全 50 件のコメント

[–]rechelon| post-left | pro-market | fight nihilism 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (23子コメント)

It's darkly hilarious that people can try to characterize the difference between anarchists and tankies as a matter of "ideological purity" or "sectarianism". We want completely different things, we're on completely different teams. Authoritarianism is what we're fighting. Making an alliance with some authoritarians versus other authoritarians is ludicrous. Doing so with authoritarians as unabashed as tankies is even worse than trying to work alongside normal authoritarians like democrats and liberals.

That as people have poured into our movement online and this has stopped being the universal consensus of all anarchists is deeply troubling and feels topsy-turvey as all hell.

History shows that it is precisely when reactionaries are on the rise that we need to remain firm in our refusal to ally with "left" authoritarians. When the reactionary barbarians are at the gates you don't let the red ones in hoping they'll help fight the rest.

[–]hamjam5Nietzschean 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I'm glad most anarchists are of this mindset....but the fact that some aren't....it is maddening. What the fuck are they thinking? Yeah, things are different than they were 80 or 100 years ago, but you inow what isn't different? People who want to rule over others will still stab you in the back to get it and will betray every ally and ideal that foolishly helps them get it so that they can keep it and grow it. That isn't about ideology, that is about the kind of relations and dynamics that systems of authority under every color of flag create.

[–]ZombieJohnBrown 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

People in this thread seem to have some sort of cringey paranoia that Kronstadt will literally happen again if anarchists and communists team up against capitalists, and that the only way to defeat racism and capitalism is with more leftist infighting. But I would expect anarchists to be able to see that the modern communist movement by and large has recognized the faults of its ancestors, and built solutions around those faults. The communists I know all err to the side of libertarian, and I don't think I'd be able to find many who would seriously defend Stalin or the like. Not recognizing this is pretty reminiscent of the liberal argument that socialism always leads to oppression and poverty.

Also, it's not like we're on the brink of overthrowing capitalism. We're not about to have a communist revolution any time soon, so in my opinion it really takes a certain type of privilege to say "we're not going to work with this other group because when the socialist revolution comes someday, they might be mean to us". We need to build a mass movement against racism and capitalism now because our community members are under attack now. What good does it do to say that you won't work with anyone else that doesn't align exactly with your politics? Are you gonna stop the deportation of migrants by telling would-be allies to fuck off? Now more than ever we should be organizing together.

To be honest, I've never heard concerns about this in my local leftist circles. My (communist) group has always had great relationships with the local anarchist groups, and to my knowledge that's never really come into question--it seems like it's only a problem in online leftist spaces, specifically /r/anarchism and /r/socialism. Ideological purity is a virus on lefty subreddits, but it's not indicative of real leftist circles in my experience. Last I saw 70-something percent of people on those subs aren't involved in real-life organizing, so I think that lack of exposure to it has really helped those spaces to become a breeding ground of ideological dick-wagging.

[–]hamjam5Nietzschean 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

But I would expect anarchists to be able to see that the modern communist movement by and large has recognized the faults of its ancestors

It absolutely has not. I've seen no indication of this. The maoist group in my city has written articles about how Stalin didn't do anything wrong, has infiltrated groups in an entryist manner, has spread anti-anarchist propaganda to try to make people choose between them and the anarchist groups, and, in doing so, has turned people who have worked together forever against each other. They even regularly "joke" to anarchists who still work with them that "after the revolution" they are going up against the wall, or into the gulag. But it is one of those jokes you can tell isn't really a joke...more like a "it is funny cuz it's true" sort of joke.

We're not about to have a communist revolution any time soon, so in my opinion it really takes a certain type of privilege to say "we're not going to work with this other group because when the socialist revolution comes someday, they might be mean to us".

If we're not building a movement that is explicitly anti-authoritarian, then we're just wasting our time, and I'm out. Actually, that's not quite right -- I'm not "out", I'm just going to be elsewhere trying to build anti-authoritarian resistance to capitalism away from people who are okay with authoritarianism under a red flag.

What good does it do to say that you won't work with anyone else that doesn't align exactly with your politics?

I'm not asking anyone to exactly align with me. I'm just asking them not to be okay with authoritarianism of any kind. That's it. They can be marxist, mutualist, christian, syndicalist, ancom, postleft, libsoc, etc etc -- as long as they are against capitalism, hierarchy, racism, and other forms of authority, I'm cool.

And, honestly, if you want a mass movement, then asking people to be okay with tyrant loving authoritarians, just because they wave red flags is a good way to turn people off and make them not want to have anything to do with you. It would certainly have that effect on the working class stiff typing this message right now for instance -- and I'm by no means alone in that regard. And that's not just a unique trait of anarchists -- you'll find a lot of non-ideological people in the general population feel the same way. I mean, why should they stick their neck out against capitalism and systems of oppression over them if all it means is that a new class of exploiters under a red flag will be exploiting them instead? Certainly seems like common sense would see that as a fool's errand.

And, yeah, a few years ago, my experience in my local groups was similar to what you describe. Then the Maoists fucked that shit up with their divisive entryist tactics and stalin loving rhetoric. I still judge individuals as individuals, and I still will work with the authoritarians in a very cautious and provisional basis -- but if you want left unity, you need to stop trying to convince anarchists to let authoritarians be authoritarian, and go convince the authoritarians to stop trying to control things now and to not have centralizing and ruling over others as a goal that they are trying to build.

[–]ZombieJohnBrown 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thanks for writing that, I guess I didn't take geographic location into consideration as much as I should have. My city doesn't have much of a maoist presence, but like I said most of the communists I know here would consider themselves libertarians and would agree with you on almost every point in your post, as would I. Authoritarian communists should be rejected, but from my experience at least, most communists do not believe in authoritarianism anymore

[–]hamjam5Nietzschean 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, this whole thing is about just authoritarians. Anarchists don't have a problem with marxists and communists per se. I mean, marxist writers like Federici are some of my favorite writers.

As long as the communists you have in mind are libertarians and not authoritarians, then this criticism isn't directed at them at all. I see them as essentially and practically anarchists. This anti-unity sentiment is just directed at leninists, maoists and other authoritarians.

[–]dessalines_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Some Leninists or maoists : Huey P newton, Kwame nkruma, Thomas sankara, Che Guevara, ho chi Minh...

Authoritarians who only wanted to screw over anarchists, right?

[–]hamjam5Nietzschean 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, actually. I have portrits I spent days painting of some of those people, and I used to look up to them and make excuses for them too about a decade and a half ago. But yeah, except perhaps for Huey, all those people were part of the systematic weakening of a working class in revolt trying to empower itself, and the creation of a new political ruling class that would end up using the state formed to protect the revolution to instead counterrevolutionary crush independent organs of worker empowerment so as to protect and grow the power of the new red ruling class.

It wasn't material conditions that caused those revolutions to end up like that, it was the dialectical of rulers trying to protect and grow their power that caused it.

[–]jackalw 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

authoritarians are bad. Its literally no more complex than that.

[–]DeadPresidentJFK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Clearly you don't get anything about anarchism or anarchists.

[–]the_undine -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, it's not like we're on the brink of overthrowing capitalism. We're not about to have a communist revolution any time soon, so in my opinion it really takes a certain type of privilege to say "we're not going to work with this other group because when the socialist revolution comes someday, they might be mean to us". We need to build a mass movement against racism and capitalism now because our community members are under attack now. What good does it do to say that you won't work with anyone else that doesn't align exactly with your politics? Are you gonna stop the deportation of migrants by telling would-be allies to fuck off? Now more than ever we should be organizing together.

Important.

[–]DeadPresidentJFK 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There can be a few different reasons given the context. Often it has to do with group cohesion or maintaining your place within a group or network. People tend to see the Phallocrat as the key to everything while in reality he's just an asshole who needs to be ignored or shut up for a while. Sometimes they'll go as low as being big babies in need of attention.

Some of the more dangerous leaders are being put trust into due to their wit, sharpness, appearance of expertise or competence. Yet still even when it's somewhat true, when people are letting themselves into a relation of dependency with him, that becomes self-fulfilling... they lose the ability to act on their own and make their own decisions, because, like voters and citizens, they've put responsibility in the hands of this authority figure. So they never get to grow up and learn stuff.

[–]ComradeOfSwadia 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I agree. Authoritarianism and Capitalism are both pretty bad. In some degrees, I think Authoritarian Socialism is a bit better than Authoritarian Capitalism, but it is that authoritarianism that betrays socialism and general leftist ideas.

Marx said that socialism is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Workers Owning the Means of Production. You can't have socialism with a closed or selective Party controlling the affairs of society, you can't have socialism if the people don't own the means of production but rather the Party does.

In the USSR and in China it is the Party that betrayed socialism. THEY are the reasons why the nations aren't actually socialist.

And while I agree that capitalism will seek to destroy socialism (i.e., see how many people the West has killed via imperialism) I truly believe you can have a socialist state and strong enough organization to repel capitalist funded fascism or foreign invasion.

[–]diarekt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Authoritarian Socialism

gibberish. oxymoron.

[–]ComradeOfSwadia 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

True. The Authoritarian-Left is more like State Capitalism.

[–]DeadPresidentJFK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

How were the USSR and pre-'80s China NOT socialism? Socialism does not exclude from the dynamics of State capitalism, as long as it is legitimated by the transitional paradigm. When you got hierarchies or separation of powers, what else can you expect than State capitalism?

[–]the_undine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This has been brought up on the socialism sub but a lot of people there are against transitional systems (I don't know how socialism gets achieved without them) and they say those two aren't true examples of socialism/communism.

[–]diarekt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

"tankies" is a term now adopted by hillary clinton supporters, that says it all.

[–]Seukonnen(Libertarian Socialist) 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wait, seriously?

[–]diarekt 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

yep. some shillary clown liberal has been calling communists tankies.

[–]jackalw 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

liberals ruin everything

[–]Seukonnen(Libertarian Socialist) 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ew

[–]clydethefrog 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

also lurk at circlebroke the moment it gets political

[–]jackalw 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

they call themselves that, or other people?

[–]killthebillionaires 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why are authoritarian commies better than capitalists?

They'll wait until after you've survived capitalism to stab you in back!

[–]BashTheAltRight- indigenous transhumanist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

every revolution with tankies in the past.

[–]GroovyFrute// existential nihilist 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Never understood why so many self-proclaimed "leftists" are so deeply obsessed with leftist unity. I don't mind cooperating with Marxists, but this sentiment seems to resonate mostly with tankie scum. I really don't understand why tankies expect us to ally with them purely because we're both leftist, just like how I don't understand why ancaps would want to ally with us purely because we both hate the government.

[–]jackalw 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

tankies and ancaps are two sides of the same coin. One side of the coin opposes government with all its heart, and praises capitalism. The other side opposes capitalism with everything its got, and worships government.

[–]jman12234 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I disagree so much. We all need to realize that history does not happen in a fucking vacuum. Material conditions, social movements, geo and internal politics all inform the past, and the are constantly in flux. The form of a socialist society may not reflect the authoritarian regimes of the twentieth century in the present day. It's idealism and ideological goggles obscuring truth and any objectivity about the subject.

Ideological purity accomplishes nothing and only seeks to alienate people who would champion similar causes and present a unified, greater front to the forces of fascism, racism, and injustice. Anarchists are not a powerful enough movement in this country to refuse aid and solidarity from closely related lefist groups. I'm nt saying you shouldn't agitate anarchist viewpoints and acknowledge the failures and injustices of the past. I'm saying we should be practical and think tactically. Further we should not disregard tactics or writings of ledt leaders and figures simply because with disagree about ultimate aims. Leftist politics is weak as fuck at the moment;it's budding and growing into something that is a force to be reckoned with, but it's not there yet. We need all the help and support we can get.

[–]jackalw 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

K, but Tankies

[–]Thoushaltbemocked 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, I'd really not like to "unite" with someone who wanks over disasters like Stalinism.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]justcallcollect[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Huh? It was when the anarchists decided to join the government, joining the United front with republicans and communists (stalinists) that the militias were forced to disarm and the fascists started winning. It was betrayal by the communists, and refusal of support from other liberal capitalist western nations, that allowed Franco to gain the upper hand.

    [–]ImperatorBevo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I agree, and the title is especially bad. While I definitely understand and agree with the desire to turn away from Stalinists and tankies, there are plenty of other groups on the left who are not anarchists, but still have compatible ideologies and could be valuable allies.

    [–]DonaldTrumpsButtPlug -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The left just loves intellectual masturbation. Gotta pick which flair represents your lifestyle best and then watch it never unfold.

    [–]jackalw 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    you're right. you know what will solve that? Getting accused of sectarianism and reminded to uphold left unity every time we disagree with some random stalinist trying to take over. All left unity is is a tool for authoritarians to establish control. You already have unity with the people who share your actual goals.

    [–]richhomieram 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Left unity is what liberals on the internet say to make it seem like we are on in the same, we are not

    [–]DeadPresidentJFK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Hums... I wouldn't say that. In some milieus I've definitely seen some shitty tendencies of anarcho-lefties uniting with maoists or socio-democrats, and they were rock-hard convinced about it... for reasons they never cared explaining rationally.

    [–]richhomieram 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    State capitalists are liberals

    [–]Ayncraps 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Unity among like-minded sects of the Left isn't a bad thing. People who just want to lord over a Red™ fiefdom and backstab everyone who helped get them there have no business uniting with anyone who seriously wants to see socialism.

    [–]themadstork921 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Do you want to see revolution in your lifetime? Or, do you want to just talk about different versions of an ideal future?

    [–]hamjam5Nietzschean 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    What's the point of a revolution in my lifetime if all it leads to is a new ruling class under a red flag exploiting me instead of the old ruling class did? Why even bother if that is the result of a revolution? Seems like a giant waste of time.

    No, if a revolution isn't explicitly anit-authoritarian, then I'm going to spend my time revolting against it, not helping it along.

    [–]EconOverlordMaoist Third-Worldist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    a) Have you seen a Revolution? It is certainly the most authoritarian thing; a means by which one class overthrows and oppresses the other.

    b) You can't say you're worried that MLs are going to lump you with fascists then say you'll oppose such a revolution, even if it means maintaining the hedgemon (there's a difference between "won't support" and "actively oppose").

    c) You're assuming that this "exploitation" by a Communist party would be the same as a Capitalist one. "States are states" doesn't apply when there's distinct differences in their class character.

    [–]hamjam5Nietzschean 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    a) Have you seen a Revolution? It is certainly the most authoritarian thing; a means by which one class overthrows and oppresses the other.

    But, if there is allowed to be a centralized hegemonic state, the class that will be doing the oppression won't be the working class, it will be the new red ruling class that has control of that state and the social and economic power. The working class will still just be used to create profit and power for that ruling class.

    b) You can't say you're worried that MLs are going to lump you with fascists then say you'll oppose such a revolution, even if it means maintaining the hedgemon (there's a difference between "won't support" and "actively oppose").

    And this is why you have to be treated like a red fascist. Because, if not, if you are allowed to gain even a modicum of power, then any resistance or lack of obedience, even if it is resistance of working class people trying to be empowered, if it threatens your hegemony you will label it as reactionary and kill me (just like the MLMs in my area like to "joke" about). No. This is why there can be no left unity. Because authoritarians see the working class trying to empower itself outside of their party and hegemony as essentially a class enemy, and to be treated like a fascist -- so, since that is the case, I feel people need to treat you all like red fascists. It is basic survival, just like it is with fighting fascism.

    c) You're assuming that this "exploitation" by a Communist party would be the same as a Capitalist one.

    No I'm not. It is different, but it is still exploitation in which I am ruled and in which my life is used as a resource to serve the interests of a ruling class that controls the state. So, yeah, it is a different kind of exploitation, but it isn't better one just because there is a red flag waving , and it certainly isn't something worth fighting for. Fighting against? Yeah. For? Absolutely not.

    [–]GroovyFrute// existential nihilist 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What principles do we have as anarchists if we ally ourselves with staunchly authoritarian state-capitalists, simply because we're both left-wing? We fight against the authority of the state as well as capitalism.

    [–]the_undine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Is teamwork off the table for y'all or just unity? And if you aren't going to ally with anyone else how will you achieve anything with your numbers?

    [–]hamjam5Nietzschean 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't trust the maoists, but I work with them. So, yeah, I'm not going to allow the myth of unity to trick me into not criticising people I see as red fasicts, but I will work with them in a provisional manner.

    [–]dessalines_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's the weekly hate on other socialists thread. You can mention a ton of Marxists who were really good people and believed in solidarity, but they will shit on every one.

    [–]special_loaf -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    barf. identity politics at its worst

    [–]BashTheAltRight- indigenous transhumanist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    not letting tankies backstab anarchists is idpol, smh.

    [–]special_loaf 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    no its identity politics when anarchists (and communists, though where I am from this is particularly more prevalent among anarchists) are more interested in maintaining their own cliques and self-righteous identities than they are interested in actual politics. I have seen antiracist activist work sabotaged by anarchists before for no other reason than the fact that there were communists also involved in the coalition. This idea that one group could and would backstab the other at any moment is ridiculous, and it seriously overinflates the actual significance of the radical left worldwide atm--as if we are anywhere close to the "moment" in which capitalism falls and as if there exists a single "moment" (that directly preceded by the former) in which one group can outmaneuver the other.

    Remember that time when the bolsheviks betrayed us 100 years, that should have been a lesson to all of us. We will never work with them again.

    ideas like this establish a false continuity between various factions of a conflict that took place 100 years ago and activists in a totally different part of the world now. Anarchists are quick to criticize communists for their culty adulation/worship of people like Mao and Lenin, but this idealized/constructed past is the exact same thing. People who get their politics from the fantasies they make out of events that happened a century ago sound a lot more like fascists than anything else.