people licking Israel boot. I come here I got to watch y'all punch down on anarchy.
Yall are a fuckin disappointment.
A collection of Marxist communities, for memes, learning, news, discussion, media, or anything you like
From our sidebar. We arent hexbear, we dont really believe in left unity like them. You’re welcome to participate, and you won’t get dunked on as an “anarkiddy” if you make serious comments arguing for anarchism here, but yes you will see a lot of venting about anarchists, I would suggest blocking lemmygrad comms if you dont want to see that.
I see that more clearly now. I don't want to block any leftist community on Lemmy. I don't think that's a good solution long term.
But many people have commented the same thing. So I will consider it. Maybe I just won't engage with y'alls community.
If you’re hesistant about it, the worst of it will be contained to !memes@lemmygrad.ml and !moretankie196@lemmygrad.ml. Would definitely block !shitultrassay@lemmygrad.ml, probably block this one (leftist infighting) although its not very active.
You are plainly taking this in bad faith, they don't mean anarchists who do support revolution and they could hardly be more clear in that fact. Try rereading once before denouncing an entire instance of fellow communists.
I am mildly curious why, if it hypothetically was attacking anarchism in general, that would be "punching down".
I am mildly curious why, if it hypothetically was attacking anarchism in general, that would be "punching down".
I say punching down because the the majority of active leftists communities on Lemmy are dominated by MLs and other commies. & I see a lot of general hate towards anarchists. which is apparently a much smaller of a group.
You are plainly taking this in bad faith, they don't mean anarchists who do support revolution and they could hardly be more clear in that fact. Try rereading once before denouncing an entire instance of fellow communists.
I've stated this in other comments:
These kinds of posts are the only ones I see regarding anarchy. Only calling them "anarchkiddiez" or libs.
Its not clear to a person who is newer here that there is a difference. And Further I know from experiance many people In the community really do think anarchist are fake leftist.....
Frankly, its gets old going from Lemmy world seeing communist bashing just to come here and see anarchist bashing.
It makes me feel like I am not welcome any where on Lemmy.
Remember this is a lemmygrad and not hexbear post. Stick to hexbear if you're sensitive about it, or block the leftist infighting comm and you'll see much less from lemmygrad about it.
And Further I know from experiance many people In the community really do think anarchist are fake leftist.....
People typically understand that criticizing anarchism more generally requires a more substantial critique, and plenty are willing to offer it and have done so already.
plenty are willing to offer it and have done so already.
I'm sure your right but mostly I just see anarchist bashing.
Maybe you can link some post with earnest anarchist critques? That's really the reason I'm here to see real critiques of anarchy so I can learn more.
The reality is there are a lot of usufferable anarchists (especially online) who refuse to engage with real theory or history. I have all respect for people like you who critically support AES but maintain a different ideology. I and some others on here do try to make clear the difference between pop anarchists who hate China because they’re told to despite “being against all authority” and your time. Yes, some here go too far with it, and I do not agree, but I see where they are coming from.
I appreciate your comment.
The reality is there are a lot of usufferable anarchists (especially online) who refuse to engage with real theory or history.
I get that. I really do. Ive seen some of this myself. And I can understand and appreciate people calling them out. But I Just feel that they are too often becoming the complete face of anarchy on leftist Lemmy communities.
Yes, some here go too far with it, and I do not agree, but I see where they are coming from.I
I would also like to point out, that this same thing that happens on Lemmy dot world. But for commies.
Libs go and find the least educated, loudest idiot calling themselves a communists and take screen shots too post on tankiejerk.
Its really just cheap shots IMO.
Where’s the fucking line? When I dont critize MLs?
Are the MLs currently undermining your commune project or your dual power building? If yes then actually yeah come criticise them that would be super interesting for us.
No the projects that I'm apart of are often with people who are very supportive of anarchy. Or are anarchists themselves. I really only see the anarchy bashing when I come here......
So if we're talking about theory let's agree to disagree, because you'll never "convert" anyone to anachism here and we'll never convert you either
Which means that for you it's not very interesting to come and criticise ML ideology, I suggest you formulate your criticism as questions. Like "why do you think the USSR went down this road, do you think it's ideal?" We will respond happily
for you it's not very interesting to come and criticise ML ideology, I suggest you formulate your criticism as questions.
I'm not here to critize ML, really. I just don't want to constantly see anarchists being bashed.
I'm here to learn. But I'm not gonna stick around just to see the same weak insults be thrown around. Its becoming apparent that this community doesn't really care tho.
I understand your frustration. As multiple comments pointed out, you shouldn't take that bashing for yourself. We're talking about some undetermined online accounts who tag themselves as anarchists, and clearly you're not from that crowd.
I'm aware of my own post is this some sort of got cha?
when the weather became less fair.
Are you talking about when y'all openly bash anarchist? Calling them libs?
Yeah I'm not really cool with that.
Your comment has no real critique of my ideology. Just shows that isn't room here for anarachist of any kind.
Y'all aren't critizing idoleogy y'all are just calling me a lib or an angry teenager...
This comment once again has no real critique. Am I not allowed to complain?
What anarchist books have you read that you thought were good
What anarchist books have you read that you thought were good
Sarcastically: I'm a bit of an expert on anarchism you see. I once read a meme on r/complete@narchy back in the day
I can deal with post critizing anarchy. I'm just not seeing that. Alls I see are post calling anarchist fake. Or calling them libs. Or calling them angry teenagers.
Soo what it sounds like is there isn't room for anarchist on lemmygrad? Are you willing to share with me some critiques of anarchism that are not based in literal name calling?
Cuz I will read, but I'm not gonna stick around and get called a lib over and over again.
We are calling fake anarchists fake. No one said anarchists as a whole were fake. Why are you taking this personally. All the way from the title (self styled “anarchists”) it should’ve been clear it was criticizing a specific type of person laying false claim to the ideology of anarchism, not the whole.
OK but these are the only posts I see on here regarding anarchy. I see pretty Much "anarkiddys" And things like "anarchist just wanna be petty Bourgeoisie". Or memes just talking trash.
(self styled “anarchists”) it should’ve been clear
This alone doesn't convey that there are accept able forms of anarchy on this community. Its just bashing.
No it doesn’t, I don’t know why you interpret it that way. Suggesting someone we don’t like has illegitimate claim to an ideology suggests someone we like has legitimate claim to it. Imagine Alex Jones says “these “conservatives” in the White House are evil,” it should be clear he likes conservatism but thinks neocons have an illegitimate claim to it.
Suggesting someone we don’t like has illegitimate claim to an ideology suggests someone we like has legitimate claim to it.
I guess... Although I'm a little confused.
Imagine Alex Jones says “these “conservatives” in the white are evil,”
But this is different than the OP. This clearly differentiates a sub group. The conservatives in white
If I said these "conservatives" are full of shit. It kinda critizes the term "conservative" as well. And those who call themselves that.
Once again, while I see your point. I still haven't seen a earnest critique of anarchy on this community. Maybe you can link one?
For good critiques I’d suggest State and Revolution by Lenin, parts of Gramsci’s writing (listen to Marx Madness podcast), some of Huey’s writings, and Stalin’s Anarchism or socialism (a bit harsh, but gets the point across), among others in this thread.
One thing which always struck me from Marx's critiques of the Paris commune- that the various sections didn't come to the aid of eachother, and allowed the whole revolution to be defeated in detail. Some of the most cutting critiques anarchists have of AES states have been pretty much of exactly that mistake being repeated- it just played out on the scale of nations rather than within a city.
I'm not responding to you to argue with you, I'm trying to help you have a less frustrating lemmy experience.
I see. Thanks.
My critique of this community is there no room for anarchist here of any kind.
Which i stated above.
I'm fairly sure there are several well respected anarchists on Lemmygrad.
You seem to be making a judgement based on one post, which you seem to have interpreted to mean something very different to what I thought it was saying. It comes off a little bit wrecker tbh, considering the 'anarchist' in the op is clearly qualified.
If you did want an ML critique of anarchism, you could try: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Anarchism_or_socialism%3F
We’re calling libs who call themselves “anarchists” libs. Most of us have not condemned all anarchists.
Are you talking about when y'all openly bash anarchist? Calling them libs?
every ideology will have a reactionary section that should be done away with, this is especially true for imperial core organizations
The post was about “Self-styled ‘anarchists’”, as opposed to actual anarchists, and it seems you’re putting yourself in that category and then complaining that OP put you there.
I will paste this old comment of mine to see what real anarchists like yourself think about it, I may have conflated anarchists with anti-authoritarians, so correct me if I'm wrong:
Anti-authoritarians have no future, one either supports an existing authority or tries to become a new authority. Everyone can have a say in a democracy, but when it comes down to decision, whether through majority vote or expert opinion or other methods, the decision then becomes authority.
Even if someone claims to hate all forms of authority, this person will become the authority on “hating authority” if a following is gained. That’s how anarchists are doomed for failure.
I will gladly comment on this.
Anarchist are anti-hierarchy. Authority is usually hierarchically designed and implemented. And thus we as anarchists condem it.
This statement ignores other forms of power. Like non-hierarchical power structures. Mutual aid groups and community self defense. These and many other forms of direct action do not require authority or hierarchy to be powerful.
We can be powerful, productive and non-hierarchical. We can have groups of people working together solving problems without bosses, masters, cops etc.
Are rules required for anarchism to function, and if they are, can these rules be viewed as an abstract authority commanding the anarchist community?
How does commumity self defense not require authority? They're certainly imposing their authority on whatever they're defending themselves from.
Someone who is attacking you is attempting to enforce a hierarchy/authority on you. Defending yourself is rejecting that hierarchy/authority. If you were to attack back, then I would say you were trying to impose your authority on another. But self defense alone only brings one back to equal footing, where neither party has authority over the other.
That is a good point. I wouldn't be surprised if someone here links On Authority to try and debunk you, but (and this is an unpopular opinion on this instance) it's a garbage argument that projects the fallacy Engles is making onto the anti authoritarians, namely using a definition of authority different from the one anyone actually cares about. It is Engles who "...think[s] that when [he has] changed the names of things [he has] changed the things themselves".
That is with your own authority though. A gun shooting someone is political power being thrust against another. And Anarchism doesn't establish itself in a vacuum, you usually have to overthrow the other established order.
Its all authority, just renamed
Even if someone claims to hate all forms of authority
this is not what anarchists claim
read theory, then come back with a coherent comment
It actually is what a lot of anarchists claim, those who have not read theory at least. I will make no generalizations about all anarchists especially without reading the specific theory, but there is a certain type of the online “anarkiddie” which I’ve seen many times.
this is like judging MLs by random fascist youtube commenters who think stalin killed 100 bajillion people and that was based
More like judging all USian MLs by patsocs who are sadly way too common. Settlers don’t want to lose the land they stole even if it’s necessary like anarkiddies don’t want to give up their petty bourgeois lifestyle to do praxis. Also, similarly as these anarchists don’t question the anti-communism programmed into them, patsocs don’t question myths about “American greatness” or that fast food workers and natives are worthless.
Easy there. Are you against revolutionary violence? If not, then he's not talking about you.
Maybe. But there way too much of this kind of rhetoric on the site for me to look at this and say "oh he's not talking about me, I'm one of the good ones"
If I felt like there was more differentiation between what was an "acceptable" anarchist and just libs with the "anarchy" label. That would be one thing. But I don't see people saying anarchy is OK.
Just mostly people bashing anarchists.....
You have entered a Marxist community, not an anarchist community. Members of this community are expressing their frustration with the ever-growing swaths of anticommunist and antirevolutionary liberals who describe themselves as anarchists, but who have little to no actual engagement with anarchist ideology. They have expressed that this frustration is derived from these people's refusal to read theory and to educate themselves on the history of anarchism. They are not criticising anarchist ideology, they are criticising people who claim they are anarchists but refuse to actually learn anything about anarchism.
You are making broad, sweeping statements condemning the Marxists in this community for their beliefs, and seem to be reading their frustrations as personal attacks and attacks on anarchism. Perhaps you should re-examine your standpoint here and go read some elementary anarchist and leftist theory. Here are some recommendations:
Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman
Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels
An Anarchist Programme by Errico Malatesta
These are all good recs (especially
), but please, don't tell me to Google Murray Bookchin. It's been ten years.I'm so tired.
but please, don’t tell me to Google Murray Bookchin. It’s been ten years.
Show
Damn, just agreeing with all the cringiest people. I read the section of his book (post scarcity anarchism) called “listen Marxist” and was hoping there would be something worth listening. Unfortunately, all he says is basically Marxism’s old so we should ignore it and also evil vanguardists stole credit for the revolution and did evil stuff instead of pressing the communism button. I always hope to find something interesting to think about in anti-communist arguments, but they rarely say anything new.
I'm not telling you or people in general to read theory, I'm telling chucklehead over there to read some, because based on his posting I sincerely doubt he ever has. Dude claimed he was opening his anticommunism blinders less than two weeks ago, then fell ass-backwards into lemmygrad's infighting community and decided to go to war using a balloon sword.
You call yourself leftist and yet have problems with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Jesus fuck dude. You are just a liberal. You shouldn’t even pretend to not be
I agree with you but I'm too tired to properly articulate it right now (though be aware that this is a lemmygrad thread, and they don't have anti sectarian rules like hexbear does)
we kind of do (have an anti-sectarian rule), it's just a stricter definition (i.e. it definitely doesn't apply to anarchists and probably not trots/MLM). Think about it this way, we MLs have very few places to congregate in the english speaking side of the internet, so my feeling is that we're pretty protective of it. Like ffs, before we were federated with hexbear we were alone in the jihad against the libs in the lemmyverse, the only other "leftists" servers that I know of (midwest and dbzero) defederated us, that's part of why we're so hostile towards anarchists imo (apart from ideological differences since we're an ML instance).
There’s a place for anarchist visitors on Lemmygrad, but note we are in the leftist infighting community so that would explain why hating on anarchists is allowed.
I appreciate it. I don't mind people having discourse with me. I'm just tired of being called:
A lib An angry teenager. An anarkiddie
Etc.
Specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat,
Can you tell me what you think this means without looking it up to have the "correct" answer?
Oh no guys, hear that? They're packing their stuff and leaving! Fuck this is a disaster, the site's ruined. I might as well quit too. We should've been nicer to hormonal 16-year-olds who scold us
We should've been nicer to hormonal 16-year-olds who scold us
And there is it.
You sound like the people I played halo 1 with. Lmao.
Did you also bang my mom last night?
You want another useless chain of comments where we just throw catty insults at each other for hours, over and over on whats meant to be a politics forum
Lol realize y ou are the one doing this. I didn't come in here calling you 16 years old.
You and about 75% of the people on seem incapable of any actual discourse.
Call me a lib and be done with it.
