"Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"
Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don't want to abolish capitalism, and don't want to fight archism?
I suspect this is just because libs absolutely DESPISE comrade @Cowbee@hexbear.net and will upvote anything smart-sounding that supposedly addresses whatever is being discussed?
Also, gotta love the whole "I have this opinion and many anarchists will disagree and that's what anarchism is about". Like, buddy, you haven't read one book or talked to one anarchist IRL, let alone organized in your entire life.
You're viewing a single thread.
280 comments
I mean I would say anarchism is about removing oppressive structures, to a point where all that is left is absolutely necessary hierarchies and even of those some of them are temporary and spontaneously arise to fill needs. But to each their own I guess. His point on anarchists cells isn't really wrong though. Its just those aren't permanent either.
On the Cowbee thing I think people don't like being shown they can't keep up with the discussion. Cowbee actually knows theory of their favored system and is extremely adept at discussion and dissection. I myself have had that feeling before and its not really fair to them. They aren't saying you have to agree or anything, they're just informing you what communist theory says. Which since I've started reading some anarchist theory I realized they were right about me. I need to inform myself way more and read more theory. Can be a hard pill to swallow, but its required to normalize intellectual political discussions.
I think if my past self met my current self I'd feel the same. I used to be a big socdem quasi-Marxist quasi-anarchist guy, and at some point you have to confront the fact that you don't know what you think you know and get to actually reading.
It's also why I don't pretend to be some master-level Marxist-Leninist or anything, I'm still a baby ML in my eyes and have a long way to go. I just like to yap.
Well you're a master to me. Like not to slob your knob too hard but yeah.
I think I'm at the point where I have a decent idea of just how deep Marxism goes, and can actually keep up with what the actual greatest Marxists talk about (as in, understand them), but I have a long way to go to get to that level. There's a sort of false confidence you can get if you read, say, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and Imperialism: The Current Highest Stage of Capitalism for the first time, that melds with the pre-existing liberalism that we are all molded by in English-dominated spaces. I'm beyond that point of false confidence, and far behind the actual level of serious competence.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate the compliment, but there are people that have a far deeper understanding than I do. I've just been pretty consistent with my studies and have been able to sharpen them by discussing it with others.
That is probably the hardest part for most westerners is shedding that neoliberal shell we've all been boxed into at birth. Thats the part where I see most people who realize something is wrong with our way of life fail to come to a complete understanding of what is going on.
Absolutely. Until people recognize that the system is genuinely failing them, they will endlessly license themselves to believing it works. Even people radicalized still have those intense layers of cultural hegemony subtly reinforcing how we think and how we view society. We all have these, still, even after we are aware of it, and have to do our best to kill the liberalism in ourselves.
I mean I would say anarchism is about removing oppressive structures, to a point where all that is left is absolutely necessary hierarchies
I think there is a much simpler answer (not that implementation is always simple) which is that "hierarchies," delegations of authority, must be democratically decided, and therefore that there can be many or few of them and it should be decided based on what is most functional. There can be no other sort of authority except those decided in that manner.
and even of those some of them are temporary and spontaneously arise to fill needs
I guess "some" is doing a lot of work, but in general I think it's better to try to have consistent systems so long as the public will remains the same so that we can be more resilient to various types of emergencies (which themselves require ad-hoc organizing, but should where possible by the government already have procedures in place for the creation of the ad-hoc groups).
It just sounds like we're saying the same thing tbh with some minute differences and sone pettiness too.
Sorry if the "doing a lot of work" part sounded more derisive than I intended it. Glad we roughly understand each other.
It is doing a lot of work though. I need to read more theory :(