this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
572 points (87.0% liked)
Political Memes
5453 readers
2702 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
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
Today were can clearly see that, communism was always a red herring. Tankies during cold war and tankies today (that love to dress in American flags), were always about supporting of totalitarian regimes.
The hammer and sickle is to support USSR.
Tankie is a special sort of communist. Doesn't seem fair to paint all communists as tankies.
Tankie is just facist wearing red instead of brown. Leave communism out of it.
Seems pretty fair to me. Socialism and communism are inherently totalitarian.
Right when bad things happen under capitalism it's just the profit motive
Bad things don't happen under capitalism.
Bitch, bad things are happening RIGHT NOW under capitalism wtfdym
Lolwut?
You'd see if you'd open your eyes and stopped trolling
What is happening? Stock prices are through the roof, markets are booming, everything is bloody awesome.
I know this is a troll but just in case anyone passing by buys into this.
Capitalism is a huge reason why we've had such difficulty fighting the ongoing climate catastrophe, plastic pollution issue, PFAS pollution issue, Mercury pollution issue and housing crisis.
The reason is twofold, first fiduciary obligation will make sure that any publicly traded corporation has to prioritize short-term gain over long term sustainability both for themselves and the planet.
The second reason is that once a company has sufficient control over a market they can use their money to influence legislation and competition with little regard for societal effects.
These are just some things off the top of my head.
"Capitalism is when everyone just has a good time"
fucking what
Definitely not imo, if we are talking about the ideology. Many socialist/communist countries have been totalitarian though, so there's a big divide between the ideological basis and goals and what has ended up happening.
Sort of? Vanguardism is inherently totalitarian, for example. The core idea is that the vanguard know better than the poor proles what's good for them (Maoism is basically vanguardism). Stalinism is quite obviously and clearly totalitarian, putting rapid "strong" decision-making for the goal of rapid economic development above everything.
There are more democratic and equal forms of socialism, like Democratic socialism, syndicalism, mutualism (if you accept anarchists as part of the umbrella) and so on.
My core point is that socialism can be totalitarian or not depending on the actual ideology inside the big varied umbrella term.
Well put. I just meant more that socialism and communism doesn't have to be totalitarian, ideologically a lot of the views inside those can be close to anarchism. The real life examples of socialist and communist states we've had (the thing people think of often when they think of socialism and communism) have just been examples of it either having been a totalitarian form of it or have devolved to totalitarianism (depending a bit on the interpretation, but that's a really heave topic).
Anarchism is an inherently socialist and communist ideology.
Anarchism in short: heirarchy should be abolished
Socialism: workers should own the means of production. Being forced into wage labor is a form of heirarchy
Communism: a stateless (hierarchical structure), classless (social heirarchy), moneyless (a system of power that easily lends itself to hierarchical means) society.
One way to look at anarchism is a description of the way to realize communism, and continue past it into a more egalitarian social structure. Nobody has successfully realized communism for an extended period of time, but there are/have been projects that were well on their way. The zapatistas, CNT-FAI, and rojava come to mind. We're lead to view the USSR and China (for example) as socialist/Communist because associating those places with the word understandably puts people off of the idea. Their insistence that they are socialist/communist doesn't help that either. They never really met the mark imo
I knew of the Zaptistas, but reading up on the other two u mentioned. CNT-FAI, im vaguely familiar with the anarchist movement in the Spanish Civil War, but did not know of this acronym for their organizing efforts. Thought this bit taken from their wiki (itself sourced from an archived version of their statutes published in 77) was a fun condemnation of tankie claims on this website that not participating in the current political system is part and parcel for far-left politics (emphasis mine):
"...the aims of the CNT are to "develop a sense of solidarity among workers", hoping to improve their conditions under the current social system, prepare them for future emancipation, when the means of production have been socialized, to practice mutual aid amongst CNT collectives, and maintain relationships with other like-minded groups hoping for emancipation of the entire working class."
Will be reading more about them, and rojava as well, thanks!
Happy to give you a new rabbit hole! The more you learn about libertarian socialist tactics/theory the more you realize just how little of the popular conceptions of what "anarchism" is holds up to scrutiny. It's not all breaking windows and punching cops. Currently, there's very little of that. Most of it is starting unions, co-ops, non-profits and general mutual aid. It's all prefigurative and done with intent. Sometimes the state apparatus is used (insofar as it doesn't negatively impact your goals) sometimes it isn't, it's all contextual and nuanced. Something a lot of auth-left people seem to struggle with. Guess they're not used to having a toolbox instead of a script
Ive a positive view on anarchy since reading Conquest of Bread, though id hesitate to call myself an anarchist as much as a far leftist. I agree with Kropotkin on his views on man, our propensity towards mutual aid, and I also agree that smaller communes would prolly be the way to go. I dont agree, however, with anarchist notions of revolution which seems impossible in an age of drones, mass surveillance, and militarized police. Nevertheless, I feel the anarchists are doing something rare in the world, and actually imagining what utopia would look like; i cant help but believe that, long term, humans must either learn to live together in harmony, or perish.
I dont agree with anarchist notions on how we get there necessarily, but anarchist methods of direct action do work in practice, as evidenced by history, just not necessarily at getting all of mankind to rise up together so much as improving, or deshittifying, if you will, existing conditions. Which is a point in and of itself, i dont think utopia happens on a less than global level due to nation-states propensity for imperialism when they can get away with it.
Anyway, i will dive into these rabbit holes over the next week, maybe. Cheers, and thanks if I hadnt said it yet!
If I may ask, what is your view of an anarchist revolution? Many people imagine the masses rising up over a short period (for good reason, those are the ones that make it into the history books) and overthrowing their oppressors. And that has been a popular conceptions of it within anarchism at large for quite a while. However, most libertarian organizations have come to view prefigurarion and "little r revolution" as the path forward. Gaining gradual and calculated wins to erode hegemonic power structures, weakening it to a point so that when the "big R Revolution" inevitably comes the state/kyriarchy/mega machine/whathaveyou is easier to abolish. The zapatistas were pivotal in proving the viability of this strategy in their region. It's far too much to sum up here but during your dive I'm sure you'll come across their story to see this concept put to use. Theyve been going strong for almost 40 years now and have only gotten stronger and more horizontal in their approach.
Direct action and mutual aid, while being cornerstones of anarchist praxis are not all that we utilize either. Prefigurarion is a broad framework at our disposal as mentioned along with conceptions of means ends unity serve to guide thought an action in productive directions. Common tactics of political action aren't out of bounds either, anarchists had a bit of an assassination phase for a while as an example. It didn't work lol but there isn't much that is off limits, so long as it empowers the people to have control over their lives.
You mentioned your admiration for anarchists' proclivity for imagining a utopia. That's also one of the things that brought me in and something I view as one of our finest qualities. You need to be able to see past present conditions in order to realize the future you wish to build. One of these visions that I've recently fallen in love with is library socialism, a praxis built around constructing "libraries of things" for your community to encourage mutual aid and communal living. This combined with a return to (and expansion of) the commons as well as the utilization of time banking would be a powerful combination revolutionary action that could transform social and economic relations in much of capitalist society. It's not the end, but it's a wonderful start that many orgs are actively working towards in their communities. Once it's at a large enough point within it's area, these could be combined and spread through democratic confederalism All of these small acts of revolution leading to a Revolutionary shift in the status quo.
If you're interested in/sympathetic to anarchist thought and all youve read so far is kropotkin (not to say you have, I may very well be mentioning things you're aware of haha), I would encourage you to keep reading, listening, watching. There's well over a centurys worth of brilliant and enlightening work out there for you to discover. If you'd like I'd be more than happy to dump a bunch of links. Cheers!
Alright this ones gonna be a lil tough to put together, so heres hoping this all comes out decently coherent.
Ive not heard this distinction between "Revolution v. revolution," i find it interesting and will hopefully look into this more when ive got the time. Most talk of revolution i hear, from an American-centric vantage point, anyway, is tankies here on Lemmy (and back when I was on reddit, there too) claiming that participation in democracy and not believing state sources from American adversaries are antithetical to "The Revolution TM" they are going for, and the correct way forward is shitposting memes about the same, and just generally coaxing anyone u can from the west into deculturalization.
I find such talk to be counterproductive toward a free future, enabling of hostile foreign goals, and counterproductive to actual leftist aims.
Putting idle talk aside, and looking at revolution more closely, prefiguration sounds more like what I believe to be a way towards that utopia we mentioned. That said, the little r revolution still sounds like its predicated on the notion that there will be some singular moment in which we, the proletariat, rise above the shackles of wage slavery, neoliberalism, and the mass exploitation of the global south, which seems like wishful thinking at best. I believe that we need an overarching cultural shift towards global consciousness, mutual respect/aid, and, obviously, away from only rewarding the pursuit of money, but should we make that switch, itd still take incremental (though fast-paced), sweeping change.
It is far easier for humans to ammend something already existing to work better, than it is to build something better outright from scratch. You mention more library-like initiatives, i concur, thats a capital idea, but i think youll find that they would be more easily (in the States, as an example) implemented through the already existing American library system. While each library is pretty different from the last and they all have the opportunity to run themselves, assuming they were all actually properly funded or at least not impeded in their quest to educate all, itd be a breeze to introduce more services into their catalog. Libraries already have 3d printers, fax machines, and honestly a larger bevy of resources than most are not aware of. I try to make my peers conscious of this so that they not only save money, but they build a stronger sense of our collective strength if only we are ok with sharing.
We have (admittedly wasteful/inefficient) infrastructure to do very much right now in the system as it stands. We have the ability to bring food to people, to grow it in the first place, to provide amenities like hygenic items, to create those items, to invest time into studying new technologies to replace the old, to actually cut down and reduce our consumption. All this is attainable right away.
Maybe this fits in with ur soft r revolution, but i cant help but think the only way these problems are alleviated is by installing comrades with praxis politics in positions of power to begin immediately de-emphasizing the influence of money on our society, and start getting these sorts of systems running for the purpose of running without a for profit motive. Thats the hard part, im aware, but eschewing the hierarchies in place bc we dont like how they emphasize our socioeconomic borders only accomplishes our goals insofar as everyone would be back to square one, albeit together.
I feel like what im describing may sound a bit Marxist-Leninist, but the big difference i would emphasize is that the majority of the restructuring we need happens at a lower level of political power, but requires enabling by the top. I dont believe one bit in "dictatorship of the proletariat," as power corrupts. Its important that the second any true comrade attains power, they immediately begin dispensing with it as stated.
Idk, i guess i feel all avenues of action should be pursued. Im not so believing of the practicality of revolution, but in my experience anarchists are easy to work with and generally take, er- understandable courses of actions that i can either get behind doing myself, or at the least, appreciate them as genuine avenues to be undertaken by someone else willing.
Im not that well versed in anarchist lit, as u suspected. I know Papa Krop, but past that, ive read excerpts of random texts on the anrachist library (if thats what that was called), and Ursula K. Le Guin is literary waifu number 1 to me, and my favorite book of hers pertains an anarchist commune on a moon along with excellent insight into the benefits and shortcomings of such a society.
If youve anything u really think i should read, go ahead and shoot. Im admittedly pretty busy these days, but i always try my best. Obviously feel free to pick apart my arguments as well, since ur clearly pushing ur opinions in good faith.
You're onto something with your mentioning of revolution being formed around the notion of a final, sweeping moment of change. It's an easy way of conceptualizing it, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on that point. This includes aspects of prefigurarion and mutual aid as well
The elevator pitch for anarchism (as I've come to understand it) is freedom, equality, solidarity. Those are the founding principles that guide our praxis of mutual aid and direct action. You can see these threads in library economies, makers spaces, co-ops, union organizing, time banking. These practices encourage self determination, communal independence and solidarity within and with other organizations/individuals. As an empowering and liberating force, these actions gradually strip away power from dominant hierarchies in society. They're all acts of revolution.
The anarchist recognition of Revolution is not necessarily a deterministic prescription for how the world will come to adopt anarchy, but an acknowledgement that, much like we seek to shape the world to our own ends, the dominant hierarchies also seek to shape it to their own ends. This aggregate of heirarchies such as capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, white supremacy (which I will refer to as "the system" for brevity, please excuse the mild cringe lol) has a life and momentum of it's own through years of social conditioning, accumulation of infrastructure and capital among many other things. As that life is drained from the system, as it's power wanes, it will seek to take it back. Much akin to ones immune system kicking into overdrive when you get a cold. The system doesn't want to die and it will do what it can to maintain it's existence by any means necessary.
So it's.not necessarily a "Revolution is inevitable and necessary", but "there is significant evidence that Revolution may happen if we are to be successful and we should be prepared". You'll find in your studies of the CNT-FAI, they weren't really instigators of violence, it happened to them and they defended themselves. Even in the early days of the russian Revolution, citizens were victims of state violence and they merely stood up for the power structures they built. Not to say that anarchists haven't been instigators in the past, they certainly have. Makhno is a favorite of mine and he hit the ground running. But it's come to be recognized by libertarian socialists at large that starting shit isn't a winning strategy and community defense is not only more tactically advantageous, but it's been shown to work better. If your project is successful, it will gain its own momentum and spread further than you could ever hope to impose. It all kind of plays into that old saying of politics is about who has monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. It started in violence and it is likely to end there too.
I don't have much else to say on prefigurarion outside of you hit the nail on the head. It's a much more sustainable way of transforming society.
Its often described as "building the new in the shell of the old". Part of this is included in labor organizing and utilizing the tools provided by the system, but shaped towards new ends. We don't necessarily need to build new factories, stores, logistical infrastructure. Having a healthy, horizontal labor force in these places could very well be enough to start that transformation. So it's not necessarily about, say, having a CEO who is sympathetic or even a comrade. It's about having the ones doing the work as part of a horizontal council within these companies, offices, services who will resist the efforts of capital and the state from within. As you've said, power corrupts. And people in the proximity of power in these larger heirarchies are molded by the reality of their occupation and status in society to act in certain ways. Through labor we can strip power, and with enough support, remove them from these entities to be controlled by and for the workers. Abolishing heirarchies within and supporting the cause. Seizing the means of production if you will.
You were correct in saying these changes need to happen at a lower/local level. It's not Marxist-leninist at all to suggest it. That's just baseline socialism. Where Lenin went wrong was thinking that this sort of action was applicable to the state apparatus due to a pernicious interpretation of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" mixed with being convinced that people were unable to govern their own affairs and needed to be instructed on how to live. Bakunin called out Marx on his phrasing before Lenin was even on the scene and gave an eerily accurate prediction on where this train of thought would lead.
An anarchist approach to achieve similar ends would involve delegates. People sent out to achieve a stated goal, immediately revocable at any time. Their power extends as far as they are permitted by the community and once their task is complete, they cease to have power. Perhaps there are some instances that this could be useful in infiltrating hierarchical structures, but it would need to be managed with the utmost care.
I'm also at work so I'll leave it here haha. Despite my novel, I was trying to be brief and I've almost certainly left things out. I appreciate the conversation and if you're interested in continuing by all means feel free to comment more or DM me! I'll leave some reading/watching/listening suggestions below and come back to actually link them in a bit, so keep an eye out! My book suggestions will largely focus on the study and analysis of power, as what we've discussed largely pertains to that.
Kropotkin's mutual aid is a wonderful piece. There are audiobooks versions available on YouTube and copies on the anarchist library. As I'm sure you know, he was the one that coined the phrase and studied it.
Rudolf Rocker's nationalism and culture is lengthy but well worth your time. It focuses on the history, philosophy, and implementation of power. Also available on YouTube in audiobook form. Audible anarchists version has a narrator that does an excellent job.
Rocker's anarcho syndicalism: theory and practice is shorter and lovely. Largely a history of anarchism and the development of syndicalism but at the very least I think you'll find the first chapter to be great. It's the best summary of anarchism I've personally come across.
James C. Scott's seeing like a state is a bit lengthy but very informative. He isn't an anarchist but you'll soon see why many of us gravitate towards this book. The title does a good job of summarizing the booh
And last Rebecca Solnit's a paradise built in hell. A book about elite panic, using the fires in San Francisco (LA? Can't remember off the top of my head) as a case study.
I don't have any specific suggestions for general anarchism outside of Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's anarchism and the black revolution. Another self explanatory book that I feel should be required reading for any would-be/self identified anarchist. In general Malatesta, Bakunin, and Kropotkin are often featured in many "Anarchism 101" style reading lists and they all do excellent work. Bakunin may be of particular interest to you as he was a contemporary of Marx and they often wrote/debated with one another. It may give you a broader lens on early socialist history and ideology.
For general media id love to suggest Anark, Andrewism, and Zoe Baker. They're all youtibers that focus on theory and praxis.
Anark does longform video essays (1 hr+) on theory mostly. Great stuff that goes in great depth while not dragging. His essays on constructing the revolution, power, and the state is counterrevolutionary series were foundational in my adoption of anarchism. He's also doing a synthesis series at the moment called "a modern anarchism" that is worth your time. He's more of a "why anarchism" sort of guy in essence.
Andrewism does shorter work (10-30) minutes focusing more on social aspects of anarchism, intersectionality and lifestyle. He is passionate about solarpunk and degrowth, very much a "dreaming of utopia" sort of vibe that is hopeful and encouraging. He's more "how to do anarchism" oriented
And lastly Zoe Baker. She's a PhD in anarchist history that does a bit of both of the above as well as covering the history of anarchism (surprise surprise). She's also written a book on means and ends, titled the same. Very informative and enlightening. I would definitely recommend picking up a copy!
Just commenting to say, ive read your novel, and ive more to say, but it takes me a while to do these sorts of things, and right now i need to go pretend to be an artist so ill DM u in the vaguely nearby future. Prolly with quotes from this.
Its early morn (for me anyway) and i need to go be a wage slave. I will slowly type an actual response in a separate reply to this as my day goes, so ill leave this until then so i dont seem like ive vanished, cheers.
Zapatistas have a good PR arm, that's it. Always stick up for the CNT-FAI and Rojava though.
If I may ask, why do you think that? They've been a big inspiration to me and most of what Ive read about them has been great. Outside of authoritarians wildly misunderstanding their recent restructuring I haven't seen much in the way of criticism. If anything, I'm a bit more critical of rojava. They have something that appears to be (or could turn into) an embryonic state at the top of their organization. The fact that there is a "top" to their organization is cause for concern of we're speaking strictly in terms of libertarian socialism
Much of the Zapatista 'success' narrative has been coasting on the fact that there was enough protest over the place being shot up in the early 2000s that the Mexican government stopped trying to send troops there. Since, there's been very little improvement in their situation (relative to the rest of Mexico, mind) despite massive amounts of outside aid being poured in for local, supposedly sustainable, projects; including large amounts of aid from the Mexican government. The younger generation has largely abandoned the movement because the place is under crushing poverty and political infighting has hamstrung their ability to utilize the aid they get. The localties that pledge their allegiance to the Zapatista cause generally have an only skin-deep connection to the ideology, mired in oppressive traditions and the power of each village's elites, who generally have a clientistic relationship with the Zapatistas and change sides whenever the government or the Zapatistas offer them more. And recently they all but dissolved their main organizational body because, for all of their military posturing, they were incapable of fending off drug lords who moved into the area (unsurprising, considering that the local loyalty to the Zapatista cause is shaky at best). Their response? To blame the Mexican army for not fighting them off.
They have an amazing PR arm for outreach to other leftists internationally. But it's just a PR arm.
I don't know about Rojava's long-term prospects, (and considering how long the Syrian Civil War has gone on, I'd be a fool to try to prognosticate) but they've done good work in restoring educational capacity and creating a seemingly stable left-wing organization in the middle of a very brutal civil war. They transitioned from an ethnic-based org to an extremely pluralistic org with remarkable speed and efficiency, and their militia forces have been very effective in defending their territory from both other rebels (and terrorists), and state forces. The local economy is thriving with the system of cooperatives and local councils, and corruption is noticeably less than in surrounding areas.
Gods only know how it'll end, though. I have concerns about what happens when the Syrian state recovers (or is replaced). Plus, Turkiye won't stand for it if they don't have to, Iranian proxies in Iraq are unlikely to look fondly on Rojava, and the US support for Kurds is tepid at best and prone to sudden drawbacks for domestic or international political concerns. That's a hell of a position to be in.
Just wanted to be clear, nitpicking their praxis from the comfort of my couch isn't a denigration of their work. Rojava is doing something amazing. They've managed to make a relative utopia out of a horrible situation and they've advanced the cause greatly in their efforts. I have nothing but respect and admiration for their struggle.
I had no idea things were shaping up so poorly for the zapatistas. Hopefully they get their shit together, it'd be a shame for their legacy to be so underwhelming. I'm gonna have to look into all that a bit more. Got any recommendations?
Unfortunately, the last time I did a deep dive on the Zapatistas, I was in college, and had access to journals. Let me see what I can dig up now.
No worries if you can't find anything/don't the time! I appreciate the conversation nonetheless
This is one of the first critical pieces I read back when I first started researching them. Unfortunately I can't find any free scholarly articles that look familiar/trigger the old memory muscle, and I'm not quite in the mood to read dozens of articles in a search query looking for one that doesn't say "Zapatista" once and then 29 pages of unrelated stuff on populist movements.
Fucking JSTOR search, lmao.
The whole point of these ideologies is a totalitarian regime.
As someone above said it well, it depends. The whole of socialism and communism though, no.
Yes. One must be utterly delusional to believe that communism is not totalitarian.
Nah communism is just naive people trying to enact collectivist policies wholesale not realising or not wanting to believe that such policies are incredibly open to subversion by authoritarian groups.
No, you're talking about tankies
Why do you fine folks draw lines on political and skin pigmentation if it's about collectivism?
At the risk of feeding a troll.
My argument is basically the 'china/russia were never real communism' one but with the caveat that real communism isn't possible in the first place with real human beings because its so easy for a bad actor to hijack the entire thing and thus that will inevitably happen almost immediately. Any real communist is probably naive, deluded or excessively optimistic.
Tankies are just the same kind of bad actor who are the reason such a system is impossible in the first place and promote communism simply as way to seize ever more power. Its a very pedantic point of view but I'm sick of the right wing changing the definition of words.
I was talking about tankies, whose definition says those are communists that were also fine with using tanks on population by Soviets during the Hungarian revolution.
I'm trying to say those people weren't as much in love with communism as with the love of the Soviets and this is much easier to see today since Russia isn't communist.