I posted “On Authority” in the westolefto community
The response “i ain’t reading all that tankie shit”
Why do westoleftos think they’re experts on dem ebil tankies all of a sudden
Why do westoleftos think they’re experts on dem ebil tankies all of a sudden
White western chauvinism and a protracted denial of the lingering effects of the multiple genocides they’re still committing are a hell of a drug.
“i ain’t reading all that tankie shit”
“The joke is on you, as you see, I am illiterate”.
Just do not bother getting angry over this type of stuff. Post it nonetheless because someone may stumble upon it and actually read it or engage in a meaningful (even if not always well-intended) conversation about it, but the snarky replies are best ignored as they add nothing of value.
Even the Paris Commune is too authoritarian for them.
“i ain’t reading all that” bruh it’s so short it takes like 3 minutes to read
THREE WHOLE PAGES?
Plus Engels writes in LONG SENTENCES!
Yea I read it whilst on the toilet.
The 2 downvotes are from the !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone mods
is blahaj zone part of lemmygrad? I don’t know how the lemmy thing works, but can’t the mods here change the mods there or something?
blahaj zone is a completely different instance
I don’t think we should defederate, if you’d like you can just block their most active communities to not see them on all.
Marx is a tankie, Engels is a tankie, Lenin is a tankie
But how could Marx and Engels be tankies if no tanks 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Ironclads
Anti-authoritarians have no future, one either supports an existing authority or tries to become a new authority. Everyone can have a say in a democracy, but when it comes down to decision, whether through majority vote or expert opinion or other methods, the decision then becomes authority.
Even if someone claims to hate all forms of authority, this person will become the authority on “hating authority” if a following is gained. That’s how anarchists are doomed for failure.
Anti-authoritarians have no future
Also no present and no past, except wrecking.
Apparently “on authority” is kind of a bad refutation of anarchism, which makes it very funny that people resort to dismissing it instead of pointing out it’s flaws.
How is it a bad refutation?
It isn’t. It is a concise demonstration of the analytical bankruptcy of Utopian politics. Not surprising, coming from the guy who literally wrote the pamphlet on Utopian and scientific flavors of socialism.
I just finished reading it, and I think I can say my feelings on it with more certainty.
It is absolutely a bad refutation when misused. It is a refutation of specific, radlib strains of left-adjacent thought, not of anarchism itself. The only reason I specify anarchism is because “anti-authoritarianism” is completely and utterly meaningless, a vague gesture on removing an entire facet of natural human behavior, while anarchism is a committed opposition to a specific form of political organization.
The fact that the pamphlet often is useful as a refutation of self-described “anarchists” isn’t because it is an effective tool for debunking anarchism, but because the majority of self-described anarchists have put zero effort into analyzing things and actually have no concrete political beliefs.
I think, counter-intuitively, the solution might be to focus on anarchist tendencies more. By temporarily adopting a “Utopian” mindset, tempered and viciously sharpened with a constant awareness of materialism and the concrete reality of class, we could create a new breed of anarchism that’s more resistant to liberal intrusions, and more willing to work with actually existing socialism, while still maintaining it’s utopian moral principle.
I’m not suggesting this because I agree with utopian or anarchist beliefs, but because I think that the fundamental desires that feed into the inclination towards anarchism are valid, and will still lead to correct conclusions if tempered with a connection to materialism. Instead of denying their initial goals, we should instead point out to anarchists what actually achieves them
Half of this comment probably sounds completely insane. I am tired.
anarchism is a committed opposition to a specific form of political organization
which one?
The state.
leaving aside for a moment whether the state is actually a specific form of political organization, i don’t know where you are that you are finding anarchists that are specifically and only against that. every single one i have talked to in my years of left leaning organizing have been against the state as a particularly bad example of some overarching principle, such as authority or hierarchy.
“Hierarchy” is less vague and is indicative of an opposition to the state of it is assumed that it is referring to specifically violent hierarchy- or hierarchy that is enforced primarily through violence.
I have my own, more concretely defined definition of Anarchism, but it is true that most anarchists don’t adhere to it. I think that attention needs to be put into solidifying and realizing a concretely defined Anarchism, a process which would be much more effective at “converting” self-described anarchists into a proletarian movement than insisting that they agree with us because we are correct.
I say “apparently” because I’ve heard that it’s the case, I can’t confirm that myself.
Apparently the issue is that it assumes that anarchism has issue with a vague concept of “authority”, when it is actually anti-statist and opposed to all hierarchy. These are pretty different things and a non-hierarchical method of obtaining authority is theoretically possible, but I don’t think it’s practical. There’s a reason I’m not an anarchist myself.
They can’t critically analyse 3 page pamphlet, this should tell us much if not everything.
