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.
To be slightly fair to them, some anarchists do reject class analysis. They're wrong, of course, and are fringe among anarchists, but they exist. Further, the rest of their comment isn't nearly as bad as that line makes them seem, and they do admit to having an opinion other anarchists would disagree with. I disagree with them of course, and I'm probably being too generous. I just interact with far worse daily.
That being said, the libs do seem to hate me, I agree lol
Idk, the second phrase being "there is no end goal" is also extremely sus to me
Check the newest comment from them.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
This is indefensible trash trying to paper over the immense absurdity of their nonsensical worldview, not in being an anarchist but in failing to understand anything about existing political systems. "Social murder? Is that the name of your new band?"
The absolute audacity to call class analysis "vague" because they haven't read a book in their fucking life.
yeah sure, just like nobody's racist unless and until they scream the N word in your face
It's a good thing the bourgeoisie aren't pointing a gun at you every day.
as long as you can pay your rent!
Yours is the more important point, but I'll add on: What about them punching other people? Do you not care for them? If you do care, then it seems like you have a shit ton of enemies and the framing is vapid, doing nothing but fixating on an individualist affect that undermines solidarity with the oppressed.
Would like to see their definition of violence if a remote town was to black ban them from acquiring food or transport.
Agreed, perhaps I'm being too generous. My standards are very low.
If there's one thing liberals are good at, it's taking their own severe ignorance and pretending it is actually wisdom.
I will admit that I don't actually know that much about class analysis. The material I consume is more focused on critique of authority, decentralised organisation and production, things like that. Which is why I think class analysis is redundant as it is already covered under critique of authority. Except authority focuses on the actual actions that people take instead of their positions, and it covers representative democracy as well.
But I still think it's a valid framework, not just one that I would use.
And if you think I haven't read anything I've posted a list as a response in this thread.
Class isn't authority. There are inter-class authorities, and intra-class authorities. In my opinion, the latter aren't bad and are often cases necessary and useful, but that's more into Marxism. Anarchism needs class analysis because it informs anarchists on what the weak points and points of contention in capitalist society are. The working classes stand in opposition not to any vague concept of authority, but instead are a part of a complex system of circulation, production, and distribtution that is regularly centralizing.
Anarchists that wish to decentralize society need to understand how to counteract this centralizing force. Marxists push it forward into collectivization and democratization, while anarchists instead typically go for prefiguration and community aid. In either case, though, these forces must be understood in order to act, and these forces are determined by class, as they aren't simply abstractions but a real material system that functions in the material world.
It's not vague because I haven't read theory. It's vague because the things I've read are contradictory and the only way to encompass all of them is to be vague.
I understand existing political systems. I want to destroy them. I'm not focusing my time and energy into doing it because no-one is, so it seems pointless. You achieve nothing marching alone, and the moment others join they are going to have better idea what to do than I do.
Ok, sounds to me like they simply walked back from the initial statement after some good ol' @Cowbee@hexbear.net medicine
Nope. I didn't walk back. Just explained more clearly. I still stand by it "Anarchy is not (implied "just" or "primarily") about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves"
Often times when writing I use statements that could be read as absolutist in a relative sense and trust the context to carry it. I just hope all of the explaining I've done in this thread means that people will understand what I meant.
If you don't mind telling me, what anarchist authors or thinkers have you inspired your ideas on, that you've actually read?
But mostly I use the forgetting filter. My thoughts are a combination of countless little experiences from media, text and IRL that coalesce into my beliefs by forgetting the things that don't speak to me. This makes it a patchwork of half-remembered and incomplete ideas and that makes me rather useless at explaining them (which probably explains this entire thread), but I like it because it guarantees I keep moving forward, currently I'm focused a lot on pluralism and that's probably the fault of "all cocoons are temporary" being the last anarchist text that really spoke to me, but also part of Andrewisms videos discussing polity and free association.
Sus in a vacuum, as @Edie@hexbear.net said it's more reasonable than you'd expect. I still have the usual Marxist disagreements, but this isn't the same as what the other user was doing (and is why I gave them their fair credit).
Their statements are wrong, as are their disparagements of class struggle and the vague hodge-podge of ideas, but it's one of the least bad takes on that thread.
Maybe my standards are too low.
Many anarchist currents characterize their theory and praxis as elements of an ongoing process rather than a political program with a well-defined end state. A lot of anarchist collective action is in the realm of prefigurative praxis. To create a world that aligns with your current starts with destroying/diminishing existing social structures and building new structures so that you and your comrades can live in that world now and demonstrate what is possible, with the aim to convince others that what is currently a tenuous possibility could be an enduring reality. This is definitely in conversation with Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?
Developing theoretical foundations, material implementations, and replicable methods is as much a part of the anarchist model as the Marxist one, but the intellectual lineage is much clearer for Marxists. Most actually practicing anarchists I've worked with are functionally indistinguishable from very enthusiastic Maoists if you don't dig too deeply into the abstract foundational principles that bring them to their positions.
Libs will support anarchist/leftcom or paleoconservative rhetoric with equal readiness just to contradict Marxism
It's especially strange when people who are far more adventurist and bloodthirsty than I am call me a tankie. It's pure reaction, like a call and response. I've seen liberals act like they are going to form Luigi guerilla squads and execute every single billionaire today and then call me a fascist for supporting Venezuela against the US Empire.
Thank goodness for the Red Sails series on "brainwashing," I'd be far more confused by their actions otherwise.
Side-note: I'm aware that "tankie" is just a pejorative for Marxists and anti-imperialists and thus I am a "tankie," I'm more pointing out that the radical liberals devoid of theory and devoid of meaningful organization end up lashing out at everyone.
Some idiots do. But you're staying so quiet had forced the respect from of them. You're a sweetie.
Aww, thanks! I do agree that my insistence on trying to answer the regular hostility and bad-faith I get daily with good-faith has earned some respect from otherwise liberal people, and some of these people have softened their views of leftists because of that. It's what keeps me doing this, not because I'm sweet necessarily but because it works for people that outright confrontation doesn't. I don't disavow the outright confrontation style though, as it works for some people that my methods don't.