Anarchocommunists in shambles.
really hilarious that to speak about your so called revolution you need to hide in the corner of the internet. So are we closer to that revolution that 10 days ago ? 10 year ago ? you r so eager to pretend you will ressort to violence that people will end up believing you
Why are you beering with the kangaroo chronicles? lmao
What?
all IRL anarchists i ever met are based. can’t think of a single exception rn.
internet western “anarchists” are insufferable, because they are very obviously just libs trying to look cool.
This might not be what you meant, but I’ve found 90+% of the ‘online left’ regardless of ideology to be far more ultra-left, alienated and toxic than most people on the ground, even including the drama kiddos on college campuses and split rival organizations. To everyone I highly recommend finding people in real life, if possible.
real life leftists are fun as hell to be around. if anyone’s looking for some:
- IWW
- CWA
- Redneck Revolt
As opposed to internet communists who are well known for not being insufferable
anarcho capitalism!
If either of them don’t do mutual aid their dead to me.
Commies that say they do mutual aid because of communism I kindly remind them. “You actually do mutual aid because of Kropotkin.”
kropotkin was an anarchist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. i’m talking about libs, not actual anarchists.
Mutual aid is the same as social democracy, just less effective.
Why work together towards revolution, when we can rehash century-old beefs from different material conditions? Just get out there and organize, comrades.
bullshitting online is easier though
The communism-anarchism conflict often resembles the divide between urban and rural society.
It isn’t insurmountable.
I always enjoy the comments anytime this meme gets posted.
Tankies telling on themselves is never not amusing
Literally just grabbed a bag of chips lol
Australian here: can confirm that all kangaroos are tankies.
Unless it’s the Spanish Civil War, where the Comintern spent more effort killing anarchists/social democrats than fighting the fascists.
Still waiting for a source on the numbers, could you please elaborate?
Or the Ukrainian theatre of the Russian civil war, during which the Bolsheviks tried to kill Makhno no less than four times, in spite of his movement fighting the whites alongside them.
This seems like the most likely scenario in the US. America is full of idiots raging for the machine
America is full of idiots raging for the machine
Underrated comment.
Isn’t that what happened in China during WWII as well?
I mean, it would be quicker to list the times in history when it didn’t happen.
see also the crushing of the Mahknovischna
Oh yeah? I didnt know about that. How many anarchists got killed by the Comintern during the Spanish Civil War? With a source, please?
Wait, is this the right place for the Spanish inquisition meme?
Nobody would expect it!
Socialism threatens the elite’s wealth, fascism doesn’t
Nah anarchists and non-ml communists get along great because we want the same thing.
yep, this is just the standard “hey leftists! fight each other now! don’t have the revolution until after you fight each other as much as possible!”
It’s working brillianty for the owner class so far.
you pretend to agree with me yet you’re the one posting FUD…
I don’t think that’s the message of the meme. The way I get is that we can and should be aligned at least until we abolish capitalism. I don’t pretend to agree - I’d work with anyone who opposes capital from the left. Incliding MLs even if I don’t buy everything in ML. Or anarchists for that matter.
fake rationalizing still means you’re fud
Ignoring that there are many instances of MLs and anarchists getting along great, Marxists in general (including MLs, which are the most numerous among Marxists) are aligned with anarchists against capitalism and fascism, but have entirely different analysis on what to do about them. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production and distribution, while Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production and distribution.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
None of this was specific to Marxism-Leninism, but Marxism in general.
Here’s another analysis for you: Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
Anarchy is not about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves. About creating social structures that are based on mutual aid and human connection instead of ability or need. Anarchy isn’t about making a single system that everyone follows. It’s about creating many overlapping systems doing many overlapping things. Different cells are not some distinct group of people with their own flags and names where you need to apply to join. It’s just a name for a group of people that have something in common. The same person will belong to different cells as every cell represents some part of society. They cannot form states because a state needs to have polity and anarchists should reject polity wherever possible.
But that’s just how I see it. other anarchists will disagree and that is the most anarchist thing ever.
My problem is that this is an unsustainable, unmaintainable ideal rather than a plan. It is nothing more than liberalism in infancy. We’re stuck playing Monopoly and this is a desire to start the game over rather changing it fundamentally. The outcome will be the same no matter how many times you start over.
the precolonial societies that eliminated their hierarchies have a very consistent pattern of continuing to train military practices while also practicing pacificism. i’m not saying that’s the answer for a post colonial society, just that humanity has escaped from hierachy before and people living within the three empires probably need to do an uptick in listening, and that distributed access to violence amongst pacifists is likely part of it
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your viewpoint, it’s far more constructive than the other user essentially saying “Marxism bad.”
The issue I take with your descriptor is that eventually production and distribution do become necessary. States arise due to class relations, and class relations arise due to modes of production. In cooperative-based production and distribution, ie cells producing largely for themselves but also exchanging through mutual aid, eventually class distinctions do rise historically, even if people resist that. We cannot just return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles.
I agree that mutual aid is a great tool, especially in times of struggle and in systems like capitalism where the wealthiest plunder the wealth created by the working classes, but this ultimately is derived from production, which necessitates analysis of the mode of production.
Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process to create a society that meets the needs of everyone. It isn’t about sacrificing until some day a better society can be achieved, it’s about building that better society outright and being aware of the social transformations it goes through as production and distribution are collectivized and the state and class wither away.
“Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process”
This is how I think about my own anarchism.
I don’t disagree with you that class distinctions would naturally arise from the systems of production and distribution, but I don’t see that as a problem really. There are some features of human society that feel analogous to gravity, in that they exist as functionally immutable forces that we must learn to navigate around and through. Even if we somehow achieved what we would consider to be a utopia, it’s realistically not going to stay that way — there would inevitably be some event or new development that would disrupt the balance of things. Such change isn’t necessarily bad, especially if we respond to it properly. It is inevitable though, which is why I find it useful to think of it as a process. I can’t remember who I heard this from, but a phrase I like is “my goal isn’t to make anarchism, but to make more anarchists”
I don’t consider myself a communist, but I like your comment because it highlights how much we have in common. A communist society wouldn’t necessarily be non-anarchist, and vice versa.
For now though, I find myself happy to shelve most ideological disputes with communists, because we’re so far away from either an anarchist or communist society that it seems more productive to use our common ground to strive towards a world that both of us would agree is better.
One thing I want to clarify, communists do wish to work towards the full collectivization of production and distribution to suit the needs of all. Our stance is that the transition to such a society will be long, but that transitional state is also good. We want to be the droplets of rock that bore through mountains, through persistence and the carried weight of generations. I do agree that anarchists and communists should work together, especially in combatting the US Empire as the world’s hegemon.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain “marxism bad” (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don’t care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it’s not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn’t a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It’s not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
You sound cool and seem to have enough patience to counter ML-propaganda. Hope you stick around :)
I’m in a mood to be social for a bit. I don’t really have any IRL outlet so this will have to do.
Also it seems hexbear took intrest in my post and for better or worse I’ve decided to engage them: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/59334692
Ugh. Well, good luck if you try to engage in such a bad-faith space.
A deep comment thread without a single intentional misquote and ‘so you hate pancakes’ tactic. Love to see it.
This sounds like utopianism, and i don’t know if it’s whether you didn’t do a thorough job of explaining anarchism or that this is actually what anarchism is.
That’s not what anarchism is. It’s just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn’t seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
That’s what all post-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization aim to do anyways, so it is a necessary step
I was referring to this part of your comment:
As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
I don’t want to speak on whether anarchism as a concept is possible or not—it can be depending on material realities—I’m more speaking to your concept of “that system will be established if and when more anarchies pop up (which you’re skeptical of yourself)”. So my question is this:
What’s to be done in the interim? You’ve acknowledged that multiple anarchic communes are highly unlikely to spring up anytime soon, so how do you get there?
What exactly are you advocating for really?
anarchism, marxism, feminism, egalitarianism, anti-racism. these are all deeply interrelated utopianist movements.
Utopian here meaning unrealistic, not what’s ideal
Ignoring the bit on “vanguardism bad and Marxism ancient” for now, though I disagree vehemontly with both. One thing that you bring up is that a lot of the currently or formerly existing anarchist societies depend on outside production and donation. It simply isn’t feasible to produce, say, a smartphone horizontally. You need rare earths, highly trained individuals for circuit manufacturing, incredible amounts of previous capital and continuous organization of labor and logistics to make it all come together. The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Marxists do focus on class, the mode of production, the base. Marxists focus on the liberation of all peoples, not just those within our immediate communities. And to be fair, most anarchists also tend to care about liberation for everyone, not just their immediate communities, but the key difference is that Marxism does not depend on everyone believing the same thing, or rely on production from the outside. Marxism focuses on the liberation of all oppressed peoples and the satisfaction of everyone’s needs, forever.
Social relations are core to Marxism. The economy is just one such social relation, but there’s also culture, hegemony, art, and class itself. You cannot have Marxism without analysis of social relations.
The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Of course if an anarchist community desires smartphone they will depend on other anarchist communities for the resources to build it or to acquire what they build. One of his early points is that in an anarchist world there will be a lot of anarchist communities and they will be different to one another because different people, different needs but that doesn’t mean they will fight, they will co-exist, respect each other, depend on each other and share.
The exact quote was:
Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
For some the concept of leaving is difficult, because in some of the systems the individual doesn’t have a choice but anarchism is also about choice.
The sheer complexity and international logistics required to produce a smartphone far surpasses what can be created in relatively small communities, and horizontalism works better at smaller scales. A commune focused entirely on mining rare earths is going to have different class interests than one focused on semiconductor production, and at the scales these are currently produced at already horizontalism begins to break down.
If we imagine a global world of decentralized, interconnected anarchist cells, we need to grapple with how the geographical division of labor and resources will impact this mutual aid, or if it will eventually give way to competition and the resurgance of capitalism. Marxism’s analysis of the continual growth in scale, complexity, and interconnectedness of production fits nicely with humanity taking a conscious role in this development and direct it towards satisfying needs rather than profits.
The piece I struggle with, is how do you deal with power? I’m a commie, but I’m the kind who actually believes in an endless struggle against oppression. As long as there is injustice, there will always be struggle, so I’m not looking to create a socialist state and then my job is done. My job is to create the party, then criticize it and develop it through struggle. After that, the goal is internationalism, not a socialist state. The state can only be transitional, a socialist state is at best, a way to keep power out of the hands of rulers and build power for the masses, a historical phase of society committed to liberation.
But power is material, tangible, and objective. It always centralizes. Leninists have a strategy of Democratic Centralism, where the natural tendency of centralizing power is balanced by democratic mass participation. This takes different forms based on historical necessity, sometimes more authoritarian measures, still beholden to the democratic authority of the masses, are necessary, such as the dreaded “war communism,” but communists should always fight for more internal democracy, while preserving the centralized nature of organization. In fact what makes war communism such a blight is that it creates unwinnable dilemmas, such as the unmitigated tragedy at Kronstadt.
But without centralization, a more powerfully centralized force can easily break up our democratic movement and destroy the historic potential to liberate the masses, taking the power away from the masses to centralize in the hands of a new ruling class. This is exactly what happened with the Stalinist bureaucracy that formed after the Russian civil war, state bureaucrats filled the positions of power in the revolutionary government, and the power centralized in the hands of the state bureaucrats replacing the soviets who empowered the first popular revolution in Feb 1917. The civil war created the conditions for the basis, as it destroyed the entire productive capacity of the country, decimating the working class as a class, leaving only the peasantry, the bureaucracy, and only a few genuine revolutionaries.
But what caused the failure of the revolution wasnt ideology it was the loss of democracy that disappeared when the basis for worker power, and hence worker democracy, was smashed by the invaders and white armies, and replaced with a more centralized, more oppressive and authoritarian basis for power.
The other side of this, is that even when power is not formally centralized, such as within a state or government, it is still informally centralized, so that a group or individual can claim that power is being distributed, and maybe it is to a certain degree, but it is being distributed in a way that further centralizes that power. In this instance the tyranny takes the form of de-centralization but its substance is still centralized. In these instances a formal democratic centralized structure is much less authoritarian, because it reveals to the masses the true form of its authority, allowing itself to be properly reckoned with, shaped and improved, rather than the informal authoritarianism that claims to be decentralized but is in fact the opposite.
Please don’t read this as a sweeping dismissal of anarchism, I am very fond of anarchism and anarchists, but the discourse between our traditions is bad for reasons that are completely outside of our control. While I cringe violently watching commies quote “On Authority” at anarchists as if it means a damn thing in this day and age, I think that the democratic centralist model of organizing, while fraught and vulnerable, is much more transparent and practical than decentralization. I acknowledge that anarchists are not a singularity, as you’ve already mentioned ITT, and I’m aware of different anarchist approaches to these issues thanks to my libsoc comrades, even if I don’t fully understand them.
I think the difference is somewhere in the way that the anarchist truly concretizes and celebrates the individual, which unfortunately somehow gets disappeared in much Marxist analysis. I study Malatesta to try and compensate for this shortcoming of our tradition, but the big practical structural questions still nags me.
I think that power will always be a problem that we need to be mindful of. Even on the small scale, power imbalances can arise and lead to harm if we don’t proactively manage them. I find it useful to think of anarchism as an ongoing process rather than a goal, which means that the task will never be completed.
Regarding democracy, I’ve really enjoyed Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau’s writings. They propose a sort of radical democracy. I think it’s “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” that I’ve read some of. It’s pretty dense, but I found it rewarding, and it reshaped how I think about democracy. In particular, I was far more pessimistic about the possibility of democracy at all before I read it.
I think the YouTube channel Think That Through was what led me to go read Mouffe and Laclau, if you’re a video enjoying person. It wasthis video on Hegemony
Thanks for this response! I’m a little familiar with Gramsci’s formulations on hegemony, so I’ll check this out!
Anarchy is not about […] class
Uh… I don’t know about that, buddy. I’d be hard-pressed to find an anarchist IRL who doesn’t do class analysis and doesn’t have as a goal the abolition of capitalism.
What kind of 24 upvotes did you get? Are Lemmy anarchists abandoning class analysis, or is it that you’re just arguing against @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and people will upvote anything smart-sounding against comrade Cowbee?
Of course anarchists “do class analysis” and want to abolish capitalism. But that’s just because those are examples of oppression in our everyday lives. What I mean is that it is secondary to the actual goal of creating anarchic spaces which will could eventually replace both class and capitalism. Class analysis really isn’t useful for that because the only thing it offers is a vague “The bourgeoisie are the enemy”. Until someone points a gun at me or punches me I don’t have any enemies.
And like I said this is just my version of anarchism. A combination of Pluralism, Pacifism, Apolity and being sooo fucking tired of the endless discussions that lead nowhere.
To their credit, anarchism is far more diverse in tendency than Marxism is, and as a consequence there are legitimately anarchists that reject class analysis. I don’t think they are common, but they exist.
they exist and they smell weird (probably, idk, this is intentional slander)
And yet in every instance of AEML, the state never withers it only abuses its authority over the people.
Give me voluntary collaboration over top-down dictation any day. At the end of the day, we need a non-hierarchical stateless society that works for mutual aid, and you cannot get there with the statism trap.
Trust me bro, the state will go away any day. Just one more expansion of power. Come on bro just one more political purge and we’ll give it up before we die.
The state in AES exists as one that cannot help but wither, as economic compulsion towards continued collectivization of production and distribution, and thus the erasure of class and thus the state. However, in the context of a worldwide system dominated by capitalist countries like the US Empire, the state cannot really progress beyond that point to a fully withered status. What’s necessary is the achievement of global socialism, and then a gradual period of further collectivization of all production and distribution, and eventually the state will complete its withering.
The state in AES countries has brought democratization and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the working classes. The working classes, by controlling the state, wield it against fascists, capitalists, landlords, etc domestically, and protect themselves from imperialists internationally. Every single AES country has had to deal with western countries sanctioning, bombing, torturing, slaughtering, even committing genocide in some cases, but it is through the strength of the working classes and the systems they built that they last through this.
Meanwhile anarchists can’t even seem to establish anything…
We have, the bigger numbers tend to cush us. Or the AuthComs shoot up.
the unification of all of humanity into one system
This seems so arbitrary. Why is there a line that perfectly encircles every single human, and no other organism? There is nothing we all share, that is not also shared by other creatures. And yet, there is essentially nothing of meaning that we do all share. This group seems either too large or two small. I think you only come to such a Goldilocks conclusion when you start there and work backwards.
Unironically this is the Marxist argument for veganism. Humanity’s distinction is that it is aware of its own place within nature, nature turned self-aware, but this doesn’t set us apart from nature. We are nature, just like trees, birds, insects, etc. We do have a qualitatively different level of intelligence, but it isn’t an insurmountable difference in the grand scheme of evolutionary biology.
Humanity’s distinction is that it is aware of its own place within nature
That’s pure hubris. It’s neither evident that we DO understand our place, or that other creatures understand less well than we do. This is the sort of thing we tell ourselves for our own psychological needs, not because we have evidence that leads us to believe these things. We could quite easily “understand” a facile pretense presented to us by more fundamental layers of our own nature, crafted to bend our choices and perceptions towards those that benefit our DNA but harm individuals. Or, we could simply be wrong. There is no way to test our math.
Matter is what’s primary, not our own ideas, and as such we collectively gain more of an understanding of how the world works by interacting with it. Other animals also learn, but have quantitative differences so large in communication capacity and the ability to learn that there is a qualitative difference between humanity as a social species and the rest of animals, though not an insurmountable gap.
Well then it’s not really inherent. You’re talking about culture; we don’t just innately divine the nature of existence, we argue with each other and come to some kind of consensus. But the thing is, culture is arbitrary and almost necessarily wrong. None of us agree with each other about our place in nature. This quality you are citing does not exist in reality.
Think about how a human struggles to understand death and mortality. Ten years after a loss, our mind still seeks ways to reconnect with a person we knew, still tries to find ways to talk to that person. Our minds are kept from fundamentally accepting and understanding death. But most mammals do not behave like this. We tell ourselves it’s because we understand death and they do not, but if you examine the behaviour like an alien anthropologist, it looks like many non-human animals DO understand the nature of death, and we do not. We do not see reality, we see what our evolution wants us to see.
We can’t understand the world purely through arguing, but through actually engaging with the world and learning about it directly. You’re putting ideas before matter, rather than the inverse.
Removed by mod
Marxist-Leninists believe in socialism in one country, but that communism must be global. This is entirely in line with Marx. The argument against socialism in one country was the idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary and erode socialism from within, which ended up not being the case. This was because the peasantry were seen to have a more communal consciousness than collectivist. However, practice shows that the proletariat and peasantry can form joint alliances and successfully work to build socialism together.
Removed by mod
Can you explain how socialism in one country contradicts Marx?
Removed by mod
Ah you’re a bit account, gotcha.
Not really… no
I wish. The world would be a much better place if the left could agree until we differ
The left has to rally around all sorts of nuances to reach agreement. The right basically just has one thing: fear.
And racism.
Yes but that’s fear-based
No we don’t. The CIA and FBI intentionally created this culture in leftist movements, why do we need to debate and reach consensus on everything?
We can just stop infighting, shut up about praxis and labels, and march together until we differ. It would leave us in a better place to go even further, however we might envision it
Healthcare, lower rents, higher pay, workers rights, tax the rich. Just get on the bus, you can get off whenever you like but we can’t all hold up the bus driver
I don’t think it’s a psyop. Leftism as an ideology values diversity and reconciling a diversity of views and life experiences is hard. The only bus fit to leave is intersectionalist. If it’s not, you’re asking people to get on a bus where you’re better off but they aren’t.
No, I mean this is a well documented thing that happened… They literally infiltrated leftist groups and would sow division and call for endless votes and debates on banal issues
I am talking about intersectionality, but I don’t think we should use that word. It’s big and scares the common idiot. Also it has implications about being idpol, which is thoroughly tainted at this point
I’m not saying you have to give ground… I’m talking about focus on good messaging. You don’t have to throw trans people or Palestinians under the bus. You don’t have to hide your positions or be apologetic either
But we all need to focus on message discipline. We need to be evangelical. Houses. Healthcare. Food. Wages. Tax the rich. Fix our democracy
Basically everyone agrees on the real issues, and we must be as Mumdani. He doesn’t back down, he’s totally unapologetic about his stances, but he doesn’t get distracted
Tight, focused messaging. Universal problems, simple to understand solutions. No pamphlets, no scary words
I still think it’s a genuinely harder coordination problem to solve compared to rallying around conservative ideals and that it’s not solely due to CIA and FBI interference. But I upvoted you and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying.
Of course it would but see only my ideology gets that!
The problem is Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists and anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists and …
/s
And don’t even get me started on the anarcho-engineers!
You leftists sure are a contentious people.
You just made an enemy, for life!
i’mma dip all your insoles in elmer’s glue!
Anarcho-carceralism the only valid ideology.
We must spontaneously organize maximally restrictive non-hierarchal prisons and maintain/enforce them in a vicious but egalitarian manner.
Not to be confused with anarcho-carcinization, where we non-hierarchally organize society into a crab
I’ve yet to meet another one but you’re probably right lol
Hi I’m one of those. Can confirm I’m absolutely dreadful 😆🏴🏴🏴
I’m a leftist. If capitalism was destroyed I would love to debate and implement different economic and state systems as we work to improve the lives of all people.
But, having said that, we don’t live in a world without capitalism yet. So I will support any form of resistance of a people to Imperialist powers and capitalist interest. Unfortunately, we can’t put on a red hat and just support the guys with the red hats. It’s why I can support certain actions of groups and states ranging from Hamas to DPRK to even parts of the EU (but never never NATO).
This is why when there is “leftist infighting” I will almost always support the ML faction over any DemSocs or anarchist. Why? Because ML methods of resistance have been the only successful methods of resisting imperial occupation and influence that has been sustainable. If an anarchist faction destroys the state and is somehow able to defend itself from imperialist powers I’ll support that too. But we have Cuba today; we have the DPRK today. Are they the types of states I want to exist? No. But they do exist.
If another means of imperial resistance proves more effective than I will adjust my opinions and support. If your a leftist and not acknowledging the success of ML factions you’re not really a leftist. Especially if you spend all your time fighting with “tankies”. And if you’re a ML and not willing to adjust to changes in successful resistance (especially as the empire is shaking as it is now) than you’re not really a leftist but in a cult.
Okay, well I disagree on the effectiveness of ML methods, they industrialized quickly but easily fell to corruption and ended up falling to capitalism
But do we really need to debate that? I’d love to build something better than capitalism, but a glorious revolution isn’t on the table.
In the mean time, I totally agree.
I bet we’d agree with everything possible to do right now. I think imperialism is bad, but I’m worried about the future for my friends and family. I’m worried about my neighbors, about my country, about human rights violations against my countrymen
But I’m not going to live or die on stopping imperialism or on Palestine - we have to fix our county so we even have the ability to resist the forces of capital at home if we ever want to reign it in globally
I don’t think we should sacrifice these issues either, but I don’t think we have to… I just think we have to focus on that can be done now. We’re not going to unwind the World Bank and the IMF to get the global south off the debt treadmill tomorrow
We could overturn citizens united and start trust busting tomorrow if we fix healthcare today. If we fix housing, and food availability. If we bring back social programs
The empire is collapsing. I think that’s set in stone.
But Rome never truly fell, the people woke up the next day. The question is, do we fall into a dark age as we wait for the contradictions of capitalism to make the economy go poof, or do we wind it down gently
I think we can make material conditions for people better, which means that when the music stops progressives will be in power and have the trust of the people
And we can argue about how to build something better then. The next steps are the same
If you believe in ML or aspects of it, fine. I don’t care if you’re a full on tankie. You can be a militant vegan or radical environmentalist too.
But when progressives march, we all have to set down (not give ground on) our single issues to join them. Because they’re the movement marching against capital right now under a banner that we can all fit under without compromising any of our goals or ideals
they industrialized quickly but easily fell to corruption and ended up falling to capitalism
Without mentioning they are the biggest polluters in the world. The USSR did so much damage that it’s still the top in some pollution statistics.
ML is a destroyer of worlds.
That’s one hell of a furry costume
Not a costume, that trash talking commie kangaroo bum is as real as it gets in X-burg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kangaroo_Chronicles_(film)
Wait the kangaroo is actually a commie in the movie…? What the hell 😂
It gets worse. The movie has a plot.
also in the books
And in the OG radio skits (it started as a radio gag show on radio Fritz)
oh I didn’t know that. I only listened to the audio books.
looks like they uploaded them to youtube:
Facts
So anyway, I’m an actual
An actual - what? What’s that flag now again? There are so many colors to the anarchist flags, don’t we have all colors covered by now?!
Nope!
Fine, I will tell you.
Anarcho-transhumanism!
Schnapspraline?
Unsere Schnapspralinen!
ngl im fine with both
Ok Maoism and Anarcho-capitalism it is then
anarcho capitalism kinda goes in the opposite direction. like instead of liberating the working class, it would basically only rove its protection
