this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
70 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23063 readers
137 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it always funny that even the most ardent left-unity people only exclusively expect the anarchists to compromise?
Means cannot be disentangled from ends.
I don't think asking leftists to not punch left is asking for much of a compromise
Asking anarchists to stop criticising statists and being against statism and vanguardism is big enough of a compromise that you're basically asking them to stop being anarchists.
But funnily enough, no left unity person, no matter how vehement, ever asks MLs to stop believing in or expressing their beliefs of anything. Because MLs think they are "the default leftism", and anarchism is a divergency. So then, left unity would be bringing the divergency back to line.
But even accepting that belief, that's not unity. That's assimilation. Unity would be finding a place in between the two. Which is impossible because means cannot be disentangled from ends. The "anti-sectarianism" of Hexbear is just as you show it is, "MLs, but anarchists can hang out if they shut up". They want anarchists to be useful idiots to them.
i'm no ML but anarchists should read the jakarta method.
anarchists should be able to see that cuba, china, vietnam, laos, and north korea are far preferable to american hegemony despite all their flaws, and that contextually an anarchist uprising in cuba would immediately cause the island to fall to imperialists. You don't have to like states to understand that you kinda need one when the dominant mode of geopolitics is relations between states.
i'm here for anarchism when the bigger threat of capitalism is gone or if anarchists can get something going in the imperial core but i don't see any examples of successful movement building comparable to the BPP.
Sister. Mutual aid isn't even a work completely incompatible with ML thought. Most MLs do mutual aid too. Post this and see if you get as positive of a reaction:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-my-disillusionment-in-russia
your desperate desire to be "oppressed" online is embarrassing.
I never spoke about opression. I spoke about the dynamics of these kinds of spaces and what an ML that believes in "left unity" actually wants in practice, even if they're sincere and even if they're vehement about their beliefs in it.
I was talking about the Reddit style libs that call themselves leftists and then proceed to call actual leftists evil authoritarian commie tankies, I've seen both anarchists and MLs be called tankies here by libs that stumble in.
Anarchists are not allowed to shit on MLs here just as ML are not allowed to shit on anarchists. No one here is going to dogpile you or ban you for not wanting a state unless you shit in MLs in the process. Just as MLs are allowed to want a state as long as they don't shit on anarchists.
Just read yourself. "No one is going to be mad at you for not wanting a state, unless you criticize those who want a state in the process". Even in your own words, it's exactly how I said. "You can believe in your little anarchisms, but shut the fuck up".
Very funny that the post was about the "anti-tankie left" and you went "oh that's me that's me!"
99% of the people who use the term "tankie" are NOT anarchists
Principled and theoretical anarchists who organize get my respect, Social liberals with delusions of spontaneity get my scorn, just like any patsoc liberal who pretends to be a "communist"
You don't get to define what is a "true anarchist" and what isn't, much less exclusively based off of if they use a word you don't like or not. I don't care about your respect, I am merely pointing out a dynamic that constantly happens in this community and those similar to it.
I mean I can literally define what an anarchist is because there's a historical and theoretical structure to anarchism and if it isn't followed you're simply not an anarchist
Anarchism isn't an ethnic group, it's a economic sociopolitical philosophy someone follows and 99% of people who use terms like "tankie" do not follow it
Complaining about Reddit-type speak is the Reddit-type speak of complaining about things.
That convoluted meta-complaint is the most Reddit thing here
Yes, if you see yourself as an anarcho-natoist, we're gonna need you to compromise on some of your principles. The people of Russia, even if you don't like them, don't deserve to be pillaged again by NATO.
Hey folx, I have to move houses, will not have internet for a while, so I'mma disengage. Despite the usual smug and mocky tone, I thank you for actually engaging and not just banning me. I will leave with this:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-post-scarcity-anarchism-book#toc27
This chapter and the one after it are only slightly longer than On Authority. Read it if you are interested.