this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
742 points (86.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
1328 readers
27 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which, to be clear, was not even remotely true, as I demonstrated. No that I have spent time demonstrating that you are objectively wrong about Lenin's historical positions, you are now accusing me of blinding following them, when all I've done is clarify what they are, against you absurd attempts to misconstrue and twist around his words.
Literally every word of this is just baseless nonsense, over and over again.
I cited Lenin for a couple specific purposes, first, to establish that my positions are part of a broader leftist intellectual tradition, second, because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.
For the third time, I will point out that you claimed that you could support your positions with theory, which you have not done, and have now flipped to saying that theory is irrelevant, accusing me of "blindly following it" merely for citing and referencing it - after you asked me to, by the way! When I said that I had read theory and could defend my positions in the context of it, you called me out for not having done so, when I then did so, you called me out for doing so. It's absolutely absurd.
It's obvious that you are no operating on any kind of rational basis, but rather blind loyalty to the Democratic party.
Yes, the leftist tradition of deifying outdated theorists. That is a tradition I'm happy to abandon.
I could. Gramsci, Bernstein, Kautsky, and every other shade of reformist who quite correctly pointed out the dangers of premature revolution, including the inherent instability and susceptibility to dictatorship, and highlighted the necessity to favorably shift the cultural hegemony before trying direct political action. I don't need to cite theory for this, history shows it quite clearly. But I could, I just don't think appeals to authority are reasonable arguments.
If you find the arguments, suited to a population fresh from revolution in transitional parliamentary government less than 5 years old, to be compelling strategy for a deeply propagandized population in an established 250 year old parliamentary government, you're not suited to disseminate strategic opinions. You're better suited to academia, where you can opine about historical theories with other theory-junkies.
But hey, keep trying to fix your computer with steam engine manuals. I'm sure alienating the leftists who try to save you, and everyone else, from your myopic ideological mistakes will shift the American cultural hegemony to revolution. Who cares about dialectics anyway?
I suppose that virtually every academic or scientific paper in history is guilty of "deification" because they cite other works. I guess I'm "deifying" you too, because I've quoted things you've said.
Nothing I believe is on the basis of, "because Lenin said so." Nor do I believe in blindly applying his strategies regardless of material conditions. These are entirely baseless accusations, and there is nothing I've said that you can point to as evidence of them. I agree with Lenin's perspective to an extent, from a reasoned, critical position. But it seems that anything short of blind rejection of everything he said counts as "blindly following" by your standards.
We haven't even really begun to examine the questions of whether his ideas were correct or whether they are applicable to today. All I've done is present what they are and refuted your nonsensical attempts to twist his words around.
Uh, what? That's a bad joke, right? You know that's not how academic citations work, right? Forget what I said about academia, that's not for you either.
Mr. "Everyone who criticizes me is a liberal" is against base**less accusations now? Spare me your crocodile tears.
You know the neat thing about text based conversations is you can go back for receipts, right?
And you keep saying I pressed you on theory, which is completely backwards. That was all you champ.
For someone who claims to read so much theory, your reading comprehension is not good.
But we've passed the point that I feel like entertaining your bad faith projection. We're done here.
Great! I knew this wasn't going to go anywhere from the start, as I said. You haven't said a single thing worth reading in this whole conversation, or in any other comment I've ever seen you make. So this seems like a good a time as any to simply block you.