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”.
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.
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.
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
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
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/
Nonsense, there’s a barrier to entry to being a communist. There’s a massive shortage of us. Not so with anarcho-x kids.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is!” Karl Marx’s sugar daddy Frederick Engels
