Yeah. Anarchist leftism achieves… um… wait, what has anarchism achieved again?
(I’m just messing around)
This is gonna ruffle some feathers
They’re already here being salty
Crazy that merging everything within the state so nothing can be against the state would do that huh
I feel like responding to BadEmpanada is just a trap and anyone who doesn’t know it by now is just feeding into it. He’s just going to keep trying to sow and reap controversy.
I would love to see what this person has to say but 2 hours is absurd lol.
Do they have transcripts? Video is the least accessible thing ever.
This is just a rebuttal video for responses to this short one: https://youtu.be/ZRJgYCi1vvY
Real talk (the video is in my to-watch queue): I am completely convinced by anarchism tenets, but the apparent lack of a path towards total liberation kinda frightens me. Where can I lear more about said strategy ? (Not about anarchism in general)
Concrete strategies are pervertable. Values are less so. If you know what you’re aiming for, you should be able to evaluate any strategies you encounter to see if they align. It’s also not possible to build one strategy for everyone. How could you make it right for all communities? How could you force everyone to follow it? You’d need a state…
Reading more about anarchism in general should expose you to concrete examples of what has been tried, how it worked, and how it was destroyed. I’d start with Orwell in Spain and the Anarcho-Syndicalysts.
Based on my understanding, the method by which we get from the world today to the an anarchist society is often conflated with the social revolution of socialism. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. I doubt it. What I do know, is that anarchism isn’t just a theory - it’s a practice. We are meant to live it, not just talk about it.
Start with anarchism as a spice. Any time you’re in a position to influence the governance of something, a project, club, society or council, insist on making sure that all use of authority is justified.
Get involved in everything you can, be the person that brings the anarchist perspective. You don’t need to call yourself an anarchist and proclaim your actions for the cause. This isn’t a crusade, you’re not killing in the name of. It’s about making sure that use of authority is justified. Offer the anarchist options, show others how to live a different way.
Finally, always be aware someone will recognize what you are and what you’re about. Anarchism is about making power justify itself, and if it can’t, abolishing that power. This means that those that seek power will always notice you’re the problem to them acquiring more power. They will seek to eliminate or neuter your ability to interfere.
If you’re making small waves in a small community, the response will likely be similarly small. If you’ve succeeded in making a whole region change to a different way of life, maybe it’s a national guard with guns that comes knocking. Both can be devastating.
If that sounds like a lot of effort, it is. That’s why the world hasn’t switched overnight. I would say however, that it’s no more effort than is required anyway. Every strategy picked must be checked for suitability - the ends cannot justify the means.
I know all this and it wasn’t my question. It’s good to have values at your core, do what you can around you etc… but then building a nice community with people around can be enough. And I completely agree with that, you cannot change the world on your own. What I’m interested in is, how do you keep the flow going ? What makes it so that the end, is liberation of everyone and not just liberation of your community/region ? How not to conflate the end and the means ?
I feel like aiming for the ultimate liberation of absolutely everyone as your goal is sort of missing the point a bit. To force everyone to be free is an oxymoron, and a path to a kind of totalitarianism.
If you want to help more people, then implementing anarchist values around you is a great place to be! Sharing those values, and educating other people with useful tools can help them help the people around them too.
Yes, I do want everyone to be liberated. Crucially I never said that I, or an organization, should liberate everyone, because I don’t believe in this.
Yes, I know how it works, start around you etc… that’s not what I’m curious about. That doesn’t answer my question. How to make sure that, collectively, we don’t stop in the middle ?
The ML cry under their pillows at night so the cameras don’t see them.
Is broseph single tho?
It’s a shame there’s so much infighting on the left of the political spectrum. There is strength in a union.
I would be happy to work with other leftists towards a common goal but every time we tried that we ended up getting betrayed
Which is a shame.
Which is why we need to stop thinking in terms of left vs right and more on people vs power.
There’s in-fighting everywhere.
You think brownshirts seized power cooperatively?the kkk and the nazis used to hate each other
It’s not even that, @[email protected] is completely aware fascists are turning on their führers as we type, yet one of us stomps on the powerless and the other empowers.
Which coin of in-fighting does souvenir want to face?
Deathcamps are still up.deleted by creator
I think you’ll find they form a circle, hold the man to their right’s penis, release their alpha male energy into the middle of the circle, and summon Mecha-Hitler. That’s what the black sun/ sun wheel swastika symbol represents.
Yet neither side in this can even define what capitalism is and are both absolute brain dumps deattached from reality (materialism)
Farce vs farce
Edit: now that’s how you really ruffle some feathers, by calling a school yard fight that takes place within realm of imagination a farce
“Everyone is wrong except me”
Yeah you’re right, I should have picked a sports team and brainlessly attacked the other in this youtube beef where each side is yelling “noo actually my ideology is better than yours!”
I can absolutely define what capitalism is at its core
How about defining what it fundamentally is at an economic level instead, given how it is a mode of production
Also the irony of responding to this by saying “yeah I can define it” then proceeding to not define it
It’s because I don’t bother to engage constructively with people who comment in bad faith.
If you mean “materialism” as defined by Marx, then yes that is an “absolute brain dump deattached from reality” as several modern anarchists and anthropologists have pointed out with ample of evidence.
Curious to see what this evidence is then, since every time this kind of a claim gets dropped there’s 0 elaboration or if there is elaboration, it’s always some metaphysics brimstone
It’s for example explained in length in Graeber’s last book The Dawn Of Everything (with plenty of archeological evidence). Worth a read 👍
Capitalism is said to emphasize free markets, private ownership and minimal government interference. The primary factors of production in economics are land, labor and capital. Capital are durable produced goods used as inputs for making more goods. The emphasis under Capitalism is to empower the capital component of the primary factors of production.
There is more to say anout Capitalism using terms familiar to those living under Capitalism. I find it disingenuous that your “ruffling of feathers” can only define Capitalism using Marxist Leninist terms like dialectical materialism. Again, it is a case of “just read our ML bible and you will get it brah”. Cults are everywhere.
A major point of the video essay is that centralizing land, labor and capital under the state is a change of private ownership thereby reproducing Capitalism, but at the state level. All must labor using state land and capital except for the political class which holds power over labor. I call ML’s RedFash and State Capitalist for this reason. Merging the state and capital sounded better when sold in the original German.
I’m not here to defend anarchy. Watch the video essay or don’t. I’m here to define Capitalism in all it’s flavors including the state kind.
Funnily enough, in this definition both ML’s and Anarchists fall into the same trap, and that is ignore commodity production which is the fundamental atom of capitalism. You can centralize or decentralize production all you want, give ownership to the workers or the state - this doesn’t matter as long as commodity production (production for exchange) and everything that it implies remains.
After all, capitalism IS generalized commodity production, it’s what automatically implies markets, production for profit, money, etc…
Also don’t confuse Marxism with Marxism-Leninism, as the latter is merely a “synthesis” created by Stalin that falsified both Marx and Lenin to suit the nationalist counter-revolutionary USSR direction of development. Both Marx & Engels opposed “Socialism in one state”, fought against the idea that “commodity production is socialism actually” or the stageism that is anti-materialist
Are you a leftcom? I feel like that last paragraph is a common leftcom opinion, and I’m curious to hear why you think it’s a falsification. I don’t think MLs believe that socialism should remain in one state at all, just that it’s a stepping stone to an international revolution.
It’s not exclusively leftcom opinion but just a take that anyone reading Marx would automatically come into, especially first 3 chapters of Capital and Critique of Gotha Programme (leftcoms are theorycels though so they do come to this conclusion). You can’t have commodity production and somehow be socialist, despite Stalin’s falsifications.
It also goes against materialism into the realm of idealism, where a DOTP can look inwards and start pursuing its national interests to build itself up and compete within the capitalist world against other capitalist powers using capitalism and everything that it implies (like class relations), and somehow through magic still retain proletarian character despite it actively going against the interests it pursues and literally being the kind of society the proletariat as a class have the historic task of abolishing. This is nonsense, and that’s why the primary objective of DOTP is internationalism and it’s where it lives or dies, rather than indefinite national development as it’s not a national project.
I tried to keep this as short as possible since I could yap about this for super long so it’s not all-encompassing, though I’d also recommend reading Engels Principles of Communism and Bordiga’s Dialogue with Stalin, the latter text is especially related to this topic.
