The liberal brain simply cannot comprehend anarchism
Libs thinking we're on their side, until the point we reject electoralism and US imperialist propaganda. Then label as as "tankies".
Campists thinking we're on their side until the point we reject "AES" and "left unity". Then label as a "liberals".
Anarchists are clearly the rare species of "liberal tankie" π
My favorite definition comes from an anarchist woodworker.
Yes. Anarchist woodworker.
You can buy the book or download the PDF for free:
Anarchist's Tool Chest:
https://lostartpress.com/products/the-anarchists-tool-chest
"For me, itβs quickest to explain what anarchy isnβt. Itβs not about violence, the overthrow of governments, the dismantling of corporations or even the smoking of a mild hallucinogen made from boiling banana peels (actually, I tried this. I donβt recommend it or the searing headache it brings). Instead, anarchism is the realization that all large institutions β governments, corporations, churches β have divided up the tasks we do in our jobs to the point where these institutions do wasteful, dehumanizing and stupid things.
Eunice Minette Schuster states in the book βNative American Anarchismβ that American aesthetic anarchy is βthe isolation of the individual β his right to his own tools, his mind, his body, and to the products of his labor.β
Itβs a desire to work for yourself and to run in social and economic circles made up of other individual artisans."
2 other books in the series, same deal, PDFs are free.
Anarchist's Workbench:
https://lostartpress.com/products/the-anarchists-workbench
Anarchist's Design Book:
https://lostartpress.com/products/the-anarchists-design-book
Also worth reading:
Ingenious Mechanicks:
Eunice Minette Schuster states in the book βNative American Anarchismβ that American aesthetic anarchy is βthe isolation of the individual β his right to his own tools, his mind, his body, and to the products of his labor.β
Itβs a desire to work for yourself and to run in social and economic circles made up of other individual artisans."
And when EVERYONE's petty bourgeoisie, no one will be.
Thank you for this post. This is gold praxis.
I mean its pugjesus man, no one that dedicated to criticizing leftists isn't a cryptofash
He punches left, then wonders why leftists don't like him.
Buddy it's lemmy, there are no conservatives here. Punching left when the only place to punch is left hardy makes someone a "crypto-fascist" lmao
Yeah but sometimes they... Okay it's still punching left but at totally imaginary people so its different i think.
this whole thing has been salami tactics, but applied to instances.
like they just make up shit, but as long as it's about 'tankies' it just goes around getting repeated unverified. they then expand the definition of 'tankie' as they see fit.
So what youβre saying is, first they came for the βauthoritarianβ communists.
Speaking of: you seldom come across the original version these days. βCommunistβ is almost always replaced with βsocialist,β because fuck tankies.
shocking that turbolib pugjesus would be totally ignorant of what anarchism is.
Wasn't this under the post about someone denying Uyghur genocide?
βDenyingβ is a strong hyperbole to βoverblowning.β Pugjesus is literally tankiejacketing instance administrators in an attempt to coagulate enforcement with his fash dynamics.
Instead of collaborating means of liberation, heβs not ending American DeathCamps in his own yard. Something about an a log stuck on your eye and all that.
@rockerface@lemmy.cafe downvote me all you like. Pugjesus is comfortable sending Palestine genocide protestors to deathcamps, and heβs doing shit about it.
Talk about denying Gaza genocide. Fucking ameko.
Old mate puggy is like the embodiment of the ?mark fischer? quote "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".
Then again, apparently I'm a tankie and racist who's going to move to the usa to inform on people with the wrong paperwork according to one user here.
Omg can you inform on me when you get here?
This was posted in MeanwhileOnGrad. There's a level of dedicated anti-socialism there that's a bit beyond using even the most pejorative use of 'lib'.
/c/MeanwhileOnFashβ’
thanks I'm stealing this for !libjerk@anarchist.nexus for a bit
we reject βAESβ and βleft unityβ
Real Spanish Republican Hours. Who is ready for the next Franco Dictatorship?
anarchists being called tankies made me shit my pants laughing
Self-proclaimed anarchists who literally deny the Uyghur Genocide and Holodomor being... what? The true defenders of anarchism?
It really fucks up my mind trying to say who's the worst anarchist between the ones defending america's propaganda and the ones defending china's genocide. And it's not like they're really that much disagreeing, it's just relatively minor differences in their analysis, they all could probably agree that China is genociding Uyghurs and that Western right wings are amplifying it.
Dude is a joker at best. Not worth taking seriously.
But what libs don't realize is that they're just western tankies. Same ideology, different empires.
It's the other way around. Tankjesus has to be taken seriously as a fascist saboteur, instead of a jokester.
Let me know first hand when he liberated πΊπ². He seems to be enjoying deathcamps too much.
Clueless right wingers.
Solidarity.
There is no such thing as left unity.
orgs with differing views work together all the time including many flavours of unions, religious organizations, and lefty organizations. Just because people canβt agree on a particular theoretical point online doesnβt mean they donβt unite around causes irl.
If nothing else, anarchists need to rebrand and come up with a new name for the same philosophy. "Anarchism" as a term has long been thoroughly poisoned. People who aren't deep into political theory at best dismiss it as an edge lord philosophy.
There's no term that will not be poisoned. We saw it happen with innocent things like DEI, BLM, Woke and so much more. changing names is not achieving anything, but if you want you can use libertarian socialism.
I mean, itβs kind of like the difference between βfeministβ and βegalitarianβ. All egalitarians are inherently feminists. But not all feminists are egalitarians. Part of the issue is that you canβt stop others from claiming the title, even if you disagree with them. Anyone can claim to be an anarchist, the same way anyone can claim to be a feminist. Even if their views on specific policies differ from your own, or from what most would consider anarchist.
And opponents have 100% used this to poison movements, by inserting living strawmen into groups, then pointing at them to portray the entire group as crazy.
Why should we change when they misunderstand what the word means?
Because at some point, the philosophical has to give way to the practical, unless you intend for your movement to be nothing more than an academic thought exercise. The unfortunate reality is branding matters. At a population level, no amount of explaining or reading suggestions is going to break through the preconceived notions people have about anarchism.
Yeah this is not the space for you to go on a platform. Check the sidebar
OK. I see it now.
Libs thinking weβre on their side, until the point we reject electoralism and US imperialist propaganda. Then label as as βtankiesβ.
Sorry for finding your Uyghur genocide denialism and Holodomor denialism to be abhorrent?
I've known you've rejected electoralism from the very start. We had conversations early in the Reddit exodus about that, even. I regarded it negatively, but also didn't think it made you a tankie.
Simping for genocide because it's done by red-painted fascist states, on the other hand? That makes you a tankie apologist, at the least.
Nazi bar anecdote. You're tankies until you do something about them.
I took college courses on comparative politics. It wasn't until I read The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin that I really understood what anarchy and communism are. I really love that book. It does a great job of portraying that world from both a biased, personal lens and then again from outsiders perspectives.
That being said - until we have a planet dedicated to it, I believe any attempt at anarchy will just get overrun by coordinated assholes with guns (read: states).
Finding a way to defend yourself without reinventing the machinery of the state is certainly one of the larger practical problems facing anarchism.
Anarchists can defend themselves just fine. We just need to learn not to trust MLs and libs to do it with as they'll backstab anarchists at the first opportunity they have to grab power. This sort of rhetoric is like claiming that democracy is a failed concept in the middle ages, because democracies "can't defend themselves from monarchies" or some shit.
Honestly it makes me understand why tankies exist. I don't agree with them, but I get it. Just like I get capitalism. They both suck but they're both right for different reasons.
Most anarchists agree that there is need for some kind of transitional society. Just not what tankies call "socialism".
Even with our own planet, I fear someone would chuck an asteroid our way, Γ la "it's free real estate!" once the dust settles...
The dispossessed had the same affect on me as well, though i only recently read it, about a year ago.
never heard of that book, I'll add it to my reading list;
++ recommend. Dont expect that there isnt criticism of the anarchist state
You act like coercion is inherently a better mechanism of coordination. As if suffering is strength. This is my least favorite fallacy.
It really should be addressed: why are states assumed to be better at violence? The trend in doctrine over the past century, and among elite pro murderers, has always been to devolve authority, put decision making closer to the decision, create more autonomy. This is anarchism's entire shit, i think similarly ewuipped, similarly trained forces, a state has the disadvantage.
And indeed when you see liberatory forces going up against oppressors, usually fascists (or something like them; daesh comes to mind) they tend to function better than a traditional assessmejt might assume. Not always enough for the odds they face, but beyter than you'd expect.
What theyve got is already being established, and being able to reach deep into our lives to fuck us from thr start. Its all the labor and loot they've stolen and hoarded, which would at least equalize over time. It sounds like the problem in conflict here is just the usual problems of revolution-any revolution, with any politics.
And literally every ideology has won at least one of those.
It boils down to cooperation vs coordination.
A cooperative force has fewer week points. A single point of failure would be unlikely to cause the rest of the cooperatives to quit. Contrast that to a coordinated war machine where a coup d'etat could quite literally cause them to lay down arms.
Cooperatives by their nature are volunteers whereas state solders are frequently conscripted or coerced in other ways.
A state has hierarchical structures which allows a few leaders near the top to organize a large portion of the state's workforce and economy into a war machine. We have seen examples of that many times through history. Have we seen a counter example of an anarchist cooperative building a war machine to protect itself? Bonus: Has that ever happened without then turning into a state because of the systems it built took on a life of their own birthing regime soaked in the blood of its own? I digress.