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
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
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.
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.