this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
87 points (96.8% liked)
Slop.
753 readers
441 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I realized a while ago the only reason these kids constantly (try to) debunk On Authority is because it's the shortest piece on anarchism they can find by a reputable Marxist and they will be damned before they read anything longer than a few pages.
Unfortunately a lot of anarchists do read anarchist lit which just affirms all their positions but unlike materialist works, doesn't require any evidence for the reader to accept it. The vibes and validation is all they need to say "see I have read and what I read says you are wrong"
A ton of the most popular anarchist lit, which is right wing and of the objectivist school such as The Problem of Political Authority, isn't read by either socialists or left wing anarchists. I don't think it's neccesarily true that anarchist lit is unified enough to re-affirm a unified position. I do however think that anarchists hate reading longer works critiquing anarchism because many of them are written by people like Stalin, who as we all know killed every human being on earth multiple times and therefore his books on dialectical materialism and Socialism or Anarchism are ontologically invalid. That such criticisms of personal character also apply to their own authors is invalid because the only crime worse than causing harm is Possessing Power which, as is unfalsifiable, mutates the human spirit and corrupts in ways that make all existing revolutionary efforts that aren't anarchist invalid.
Imagine thinking "on authority" is actually a good argument. The worst drivel ever written. Deeply unserious...
Sure. Here's a video you may find interesting. It seems like in this particular case, most of the criticisms of the work assume it's either talking about a different kind of anarchist than it may be talking about, or is agreeing with the work. https://youtu.be/_pRnSPzYGAU
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I haven't seen a good refutation of it, to be honest. It's certainly short, and thus generally simplistic, but it does help understand why authority itself is not something that is intrinsically bad. Calling it "the worst drivel ever written" is a clear stretch, even as an exaggeration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVBAfldc7SU
You're not seriously looking. And no I'm not going to further debate after
I've seen Anark's video, and I maintain that I still haven't seen a good refutation of On Authority. You don't have to debate me or anything, but attacking people for thinking it has some good points and then dipping on the first pushback, asserting that I must not be aware of the standard arguments against it because I disagree with you is a bit silly. It's like you forget that I used to be an anarchist, and thus had a process where I regularly viewed anarchist critique of Marxism before becoming a Marxist-Leninist (and still check out critique from time to time).
Oh well, happy New Year!
Happy new year too. You can maintain all you want, but nobody owes you a debate.
Lol, you absolute coward: running away to get your Nazi sycophants to fluff your wounded ego for you.
It's fascinating that in response to me pointing out they can only criticize short works is to continue criticizing short works, which is fine, but interesting.
They didn't criticize it at all though, they posted a link to a video about someone else criticizing it. I'm still not convinced they have actually ever bothered to read it at all.
Sure, I'm not pressing you for one. Have a good one.
Edit: Seriously? This is me "tripling down," because I disagree with the video you linked and refused to elaborate on? I'm not asking for a debate, just for you to act more reasonably. Instead, you run off and badmouth be behind my back. This is ridiculous.
How much you wanna bet deceptichum @ quokk.a or w/e is a chud just stirring shit and db0 is too much of a loser to notice
Based on my interactions with both, the former is a "true believer" to the point of calling Nazis freed from prison during the Hungarian counter revolution in 1956 genuine progressives fighting against soviet authoritarianism, and the latter is cognizant of that but keeps them around to trigger the "tankies."
Didn't they go as far as saying the extermination of Soviet citizens by the Nazis was a good thing, and db0 defended it because these people will always side with fascists over leftists
That was another user that made that claim, but the same reasoning they are tolerated, they "trigger the tankies." The user that made the claim claims that they thought the 27 million casualties were only in the Red Army, but that's still a disgusting statement to make and is exactly an example of faux-anarchists siding with fascists over communists.
I'm not completely sure that was honest. It wasn't the first time that user had made that exact argument and faced backlash for it. IIRC I found one from about 10 months prior in the modlog and there was at least one reply that explained that that was not the case. Likely that's not the only time that user did that and not the only clarifying reply that user received. Also, as you say, that's still nazi apologia.
I get the not owing a debate but damn that's embarrassing to do. And completely expected at this point
Yea, like I didn't really want a debate on it either, just wanted to state my experience with it.
In b4 the disengage and banning you from his instance because you called him out.
I like a lot of dbzer0 users, it's unfortunate that the head admin behaves this way. dbzer0 as an instance has a lot of cool people and a lot of really uncool people, so defederation isn't something I support, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing eventually leads to that.
I'm surprised db0 hasn't defederated from Hexbear yet. Probably likes playing the victim too much to ever do that. I didn't realise who it was at first so their childish and incoherent responses were very confusing. It was a fun rollercoaster of a conversation though.
There are a lot of anarchists on Hexbear, and some of the dbzer0 mods and admins aren't actually as anti-ML as db0 is. dbzer0 does have some degree of democracy in their decision making practice, so these two factors are why it's still fine.
Oh ok, based on what I've seen, I thought db0 basically ruled like a (completely non-authoritarian) king on their instance, good to see it isn't just like that.
db0 certainly has outsized influence, but there's a pretty broad diversity in thought throughout the instance itself, moreso than here, for good and bad. I've spoken with some cool comrades over there, so I try to refrain from discounting the entire project.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Maybe if I act smug enough, no one will notice that I haven't actually read the work that I have been trained to hate.
Maybe if I act smug enough, no one will notice that I haven't actually understood the book that I have been trained to love.
Have you actually read it, and if so, what are your actual thoughts on it? If it is genuinely the "worst drivel ever written" it should be easy to show us all why that is.
And even if we don't listen to you, at least passive observers in this thread will be able to see you making cogent and interesting arguments and think your position has merit. Declaring something is bad while also showing that you don't seem to have actually read it just makes you come across to people as smug and ignorant. And saying "no u" when called out on this just makes you look worse, don't you want to put us dumb tankies in our place by showing us that you know what you're talking about and we don't?
I will just refer you to my other comment: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/23476457
Ok, since you aren't interested in debate, we don't need to do anything like that. That's fine, I don't really want to debate this topic either.
It is a shame that when I ask about your thoughts about this work, your response is to provide someone else's thoughts on it. You're really not beating any allegations that you haven't actually read it and that you aren't just hating on it because others have told you to do so.
Seriously, it's extremely short. It's barely over a thousand words. If you've read through this entire comment thread you've probably read more than this entire work. I'm not asking you to agree with me or make any sort of big life change or anything, but please, just read it and form your own opinions, you don't need to share them if you don't want to, but I do want you to think for yourself and make up your own mind. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
EDIT: Holy shit, this guy actually ran away to his own instance to cry about the evil tankies talking about a fucking thousand word pamphlet he's too scared to read and form his own opinion on. I think this might actually be the most pathetic loser on the fedverse. Also I recognise them now, they're the same loser who loves abusing the idea of disengaging when they realise they're showing their whole ass in a discussion. So not just a loser, but also toxic and abusing a system designed to help people with triggers and mental health issues too!
It's very funny and on brand that that loser is strutting around in the instance they ban all dissent in proclaiming how much they owned you, where as here where the actual discussion happened they instantly had to resort to abusing the disengage rule. What more can you expect from an "anarchist" that regularly defends outright Nazis.
Usually the outcome when they can't lock threads not going the direction they want because too many rule breaking comments
/disengage
Is this the cringe mantra you repeat while sticking your fingers in your ears?
That's a rule from your own instance you should probably respect