We could burn putin? Or just medium rare on a spit toast. The stick is sometimes tied to the guy, but in this case a stick could be driven slowly over the course of a few days. putins usually come with a convenient hole on either side for that. Best of all lots of animals could be fed… maybe 15 or 16 Lions?
This image is misleading because only one person wants to destroy Ukrainian state and people: Putin.
To make this image more realistic place putin and his mafia on one side with text “I want to rule forever”, Ukrainians and Russians on other with text “We don’t want to be killed” and RT in the middle.
The meme neglects the whole 2014-2022 civil war period in Ukraine. Euromaidan alone kicked off with dozens of dead and thousands injured. Subsequent revolts in Donetsk and Luhansk killed thousands more.
By the time of the actual Russian invasion, Ukrainian rebels were in full blown street battles with government military units.
Claiming “Ukraine just wants to be left alone” feels a bit like doing a “Woo-wee, I’m just a small bean Saddam doing a little protest over Kuwaiti slant drilling. Why is mean old George Bush Senior being so mean to me with his Operation Desert Storm?” Or bemoaning the sweet innocent little Slobodan Milošević for doing a policing action in Bosnia.
Ah yes, Euromaidan. When Ukrainians kicked out the Russian puppet politician and replaced him with… shuffles notes
Oh, there was no replacement. They just held a democratic vote and the puppet fled.
And then Putin retaliated by sending soldiers into Ukraine, which according to Putin, is an act of international aggression.
When Ukrainians kicked out the Russian puppet politician
The guy they kicked out was actively trying to join the EU. The riots that kicked off a decade of bloody civil war did nothing to decouple Ukraine from Russia. All it achieved was to militarize the conflict.
And then Putin retaliated by sending soldiers into Ukraine
Just as they did in Chechnya and Tajikistani, to the thunderous applause of Americans in the grip of their War on Terror.
Hell, we outright partnered with him under Clinton and Bush.
“I find that I’m smarter than most people.”
“Whatever leads you to that conclusion?” “I have a hammer and sickle wallpaper on my desktop! Also, those who are not me should learn to compromise. Because I won’t lift a goddamned finger to do such a thing myself, yuck. Also, bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe.”
No, you lock yourself in a defensive position and call the police. Hunting baddies in your dark house is statistically more likely to result in you shooting your kid who tries to sneak out.
New York is a castle doctrine state. That guy who shot those kids who pulled into his driveway, his private property, just got convicted and is going to prison for a long time.
Be careful, folks. The dude who enters your home could just be a drunk. Use your brain before bullets.
You mean the guy that shot someone who wasn’t breaking into his house or being a threat was found guilty? Color me shocked that an event wasn’t protected by a law that didn’t cover what happened.
Yeah but it should be conditional imo. If they’re armed or you have suspicion they could be armed, then kill them. Otherwise, maybe aim for the leg or shoulder?
If you’re shooting, shoot to kill. There’s not a non-lethal place to shoot a human being.
But yeah, jumping straight to the gun might be a bit much for some guy rummaging through your living room drawer. Russia is more like a hardened criminal who’s been threatening you every night for the past month busting down your door and beating your kid to death.
Humans very regularly survive gunshots. About twice as many people are injured by gunshots as those who die from them each year in the USA, even when suicides are included. My philosophy is to minimize harm and suffering whenever possible, even at risk to myself.
You were going to kill them regardless, why tf do you care if the other places you shoot them have a chance of fatality? Minimizing harm is all about reducing chances of undue death or suffering.
Oh? Did you need me to walk you through it, buddy?
Where did I say anything about liberals? (Herein lies the strawman)
I just had a far-leftist espouse arming up because Karl Marx said so; so whether they’re Liberal or Leftist, the point remains.
Liberalism In the United States has traditionally either been short-hand for social liberalism, or the polar-opposite to conservatism. As Howard Zinn points out in The Case for Socialism, Left and Liberalism were used interchangeably throughout American history and distanced itself from that of right-wing conservatism.
Do you speak on behalf of all liberals and leftists? <— Herein lies the gatekeeping / No True Scot fallacy.
Classic over-confidence of a sub-22-year-old tankie.
But viva la revolution, amirite. Send me a screenshot of your Che Guevera poster.
It saddens me to see leftists left toothless in the face of those that would hurt them. Yet yall insist on being victims and relying on the same cops that oppress you. Total pacifism has a more accurate name, “I like letting fascists win.”
Buddy, if it comes to the point where my family needs to shoot back against the things you mentioned, then we already lost long before that.
Like, if you just took half the amount of time it takes psyching yourself up and purchasing your ammunition and channeled that into – you know – civic duty and getting your friends and family to vote, then that would be a far more productive use of your time to avert fascism.
So just take it a step back, okay? Use your brain over bullets.
Which is why you’ve put a security door on your bedroom, right? A sane home defense strategy has nothing to do with protecting your stuff, and should focus on creating a defensive enclave.
For stealing shit from a supermarket, or a bank, or something of that sort? Nah, fuck the corporations. For invading someone’s inner sanctum and defiling their most important space? Justified.
I have no clue why this stranger is in my home threatening those I care about, all I know is they decided breaking into my home and are possibly violent.
Right, the more accurate analogy would be someone breaking into your house, shooting your grandfather, raping your wife, and trying to take your children away as slaves. And also stealing your stuff.
I get to keep everything I stole, in exchange you won’t call the cops, and throw away your alarms and weapons. You will also promise, that you won’t be able to defend yourself the next time.
Cops are rotten apples, So are nonprofit universities that use massive endowments to essentially be for profit. No one would claim they’re just as detrimental to society as each other. One of the groups is clearly worse and it’s surprising how many people are refusing to engage with that idea. If you think Zionists arent getting people killed and Tankies are, I really don’t know what to tell you.
My friend, you are on a web platform specifically designed to engage in every conversation, including that one. The point everyone who replied to you is try to make is that you going into a conversation thread and sidetracking with no additional value has the same energy as saying “all lives matter” as a reply to black lives matter. No shit Sherlock, but you’re not doing any good by throwing in “but, zionists” to the conversation at hand.
Is that comparison not me engaging in the discussion? Or is it only engagement when you agree with it? Zionists are killing people, right now. Tankies exist mainly online and their numbers are bolstered by foreign troll farms and sock accounts trying to create division. So sorry I don’t want to buy into that outrage of people who scarcely exist.
You’re right, it’s engagement at the level of an “all lives matter” chud. I didn’t realize that was the level of thought you were intentionally going for. Congrats I guess?
Again. Zionists are killing people right now. Tankies are the most minor of minorities. If you think saying Zionists are worse than Tankies is like saying all lives matter you’re one of the kids Bush left behind, so congrats I guess.
Putin proganda props up tankies talking points to foster division and outrage, outrage like this meme. What does russia have to gain from my stance of ignore tankies because they only exist online while zionists sre influencing actual policy, war and death? You cant just call everything you dont like russian propaganda, but thats about as lazy as most response ive been getting.
One is doing that on a segment of a niche internet forum, and the other is doing that on millions of humans. Like I said, I know which ones worse. Zionists get people killed. Tankies yell about things that already happened.
However, the Soviet Famine killed between 5.7 and 8.7 million people and the population of Gaza and the west bank is only ~5 million, so the famine might have been worse, but no one wins when you play the suffering Olympics.
Its more power mapping than suffering Olympics. Tankies can only argue to justify things, there are no tankies in control of countries or influencing countries budgets and agendas. There are Zionists that control countries with massive militaries though. There are zionists in media influencing millions daily. You can be mad at tankies for defending things but they had no hand in perpetuating them, you cannot say the same of Zionists. Why spend time being mad at groups that don’t influence anything?
Why spend time being mad at groups that don’t influence anything?
They influence discourse on here, and if “The kulaks deserved it and the deportation of the Crimean Tatars was holsum” becomes normalized, I sure as shit ain’t sticking around any more than I would stick around someplace where Nazis are normalized.
Spreading fascist talking points in an effort to discourage voters in the West from sending aid to Ukraine also has a very real effect.
The people actually effecting Ukraine aide are the conservatives who lean fascist. You’re giving tankies way too much credit, they don’t exist outside of niche internet spaces, and they certainly dont influence US foreign policy.
The people actually effecting Ukraine aide are the conservatives who lean fascist.
Oh, the lion’s share of the blame belongs to them, absolutely.
and they certainly dont influence US foreign policy.
They influence voters, who influence US foreign policy. The increasing hostility on the left (or what passes for it in the US) is very much fueled by online left spaces where such fascist talking points are tolerated or celebrated. Communism isn’t as unpopular as it was for my parents’ and grandparents’ generation, and with that broader shift comes the possibility (and reality) of radicalism and sheer edgy fucking stupidity getting ahold of a minority of those shifting. Approximately 30% of Gen Z (and 27% of my gen, Millennials) has a positive view of Marxism (which is great!). If we assume only 10% of them are dumb enough to buy into tankie talking points, that’s still some 6 million people.
I think a lot of people don’t understand just how angry the younger people are with how the system is “working” today. It’s almost hilarious to me how conservatives scream angrily about how “young people are communists and hate capitalism” without trying to understand why. When a person’s prospects of outearning their parents (or hell, earning as much as them) are lowering every year, is it any surprise people are fed up with being exploited?
Interestingly, I suspect that we are seeing an uptick in tankie-like behavior because of that anger being directed at a single entity: the United States. It’s a lack of understanding nuance paired with anger that is driving the sort of “anyone against America is good because America bad.”
(To be clear, the US has and continues to do fucked up shit, but it has also done positive things as well, which is why nuance is important here)
You ever see Tankies outside of Lemmy or old CTH on reddit? Because Ive been organizing since my 20s and met just one in real life. I would be flabbergasted if there were more than 1% of the figures you pointed out were tankies, let alone 10%. Also tankies don’t believe in voting and are still dwarfed by other sources of misinformation. The tankies make themselves nice and loud, they’re very easy to ignore. Unlike the types of propaganda that get injected into Meta platforms and Twitter. I still think you’re swinging at ghosts because its easy to do.
Lets say tomorrow there are no more tankies, they magically never existed in the english speaking world, what actually changes for the US?
Luckily, flat earth has few foreign policy implications yet. But general hostility to science, the root of flat eartherism, is definitely something that has had noticeable effects on our society and politics.
same. I stopped being active in my trade union because my local’s case officer has had his brain rotted by Grayzone and Dore etc, he harassed me for months with late night messages that “no Russia doesn’t target civilians on purpose” “Bucha was maybe a Ukrainian false-flag”, and publicly accused me of being a Nazi supporter for donating to a Ukrainian medical charity.
no help from the rest of the union because he always had plenty of fucking Glen Greenwald, David Sacks, etc tweets to “prove there are questions, he’s just asking questions and unconvinced by NATO CIA affiliated narratives”
I want everyone to get along, so I try to work with them, but it’s hard sometimes because they seem more focused on building the party than doing the work
I would be flabbergasted if there were more than 1% of the figures you pointed out were tankies, let alone 10%.
I said ‘buy into tankie talking points’. The point isn’t that the 10% (itself just a random number, of course) are tankies, but that 10% are influenced by the shite that tankies spread.
Although I would emphasize that there is a certain percentage of people who are batshit insane on any given issue, and some 10% of Americans are tolerant of fascism. 10% of Gen Z going tankie instead doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me.
Also tankies don’t believe in voting
This is true, but as mentioned, it’s not even about them, specifically - but what effects they have on discourse.
and are still dwarfed by other sources of misinformation.
Yeah, if I was in charge of a NGO dedicated to combating misinformation or something I wouldn’t be dedicating many resources to tankies specifically.
Lets say tomorrow there are no more tankies, they magically never existed in the english speaking world, what actually changes for the US?
Support for Ukraine increases by 2%-3% points as a very loud (as you note) minority is no longer amplifying misinformation and propaganda under the guise of combating the absolutely fucked state of our society.
800 years of russian state imperialism isnt enough to convince some people that the rest of Eastern Europe has truly had enough of one of their own imposing their big brother geopolitics on the rest of them. Every shitty empire has their MO, for russia, its always been a game of lies, deceit, and muddying the waters of truth. The guy in the middle is someone whos been drinking water from a poisoned well somewhere.
I’m not even the guy you originally responded to and I have no stake in this, I am simply telling you that your statements make you sound stupid.
Marxism is a socialist~communist socioeconomic/political philsosophy, and being a Marxist means you follow the ideals of said ideology, making you a socialist and/or communist (depending on the usage of the word). It does not simply (have to) mean you think “yeah the things Marx says about class are accurate”, it means you advocate for the solutions he describes for the industrialist plague.
Calling someone a “capitalist Marxist” is fucking gold lol, I mean depending on context/connotation of the word it isn’t always technically impossible (if that’s what you want to call class-conscious capitalists), but in this case it certainly is impossible since he’s clearly meaning it in the sense of someone who believes in implementing Marx’s socialism, not just someone who believes that what Marx says about politics/economy/power is accurate.
and being a Marxist means you follow the ideals of said ideology
Oh boy… another edgy liberal that clings to Marx because “western culture” couldn’t provide you with an identity that wasn’t bought at a strip-mall.
This shouldn’t be so difficult to understand, but I guess everything has to be difficult when dealing with white liberals who can’t tell the difference between identity and ideology.
Do tell, genius… do you really think economists take Marx seriously because of his ideology? Don’t be silly - they take him seriously because his critique of capitalism is an economic one that is completely separable from Marx’s ideological stance. Marx was a scientist first and foremost. Understanding Marx’s critique of capitalism requires no ideological frame in any way whatsoever.
You might just as well tell me that you need to be a Bakuninist to understand, or admit to, climate change - and you’d be equally as silly.
it isn’t always technically impossible
I’m really sorry that Marx didn’t actually provide you with the neatly-packaged counter-cultural identity that you assumed he would - but that’s not something we can blame Marx for. That’s all on you.
It’s time to realize that that Che Guevara t-shirt you own is just that - a t-shirt.
Lol what, I’m not a Marxist dumbass. I’m not the guy you originally responded to, as I said in the first sentence. You look like a clown
Don’t go crying just because you were too stupid to realize that words have multiple meanings, and that he was referring to Marxism as an ideology rather than Marxism as a theory. Hint – many throughout history have used interpretations of Marx’s analysis and ideas of a democratic socioeconomic system to push for a Marxist implementation of socialist/communist society, hence Marxism as an ideology. It’s extremely straightforward to derive for normal people, but not you apparently.
Is it suddenly my fault that all you liberals sound the same? I think not… your mind-numbing conformity is on you - not me.
It’s your fault when you literally can’t read the first sentence in the comment. It’s also funny how you say that when you sound literally the exact same as everyone on red-fash reddit & lemmy instances and are literally insulting people by calling them “mind-numbingly conformist”. Do you not see the hypocrisy???
Calling random, usually leftist/socialist/anarchist, Lemmy users “liberals” itself is cringe. As well as even using the word “conformist” in this context. You are quite literally just throwing random no-no words at people you don’t like after making incorrect assumptions about their political ideologies. What exactly is a “liberal” to you?
Oh, are we backpedalling now? Wasn’t this you just a short while ago? “Calling someone a “capitalist Marxist” is fucking gold” Doesn’t seem like you’re all that certain of your own case all of a sudden - I wonder why?
Holy shit you can’t be serious, I literally say the phrase has multiple meanings IN THE NEXT CLAUSE OF THE SAME SENTENCE:
I mean depending on context/connotation of the word it isn’t always technically impossible (if that’s what you want to call class-conscious capitalists), but in this [context] it certainly is …
At this point you’re willingly ignoring what’s right in front of you to be pretentious and try to “win”.
You should probably get some psychiatrist to help you, your brain clearly doesn’t work.
Also, normal people learn very early in life that the expected social behavior is to share the minimum amount of information needed to be understood. No capitalist will ever self describe as a Marxist.
Oooooh… I’m so sorry. You conflated ideology with identity - and now you’ve gone and got your ego hurt on the rocks of political reality.
Yeah - that’s never a good idea. It’s a recipe for disillusionment.
No capitalist will ever self describe as a Marxist.
That’s because they don’t feel the need to stake their egos to the term “Marxist” like you do. Come here to Africa - I’ll show you “Marxist” neoliberals aplenty. You couldn’t throw a brick in one of our parliaments without hitting one.
They’re referring to the fact that the war actually started in 2014. 2022 was only a military operation and it has only last year been finally referred to as a war by russia. So yeah, russia’s been struggling in Ukraine for quite a while. They thought they could pull another Georgia 2008, I guess. Can’t blame them for trying now, can we? It’s only their historical territory and nazi territory that they’re trying to take so it’s ok.
Ignore Ukraine fighting Russians who invaded their country? I thought that was the point?
Are you trying to stand by the bald faced lie that ‘its just locals who disagree’ over booting out the extremely corrupt Yanukovych? Just locals with Russian military tech shooting down MH17.
I’m sure the oil and gas discoveries prior to the 2014 invasion had nothing to do with it.
What really blows my mind is the tankies ignoring Ukraine trying to nationalize the energy sector ahead of Russia’s invasion.
These borders are arbitrary lines drawn by Soviet bureucrats. It did not matter as long as both countries were in the Soviet Union. This is not a war between two countries. This is a war over how the Soviet Union should break up.
Maybe, if you consider the ethnic cleansing the soviet’s did. Like getting rid of all the tartars in Crimea. When you send an entire population to the gulag to die, maybe their historic borders don’t matter so much anymore. Is that what you are referring to?
I’m not making fun of people not knowing things, I’m pointing out that there are way too many posts about tankies, far beyond any “tankie problem” that lemmy is imagined to have.
About the only bit that could be compromised on. Crimea isn’t going to be retaken by an invasion force, unless the whole Russian military collapses in on itself.
However, I would note that effectively sieging Crimea is very viable considering the poor state of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea and Crimea’s reliance on supply from the rest of Russia. However, that would require most Ukrainian land taken during the initial invasion to be reclaimed first.
Yep most definitely, reclaiming the mainland is step one and no compromises should be made there. The decision on the remaining bloodshed and cost required to retake crimea from 2014 annexation can be evaluated at that point.
Crimea WAS the compromise. In 2014. The orange revolution was the compromise in 2004.
The disagreement is with the idea that compromise would even result in a real peace. The Russia would stop actively working to dismantle the Ukrainian state. It’s not even just Ukraine. Georgia was invaded in 2008.
At this point, it’s just appeasement. And appeasement doesn’t work.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat… In reality it would be for the proletariat a barrack regime where the standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live to the beat of a drum; for the clever and learned a privilege, of governing: and for the mercenary minded, attracted by the State Bank, a vast field of lucrative jobbery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are online self-proclaimed leftists who simp for the totalitarian Soviet regime, and often for China as well. The slang term for them is ‘tankies’. Generally speaking, they’re the ones you see online spreading the “Ukraine has to compromise for Russia’s Legitimate Security Concerns!” The hammer-and-sickle is there to represent them.
It’s very bizarre, considering that most leftists I know, even the ones I butt heads with, recognize that Putin’s Russia is an imperialist and fascist state. But no one has ever accused tankies of being consistent.
Yeah. Tankies in most places are absolutely inconsequential, but they’re very prominent on the Fediverse. It’s good to push back against the poisonous parts of their ideology (like ‘Imperialism is good if it’s a capitalist state that’s not part of the West doing it’).
Would hate to see that kind of vile fascist shit normalized on here.
Yep, authoritarianism and imperialism is wrong left or right. The United States has a horrible track record on this front it’s true. But they’ll lose their shit when you state a simple fact like ML nations are generally just as bad. Russia basically invaded and forcefully annexed many nations post WWII. Tried to invade Afghanistan. Imprisoned and slaughtered millions in Siberian prisons to this very day even. All for simple dissent. Nivalny anyone? China isn’t really any better either.
They usually break into a sputtering revelry of “But imperialists and the west did X”. Which you can easily tear apart with a simple “And?”. Because it doesn’t justify them doing it.
Same here. It’s a long road. And unfortunately ml and tankies specifically have set us back on it quite a bit. But the evolution Karl Marx originally spoke about is absolutely worth continuing to pursue.
…in the most verbose way possible, with bonus points for referencing people out of context, cherrypicking their worst takes, or just deferring to lunatics in a ghish gallop too exhausting to be worth challenging.
Has Putin stated that he’s running a fascist state?
I have news for you, liberal - strengthening, enabling and exploiting fascist elements within a capitalist state to protect the status quo existing within said capitalist state is not a fascist thing to do. It’s a liberal thing to do. That is literally how fascists get into power in the first place - they can’t get into power by themselves.
Is this a difficult thing to understand? I’d say it’s quite simple.
Also… good luck with the whole “putler” thing. Somehow, I don’t see that taking off.
OP thinks the west should continue to send weapons to Ukraine until Russia pulls out of all former Ukrainian territory, and putin is deposed and sent to the hague, and Russia is balkanized.
Most communists want it to end as soon as possible, with the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia remaining either independent or in Russia if they vote that way.
This is usually misconstrued as supporting Russia.
You sound like a nazi supporter in 1939 supporting the annexation of the sudetenland. What do you mean the nazis should pull out of the formerly czech territories? I haven’t heard the russian government give any reason they should be there, that the nazis didn’t give.
Ah, so you were in favor of the initial peace plan proposed by Zelenskyy at the start of the invasion?
with the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine remaining either independent or in Russia if they vote that way.
… and what about the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine remaining part of Ukraine? Is that not an option? Does democracy only count if it benefits Russian interests?
This is usually misconstrued as supporting Russia.
No, it’s simply recognizing the Motte-And-Bailey style arguments put forth by red fash. It’s the same pattern as the alt-right.
But yes, I was in favor of that peace. If you want to go back further, we could have avoided the whole civil war if the US didn’t back a coup, and it could have been smothered in the cradle if the right were purged from the parliament and army in 2014 or any time after, it could have ended without an invasion if Minsk II was simply enforced.
… and what about the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine remaining part of Ukraine? Is that not an option?
The russian-speaking parts of Ukraine are occupied by Russia. To change this would require a longer war and more death, all to annex regions that already voted once to join Russia after nearly a decade of civil war.
Given what was going on during the civil war, even if Russia unilaterally abandoned the territory, there would not be an end to the destruction.
I mean you’re not wrong that it wasn’t organic beyond a brief moment near the start of Maidan, before right-wing paramilitaries started sniping cops and massacring civilians and “volunteers” started showing up from both sides, but calling the civil war an invasion seems disingenuous.
Not that that justifies either side supporting right-wing militias in Ukraine.
I mean Russia wasn’t the only country with “volunteers” in Ukraine. I’d hardly say America invaded it, instead I say they backed factions within Ukraine, just as Russia did.
and what about the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine remaining part of Ukraine?
This could be an option but what the cost? You all couch generals understand tha not only Russian ppl but Ukranians lifes are being destroyed?
Do you undeestand that your option is to the deaths and war crimes keep on going right? Retaken these territories is almost free for you but not for Ucranians.
Also, no Communist I know defends Putin, Russia is an imperialist scum as US, UK and France that are using Ukraine as their war table.
Add comment