1189
Ancaps (don't) rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 10 months ago

Which do you not understand: anarchism or communism? Communism is a stateless, classless society. It does not require a state, and it is perfectly compatible with anarchism. In fact, within any form of anarchism you'd find communism.

Anarchism is no state and no hierarchies. In any form, it seeks horizontality and mutual aid. It is absolutely unhinged to think that's compatible in any way with capitalism.

Jfc the media has really succeeded in deluding people about what anarchism is, haven't they? The surprising thing is I'd expect that on, say, Facebook or 4chan or Stormfront, but I thought 196 was more ... leftist

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 20 points 10 months ago

I thought 196 was more … leftist

Unfortunately once there are more than a few votes a post will reach /all, making it visible on all instances, and with that come.. the others.. lol

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 10 months ago

Good point. I always browse by new, so I forgot that that's a thing.

I guess that explains why posts seem to start with some productive discussion, but then tend to get derailed over time. It gets exhausting having to explain the very basics over and over again, but maybe I need more patience. I too grew up propagandized, and thankfully I've had some people help me learn.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, it can spiral downhill pretty quick, and it's often the same handful of people who go around doing their wilfully ignorant reactionary thing on every fucking post (and since we can see them on kbin - another group who lurk and downvote any marginally leftist comment without engaging, because gods forbid their bias gets challenged)..

Trying to help these people learn is great, but can only go so far as long as they aren't interested in knowing. The undecided lurkers though, those are the ones you hope are picking up your knowledge!

[-] pthaloblue@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

Ancaps and tankies are everywhere these days. No good place for an old fashioned ancom anymore.

Then again, same as it ever was.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 months ago

People grossly misunderstanding both anarchism and communism: nothing new under the sun lol

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's because capitalism the pejorative is distinct from capitalism the naturalistic economic theory and a lot of people actively refuse to understand this. Unless your anarchist society is truly post-scarcity, you will end up with commerce and value proxies regardless of how much you wish otherwise. And even in a material post-scarcity society, there will still be scarcity in the form of things like artistic talent, companionship, etc. If you don't want to call that capitalism, then you might as well just define capitalism as monsters under your bed.

There is no post-capitalist society besides the one focused on harm reduction. And then there is no utopia, no end goal, only an eternal struggle to combat the evils of where material scarcity and human greed intersect.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

Oh look, the "capitalism is human nature" folk have arrived!

Thoroughly debunked propaganda. Blocked.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think you are misunderstanding the conversation. I am a leftist, and I am not saying it's "human nature," more that "capitalist" structures are an inevitable byproduct of scarcity. This is not particularly controversial economics, and if anything, I am making a linguistic argument against reducing capitalism to "everything bad about modernity." Just like many people do in terms of reducing leftism to "everything bad about the USSR."

More generally, making leftism liturgical and literally blocking out any discussion of first principles is one of the biggest things about online leftist communities which turns people off.

[-] hatedbad@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 months ago

i would argue that leftists constantly arguing about what their words even mean is one of the biggest turn offs.

people don’t love pedantry.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The whole issue is that you go into pretty much any Lemmy thread and it's like "man I hate getting up early for work" and there will inevitably be a bunch of comments being like "yeah fuck capitalism."

Because communism is when sleeping in, or whatever.

It's just kind of juvenile and completely misses the point about the nature of the anti-capitalist struggle and the nature of effective praxis, and I'm honestly sick of it. And to make matters even worse, on top of that you have people smugly spouting off day one political science 101 like it is some kind of enlightenment, and then literally blocking out any conversation about more contemporary leftist thought, literally calling it propaganda, because I guess it doesn't scratch the itch for revolutionary fan service enough. And this is the "intellectual side" of internet leftism.

As someone who has actually studied political science and economics, being lectured by ignorant internet leftists after gently questioning their reductive, outdated dogma is just exhausting.

[-] stratosfear@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 months ago

You misspelled utopia. Not sure what reality you'd expect humans to create a stateless and classless "communism" outside the hippie commune out in the woods.

The comment you replied to even said "at a national scale." That's the rub, isn't it?

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 months ago

Well of course, there would be no nation ideally, so the concept of a national scale is a bit incompatible in a way, isn't it? As you pointed out in another comment, the existence of nations only threatens progress and equity! They can and do disrupt any such attempt. I mean, look what happened to the Spanish anarchists, and what the US has done every time a remotely leftist movement has taken hold in Latin America.

I don't agree with the Marxist-Leninists, but even for them the end goal is (at least in theory) to advance to statelessness and classlessness. We anarchists don't agree that such a thing can be achieved via a state. A state will never offload its power. Its whole shtick is coercion and control, and it will hold onto that at all costs.

utopia

Very few anarchists would use this term. The concept of a utopia is rather antithetical to anarchism, by most people's assessment. "Utopia" implies a perfect society with no room to progress. I doubt such a thing is possible, and I think it might be rather harmful to imagine we've arrived at perfection. It would stifle progress, now wouldn't it?

[-] stratosfear@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

Well I won't fault you for being an optimist.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago

Every great movement in history was started by optimists ;)

But hey, calling the anarchist an "optimist" is progress in itself! "Optimist" wasn't the word they used for people like Emma Goldman.

[-] scoobford@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago

Communism requires someone to distribute goods and assign labor. That person is effectively going to be your state at essentially any scale above a family.

And if you want to live in a developed society, you need a state to defend against invasion and colonization, arrest murderers and rapists, and regulate trade (even if trade is only external).

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 months ago

Communism does not require a state. What part of "a stateless, classless society" are you failing to grasp?

Even state authoritarian communist nations at least ostensibly seek a stateless, classless society. That's the whole fucking point.

And you don't need a state for those other things either. Do you think anarchists just throw shit at the wall and hope for the best? There are functioning anarchist communities which have no state. If they did, then they wouldn't be anarchist.

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

That distribution doesn't have to be top down. And as communism is a stateless society, the entire concept is predicated on the absence of top down distribution. Read up on democratic confederalism, parecon, project cybersin (admittedly done with the presence of a state but there's nothing about the system the necessitates one).

The CNT-FAI, zapatistas, rojava, and free territories of ukraine can all speak to decentralized militias. For auth-left examples just check out maoist militant orgs, they drew a ton of inspiration for anarchists in how to manage militias.

Most anarchists are prison abolitionists, I'm not going to summarize that one, look into it if you wish

Market economies can and have existed in horizontal societies. There's nothing inherently contradictory regarding trade regulations in a horizontal society

this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
1189 points (100.0% liked)

196

16709 readers
2075 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS