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.

  • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        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/

      • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nonsense, there's a barrier to entry to being a communist. There's a massive shortage of us. Not so with anarcho-x kids.

          • Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            deleted by creator

          • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            *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!

            • CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

      • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • relay@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            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).

          • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.