It wasnā€™t a hostile discussion or anything, i didnā€™t even go full ā€œthe kulaks deserved itā€ (although the mod that single-handedly banned me did go full ā€œthe kulaks did not deserve itā€). I just laid out plainly and calmly that revolutions are inherently authoritarian, that Luxemburg said ā€œthe revolution will be as violent as the ruling class makes it necessaryā€ and that thereā€™s one Trotzki quote i 100% agree with: ā€œIf the October Revolution hadnā€™t succeeded, the world would have known a Russian word for fascism 10 years before Mussoliniā€™s March on Romeā€. Basically the whole ā€œJakarta Methodā€ train of thought laid out clearly and without calling anybody names.

Note that this was on an explicitly left-leaning server that does not allow cops and troops to join. Also after several days of another poster starting destructive, aggressive bad faith arguments in the politics channel until a number of users went ā€œdisengageā€ on her and the channel had to be frozen until recently, when she immediately started being hostile and arguing in bad faith again, which got her not one, but two warnings from the same mod without further consequences. Meanwhile, when i defend AES without attacking anybody, thatā€™s apparently too much for her to handle. No advance warning, no ā€œsis, youā€™re talking to me as a mod hereā€, not even a notification that i got banned.

The best part is that according to screenshots a friend just sent me, sheā€™s now completely going off about ā€œauthoritariansā€. The nerve some people have.

Sorry for posting pointless internet drama here, i just needed to vent.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    Website isnā€™t co-operating with me, so you might get spammed, but Iā€™m going to break the reply up to see if that helps:

    No anarchist is claiming Marx

    There was a prick in this thread doing just that

    Youā€™re antagonistic as . . .

    Iā€™m not an especially nice guy in these discussions, at best Iā€™m just the type of stubborn where Iā€™ll be damned if I give you something you can use against me beyond ā€œheā€™s rudeā€. I can see how youā€™d get dogpiled because maybe 10% of the things you have said here are astronomically dumb, but if you get better at recognizing this and try to have a personable conversation on c/askchapo or whatever, I think youā€™d have an alright time. Anyway, thanks for trying to be conscientious in that regard.

    idc about what you think of particular other anarchists, so we can skip that beyond me also being glad that you disown v**sh. Someone else pointed out something interesting, though.

    It is true that we are a minority

    This one is frustrating and itā€™s emblematic of a persistent issue in your writing. You were not in the gulags. You were not in the Paris commune. You werenā€™t in the trenches in Vietnam. When I say someone isnā€™t in a minority by virtue of calling themselves an anarchist online and ā€œbelievingā€ anarchist things, but many people play at it, what I mean is that you are not, by virtue of those traits, a social minority. You are not being oppressed and the Spanish anarchists would probably spit on most of the people who are on Reddit going "They killed us" like they have any personal connection to who was killed beyond agreeing with them (setting historical distortions aside). You are not them just as Iā€™m not a Soviet or a CPC cadre or a Panther. Weā€™re just people online and maybe we are involved in organizing, but I sure as shit have never been shot at by a Makhnovist and you sure as shit havenā€™t been attacked by a PLA soldier.

    You probably are a member of some oppressed group because most leftists are, but you are not oppressed by the dang tankies, and itā€™s unlikely you are oppressed as an anarchist at all (though some are), so not making even a hint of a distinction between yourself and those historical and current people comes off as a childish roleplay and highlights how the whole thing doesnā€™t need to even be true historically because itā€™s just a fucking vibe and a narrative youā€™ve bought into with no material connection to the history. Itā€™s all just storytelling.

    I mean this not only directed at you but the many ā€œanarchistsā€ who are frankly much worse about this than you.

    itā€™s very friendly with an explicitly anti-anarchist lemmygrad,

    The interesting thing about lemmygrad is that it absolutely despises the cultural trend of anarchism and the people who were fighting with Lenin, etc., but I donā€™t think they truly categorically hate anarchism (stay with me, now!). I think any of them who isnā€™t a total crank would recognize that Sholem Schwarzbard is a hero and a badass, for example, and obviously the Paris Commune was quasi-anarchist and they quite like that. Iā€™m not saying you should want to be there, but itā€™s not like they are frothing at the mouth for ā€œanarkiddyā€ blood. Mainly I think they are just sick of red scare shit and really spurious accusations. Speaking of which . . .

    Anarchists in general donā€™t have a big problem with the october revolution, but rather with what was done to it by the bolsheviks. That we do see as tyranny and usurpation.

    The October Revolution was the Bolshevik revolution, so I must assume you mean the February Revolution, in which case every single person who has the opinion you wrote was/is a useful idiot. Who is the tyrant, the liberal government that got into power on the basis that it would stop Russian participation in the pointless, imperialist First World War, or the Bolsheviks who then took power and brought Russia out of the war? Oh, but Iā€™m sure the tyranny only happened after, with the ridiculous increase in every metric of human welfare when the country wasnā€™t actively being invaded by fascists (and, to be fair, at least one mostly-unrelated famine).

    Oh, but tell me more about ā€œusurpationā€, my friend of revolutionary leftism. Canā€™t have people trying to ā€œusurpā€ liberal governments. If your anarchism has you caping for Alexander motherfucking Kerensky, you should ask yourself where your supposedly radical, anti-capitalist ideology is really leading you.

    As for the Makhnovists, a lot of the very awful things are disputed since the only accounts of them happening were written by bolsheviks.

    Not true! My accusation against Makhno was 100% what he admitted to while he was defending himself when he lived in exile in France. He couldnā€™t spend every waking hour alienating other anarchists and trying to save the lives of fascists, so he filled most of it with other types of squabbling in his shitty newspaper.

    The Bolsheviks had much, much harsher things to say about him and I have no interest in discussing those claims with you or really anyone, though I donā€™t think we can just dismiss them as totally false out of hand.

    Particularly, their movement had no theorists at all, so Iā€™ve often heard people say that,

    Interestingly, he did develop ā€œplatformismā€ once he was in exile, which doesnā€™t contradict what you say but suggests that he had some realization that what you said was true and a problem. Perhaps in some respects he did learn from his failures, though it seems he mostly doubled down from what Iā€™ve read.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Part 2/2

      Itā€™s not just them though. Catalonia was just as bad if not worse, Cubaā€™s anarchists, Korean anarchists, Iā€™ve even pointed to a relatively recent example in Greece. You really canā€™t ignore the history we have between each other, it shouldnā€™t be dismissed, it shouldnā€™t be hidden or ignored. If you truly want us to work together we both have to learn from it. We have to try to understand why it happened and make sure it doesnā€™t end up in the same way.

      Again with the ā€œusā€ business. Neither of us were in Korea, comrade. You were not personally aggrieved by this, your identifying with it is a matter of your personal psychology.

      Do you want to just relitigate all this shit? I think this website has a monthly debate on Catalonia (use the search function), but I struggle to imagine that in Cuba or Korea it was all that different from the people crying for Makhno, just more counterrevolutionaries and maniacs causing problems and probably also some good anarchists and honest rubes getting caught in the crossfire. If you do want to relitigate it, whatever, I will humor you, but first I want to propose a more useful direction:

      Also again, I mostly agree that we should ally, but an alliance is more than just ā€œwe will help youā€. If you donā€™t plan to consider us when we work together, then we simply have no reason to just do the work for you and gain nothing in exchange. I think thatā€™s just common sense.

      Ideology is not religion, you donā€™t get to just put up a flag and make demands, your input is fundamentally the same as that of any other person in a proletarian democracy. Now, this may look like a denial (aside from that it already isnā€™t) but I want you to consider this: What do you want?

      Do you want the people to eat? Do you want them clothed and housed? Do you want hospitals and schools? Protection from hate crimes? Maybe some roads and railways?

      Wonderful! So do they and so do MLs, let us work to make that happen.

      Do you want an unaccountable death squad armed to the teeth so you can run around shooting people at your own discretion? Weā€™re going to have a problem.

      What gets you a seat at the table is not opposition but freestanding competence (see Tito, despite all of his failures and revision). Opposition correctly gets you liquidated.

      Do you want ā€œWins for anarchismā€ or better conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake?

      ā€œOh, but we only want anarchism so it can help peopleā€

      Cool, if what helps people is anarchism, then call me Peter Kropotkin, I donā€™t give a shit! What matters is that the revolution is protected and lives are improved.

      If you think the revolution is better protected by causing more pointless fighting to paint the flag black so you can run your ā€œI canā€™t believe itā€™s not a state!ā€ commune, but really just get obliterated by capitalists exploiting the infighting, then fuck off.

      Hereā€™s Michael Parenti saying something that I find relevant

      Okay, fine, I donā€™t really see a problem with this. I will say, I donā€™t view the Zapatistas as anarchists, and I think doing so is disrespectful to them. But I think they do serve to see that some of the things we anarchists are talking about can work and are totally possible.

      Also, Chomsky is the worst.

      At least we agree here.

      Me not trusting in the methods . . .

      You donā€™t need to endorse the US to be a useful idiot, thatā€™s not really what a useful idiot means to begin with. You can act in the USā€™s favor while believing you have your own boutique radical ideology, and thatā€™s much more what being a useful idiot is, and encouraging people to, for example, hate the PRC is a perfect example. Look at any of the threads on this shitty network of websites where the liberals are louder and you will see in their discussions of any AES project the ā€œanarchistsā€ and neoliberals arguing side by side without even batting an eye at this fact. Neoliberals are happy to co-opt anarchist attacks on AES because, even from the most charitable view, anarchism still poses no immediate threat to them while Marxism does. Not internally, as you seem to think I meant, but externally. Internally, what I am speaking of is having solidarity with those foreign socialists and encouraging solidarity with them even with whatever our personal misgivings may be, because they are enemies of the global hegemon and represent a historically progressive force, even if they didnā€™t take their constitution from your manifesto.

      Most people are not ideologically coherent because ideology is downstream of oneā€™s own conditions. You can say ā€œOh, but Iā€™m critiquing it from an anarchist point of viewā€ and it matters zero fucking percent. Do you know how many smug liberals Iā€™ve seen quote Bakuninā€™s ā€œThe Peopleā€™s Stickā€ line? It doesnā€™t fucking matter that heā€™s an anarchist and believed himself to be speaking from a certain ideologically coherent position, the takeaway is fundamentally ā€œAES is oppressive and disingenuous huehue 1984ā€ and thatā€™s all there is for the vast majority of people who encounter such things. Radlibs particularly have mastered the art of attacking Marxism from both the ā€œleftā€ and the right at their leisure.

      Some more discussion on a similar topic that rambles even more than I do but is still one of the most insightful essays Iā€™ve ever read.

      Even if you quite understandably donā€™t like me on a personal level and disagree with a lot of what I have to say, I hope thereā€™s something here that you find informative in the way that I intended it to be.

      • mimichuu_@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Our posts are getting longer and longer, and more and more unrelated to this thread. Would you be interested in having this conversation in DMs maybe?

        1/2

        There was a prick in this thread doing just that

        I assume you mean the person who posted ā€œMarx against the stateā€? I assume what they were trying to do is to say that he wouldnā€™t have been in favour of the methods of the bolsheviks, not that he simply would have fully agreed with anarchists. I donā€™t know, I havenā€™t read that essay, Iā€™m not very interested in it. I genuinely think anarchism and marxism are very separate. I concede this person is wrong and shouldnā€™t be trying to do that.

        Iā€™m not an especially nice guy in these discussions, at best Iā€™m just the type of stubborn where Iā€™ll be damned if I give you something you can use against me beyond ā€œheā€™s rudeā€. I can see how youā€™d get dogpiled because maybe 10% of the things you have said here are astronomically dumb, but if you get better at recognizing this and try to have a personable conversation on c/askchapo or whatever, I think youā€™d have an alright time.

        Youā€™re genuinely one of the calmest and most reasonable people Iā€™ve argued with on this site. At least despite everything it seems like we are having a fruitful conversation and even reaching agreements on some parts. The worst thing youā€™ve said is ā€œget a gripā€ which is really nothing. I have to remark that I appreciate it because every other time I try to reach out and show my perspective to online ML places I just get viciously mocked, belittled and talked down to in an extremely smug way. Honestly I think the reason Iā€™m not getting dogpiled is that weā€™re very deep into the reply thread and people donā€™t bother reading it.

        Itā€™s very rare that anarchists and MLs treat each other as equals in an online conversation, I do agree that sometimes anarchists are the ones at fault in this, but it sucks that itā€™s hard for me to reach out and have like, you know, an actual exchange where Iā€™m not being belittled every two sentences. And donā€™t let me even get started on Discord, oh my god itā€™s a million times worse.

        When I say someone isnā€™t in a minority by virtue of calling themselves an anarchist online and ā€œbelievingā€ anarchist things, but many people play at it, what I mean is that you are not, by virtue of those traits, a social minority.

        I mean minority in the objective sense, as in, weā€™re a lot less than you all in virtually all spaces that arenā€™t anarchist focused or anarchist exclusive. And that does lead to us being considered less, treated as less important and disregarded. I illustrated this with an example, even in this instance which makes a point about unity and anti-sectarianism, an anarchist felt the need to make a post basically begging to not be disregarded and demeaned because everyone was doing it anyway.

        I agree that this is nowhere near the things that historically happened, itā€™s an online forum, and in my experience with real life MLs theyā€™re a lot better. I mean, I did make a point that using these events to refuse working with other leftists is very dumb. I just donā€™t think we should go to the other extreme and completely disregard them either. Once again itā€™s important to understand why it happened and reach an agreement. If you stick to your guts and just keep believing that the anarchists weā€™re talking about were all maniacs and bandits and didnā€™t do anything good and none of their actions were justified and the crushing was a 100% the right thing to do, then of course anarchists arenā€™t going to listen to you. We definitely are guilty of idealizing Makhnovshchina and excusing or ignoring the very awful things and grave mistakes they did, but itā€™s not like MLs are any better. Itā€™s more of a general problem of worshipping the past instead of focusing on the present, in my opinion.

        Iā€™m not saying you should want to be there [in lemmygrad], but itā€™s not like they are frothing at the mouth for ā€œanarkiddyā€ blood. Mainly I think they are just sick of red scare shit and really spurious accusations.

        I havenā€™t dug as deep into lemmygrad as I have into hexbear, but every time Iā€™ve visited and read on what its members think about anarchism itā€™s been something extremely hostile and insulting, and everytime an anarchist has decided to come reply to them, I see them get dogpiled and replied to in the usual leninist extreme smug by two, three, sometimes four people. I donā€™t think it matters if you think theyā€™re wrong or said something ā€œastronomically dumbā€, the bullying is something I just donā€™t support. Bully liberals, if you really want to bully people online.

        Anyway my point is that despite hexbear being ā€œstrictly left unityā€ they have zero issues federating, supporting and endorsing lemmygrad which is very hostile to anarchists. There is no anarchist Lemmy instance, but I can only hope that if it forms, the same accomodations are given to them - seeing what they think of and post about Raddle, I doubt it though.

        • mimichuu_@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          2/2

          The October Revolution was the Bolshevik revolution, so I must assume you mean the February Revolution

          No. The October Revolution was much more than the bolsheviks taking power. I donā€™t really think itā€™s relevant to this discussion so if youā€™re interested in the perspective we generally hold about it I will once again point to Anark:

          https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=uwU3STgBknQ

          Not true! My accusation against Makhno was 100% what he admitted to while he was defending himself when he lived in exile in France.

          Iā€™ve looked this up and youā€™re right, my apologies.

          Perhaps in some respects he did learn from his failures, though it seems he mostly doubled down from what Iā€™ve read.

          Reading post-exile Makhno is kinda depressing so I havenā€™t dug very deep into it. As far as I know, he deeply regretted a lot of things he did.

          Again with the ā€œusā€ business. Neither of us were in Korea, comrade. You were not personally aggrieved by this, your identifying with it is a matter of your personal psychology.

          I can see what you mean? I donā€™t really see how it makes my point any different though. Once again all Iā€™m saying is that there is a big history of ML betrayal of anarchists and I donā€™t think it should serve as an excuse to not work together but I also donā€™t think it should be discarded or itā€™s okay to believe it was all always purely and 100% the anarchistā€™s fault and everything that happened was justified, much less that anarchists should accept that narrative from yā€™all.

          but I struggle to imagine that in Cuba or Korea it was all that different from the people crying for Makhno, just more counterrevolutionaries and maniacs causing problems and probably also some good anarchists and honest rubes getting caught in the crossfire.

          In Cuba and Korea, the anarchists were there before the marxists came. If anything, your narrative is backwards, you just donā€™t see it as counterrevolution because the usurpation succeeded, and thus became the revolution instead.

          I donā€™t think itā€™s productive to engage with this, because weā€™re just gonna keep pointing the finger at each other and refusing to budge. If you want to listen to an anarchist perspective on these events there are plenty of places to, if youā€™re not interested and just want to keep believing in the same nothing I say will change your mind.

          Ideology is not religion, you donā€™t get to just put up a flag and make demands, your input is fundamentally the same as that of any other person in a proletarian democracy.

          Thatā€™s the thing, often anarchist input isnā€™t ā€œfundamentally the sameā€. Itā€™s not fundamentally the same if we are never listened to, much less if our input is met with bullets or jail cells. Itā€™s not fundamentally the same if there isnā€™t even a discussion and everything we say is just discarded. Working together is actually working together, reaching a consensus and a compromise between each other. Anarchists who support left unity try to do this, but obviously, in exchange, they expect the MLs do the same. Otherwise, theyā€™re just being useful idiots.

          If you stick 100% to your guts, then objectively speaking there is absolutely no benefit in working together. Demanding that we ally but refusing to listen to our input on things is basically just wanting to use us. Thatā€™s what most anarchists are afraid of when talking about left unity.

          Do you want ā€œWins for anarchismā€ or better conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake?

          Youā€™re talking like if itā€™s an exclusively binary choice of completely separate things. Anarchists want anarchy because they believe it is what will bring the best conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake. I am sure that most, even despite what they write online, would be willing to sacrifice their anarchism to an extent if they see that conditions are being genuinely improved, but they have to see that, and itā€™s obvious that if what happens is a fully by-the-book ML model, they wont see that. Because theyā€™re anarchists.

          I mean, MLs are the same too. No one can escape bias. So the only reasonable thing that can happen is a compromise. If MLs are not willing to compromise, why should anarchists work with them if theyā€™re so different? This goes both ways. Everyone needs to be held to the same standard, the complaint is that most of the time itā€™s the anarchist that has to sacrifice and the ML sticks to their guts. Either both sacrifice and compromise, or both donā€™t and work separately. This in-between MLs want where anarchists work with them but they also donā€™t have to listen to them in any way is just not going to happen.

          encouraging people to, for example, hate the PRC is a perfect example. Look at any of the threads on this shitty network of websites where the liberals are louder and you will see in their discussions of any AES project the ā€œanarchistsā€ and neoliberals arguing side by side without even batting an eye at this fact.

          This is exactly what I said. The problem is not the critique but when itā€™s completely stripped of context. When anti-PRC statements are just parroted with no real alternative proposed or philosophy behind them. Itā€™s not a problem with anarchist critique per se. By your logic literally any anti-PRC statement is helping the US, even ones made by marxists. Rather than ā€œjust stop talking bad about socialist states!ā€ I think itā€™s better to make sure youā€™re doing it in proper context and making sure youā€™re not going to be misinterpreted. Shutting down critiques alltogether is not useful. We should always have conversations about these things, to learn and improve and change.

          Do you know how many smug liberals Iā€™ve seen quote Bakuninā€™s ā€œThe Peopleā€™s Stickā€ line? It doesnā€™t fucking matter that heā€™s an anarchist and believed himself to be speaking from a certain ideologically coherent position

          Sure, but give those liberals just the essay where that line was written and they will despise Bakunin. This is what I mean, what matters is the context, thatā€™s not just the ideology behind the person who said the thing.

          Even if you quite understandably donā€™t like me on a personal level and disagree with a lot of what I have to say, I hope thereā€™s something here that you find informative in the way that I intended it to be.

          As I said before youā€™ve given me no reasons to dislike you. But this illustrates what Iā€™ve been talking about all this time. The fact that you view me as someone you need/want to ā€œinformā€, and not someone youā€™re having an honest exchange with. Most MLs do this, they see us as misguided, silly weirdos, and simply assume thereā€™s nothing they can learn from us. They do not view us as equals even when we try to reach out. This creates a power imbalance in the ā€œunityā€ that a lot of anarchists just donā€™t want to deal with.