Please stop with your conspiracy theories. Voting or not voting is a fiercly debates topic in anarchist circles and not even close to being settled. There is no need for outside interference to start argumemts about voting, anarchists are perfectly capable of this by themselves. Literally just check every anarchist forum, plattform or online community and you will find arguments around everytime there is a mayor election happening.
I mean maybe it's a tactical error for me to bring my "conspiracy theory" into it, sure.
Voting or not voting is a fiercly debates topic in anarchist circles and not even close to being settled.
I just did a little reading on it, since I don't really know. I feel like I must be missing something. Doing what you can to build a great society aside from voting seems great. Just claiming you're doing your part because you're voting and nothing else is clearly wrong. But... can you break down for me the side of the debate that says abstaining from voting (in cases you see a difference between the candidates) is a good thing? Or a reference, if you don't want to take the time to lay it out?
I have an interesting argument to not vote if the election results are “clear” - you don’t give any information this way. If the side you are closer to wins without your vote, it’s more likely that your bigger enemy will spend resources to try to beat them, and then only if you vote you can make them lose resources on electoralism without any gain for them, because they thought that they had a chance when they didn’t. You want your opponents to play games that they cannot win - even capitalists do that with suggesting workers that they too can become capitalists if they work hard enough - then workers start playing the game they are structurally meant to lose, from this the capitalist class keeps it’s advantage.
Even in the most draconian states, there are options for early and/or mail voting. If you wait till the day of and complain about the lines, that’s on you for not taking advantage of the alternatives.
Because some very bad people who do real damage in the real world make a massive priority out of making it difficult to vote, because it's still a pretty powerful tool that can be used against them.
Voting is a better use of part of your morning (or whatever) than almost anything else you could be doing on that one day, positive-change-wise. And abstaining from voting in an election with about as crystal-clear difference between the candidates as you could ask for, and thinking somehow that's a positive thing if you care about change in the world, is one of the weirdest fuckin things I've ever heard.
Like if I were in the US I most likely would be voting if I lived in a state where it matters. But I dont
Voting is a better use of part of your morning (or whatever) than almost anything else you could be doing on that one day, positive-change-wise.
I would like to add, that if voting stops someone from doing the things they need to do to survive like working or childcare, then they should prioritize those things. Providing those who cant vote without losing something with the ressources they need to vote is something I so rarely see in these discussions. Instead people assuming voting is an easy task for everyone :(
If you felt like being a bit more charitable then you might assume a stance such as mine doesn’t derive from losing 10 minutes—kind of a weird assumption given the content of the image?
What about the fact that this particular state project can draw a continuous line to one of the most brutal forms of slavery in recorded history which still largely determines the distribution of wealth and power (through inheritance and lobbyist groups), it may have singlehandedly destroyed the environment for all of humanity in less than 300 years, it wiped out an entire continent of cultures and continues to fund genocides and other conquests (with your money/labour) today. At what point would you put your foot down? I must have a lower threshold than that.
“ You don’t have a bunch of companies coming forward saying I wish you’d do something about these right-wing extremists,” said Johnson, who left his position in 2010, after his warnings about right-wing violence were dismissed. “If enough people lobbied congresspeople about white nationalists and how it’s affecting their business activity, then I’m sure you’ll get legislation.”
Turns out capitalists are way more concerned about leftists threatening to hurt their businesses than they are about reactionaries threatening to hurt actual people.
So glad they’re the people in charge of our whole society.
You just have to favor one particular flavor of leftism and ask the other leftists to fall in line for the cause.
There will be immediate, heated debates and arguing why that flavor is not the right flavor and what other flavor would be better instead and why. And then you have people arguing against either, and so forth.
We can agree mostly only on what is bad, and why. (Perhaps because the very essence of leftist ideology is egalitarianism and distributed power?) The right needs to only agree on one or two things like hating brown people and the leftists, and they fall in line, because they are naturally authoritarian.
This article doesn’t say anything that I haven’t already heard people say before. I understand all the points that it is trying to make, and I disagree with all of them.
Also, calling people “sheeple” is not a good way to get them to listen to what you have to say.
The Hamas charter contains a whole bunch of explicit antisemitism taken straight from the Nazis. My guess is that the Nazis think that people will somehow ignore their long history of hating Muslims too.
Bad take.
Dehumanising our opposition takes away all of their agency and responsibility. They're not some other evil beings in human suits, they are, at the end of the day, only people.
The power they have lies in them having privileges that are provided to them by, and making selfish choices that would get them ahead in, the social and economic constructs they've designed and/or uphold (or worse, workers who fall for the propaganda of said constructs and participate against their own best interests)
Those constructs can and should be dismantled, and the people who created and benefitted from them, held accountable.
It’s really not meant to be taken seriously. These comments are made from segments of an alcoholic, depressed, and jaded detective’s fractured psyche. He’s so fucked up that each element of his psyche speaks to him in his mind as entirely separate entities.
Jfc, can't even talk about anarchism in a fucking anarchism community anymore.. 🤦♀️
I am aware this is from a game, it literally says so.
Who said it and why doesn't matter, it was posted as is in an anarchism community, but doesn't actually reflect anarchism at all. I replied in literally 3 sentences to point out why.
If that is "too serious" for you, maybe you should stick to the meme communities...
You were defensive in your first reply, because I think you know you fucked up.
If you think the quote is wrong then you should frame it as such. As it is this quote is given no context. “It’s from a game” isn’t enough.
Loads of people don’t know what that game is and even if they do the explanation of what’s wrong with the quote should come before it, not buried in the comments because you let someone else do it for you.
The framing of this quote implies agreement, not critique.
If they were still human, it would be possible to reason with them. So why don’t you go and try and convince a billionaire to stop raping the planet and exploiting everyone else’s lives for their personal gain.
When you come back and report success, I’ll see them as human. I’ll even grant you success if one single billionaire willingly becomes a millionaire by any means.
I think Marxism Today totally missed the point of the movie. How to Blow Up a Pipeline is engaging fun you can share with your liberal friends, that also happens to challenge their notions of acceptable praxis against climate change.
It’s a heist film in the Ocean’s Eleven tradition, using all the classic tropes like nonlinear narrative, assembling the crew, third act twist - it’s unrealistic because it is meant to be entertaining rather than informative. I watched the interview MT clipped from, and they left out the context that they consulted with the counter-terrorism expert so that they wouldn’t get into legal trouble for demonstrating actual bomb-making techniques. They collaborated with a government official because wanted their film to have the widest possible release, not to help or hinder people making actual bombs.
I agree that Marxist groups have a hypocritical relationship with ‘adventurism’ - they only use that term if the cadre’s results aren’t immediately celebrated by the proletariat. If they succeed and it polls well, they call them the people’s vanguard and pretend their plans were stamped at party headquarters. Stalin was a literal heist man, robbing banks for the Bolsheviks. I’m sure the guy who punched Richard Spencer consulted a committee first.
I love the reviews by army-funded Michael Bay film fan types - they all grudgingly admit it’s an excellent film, and without any irony say their only demerit is that it’s ‘propaganda’ - that’s high praise. If you haven’t seen it already, assemble your crew.
Fair that the video producer probably took the movie a little too seriously. People calling themselves “Marxists” tend to do shit like that. LOL. And hilariously good takes about Stalin and their notion of adventurism.
Still, I think their point about it being presented as some kind of alternative to the book (i.e. THIS is the REAL how-to guide) and not coming with good enough disclaimers is still probably a reasonable take. And sorry, but I find “collaborated with the national-security state just to make sure we don’t get in legal trouble” to be extremely weak. One could collaborate with anyone familiar with handling explosives to help you figure out how to change and/or omit important enough details about bomb making (not to mention people like defense attorneys), and changed stuff that would NOT put people at direct risk if they followed the example. Not to mention the shit about collaborating with the state that was also included. These are examples of extremely dangerous misinformation that just shouldn’t be included ever, and aren’t necessary just to produce a bit of fun and engaging agitprop.
anarchism
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.