dogshit ideology tier list
dogshit ideology tier list
reading the list of ideologies "harmful to the global south" and comparing it to the ideologies that the global south has tried and gotten results from and drawing no conclusions
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yeah of course there's scenarios where anarchists and communists can work together. And I wouldn't say anarchists are sectarian because I don't think sectarianism is the lens I'd use to understand it. It's not sectarian to have mutually incompatible principles. But what percentage of anarchists are going to want hang out on a website that has strict rules about criticizing socialist states?
Also, it's an open question whether anarchists and Marxists can function in a big tent coalition. The two obvious examples, the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War, are not examples of successful coalition building. And looking across the world, there's more examples of social democrats in functional coalitions with communists than anarchists. But harsh critiques of social democracy don't fall under "anti-sectarianism" rules. I can say that social democracy is the left wing of fascism, but not that anarchism is the highest stage of liberal idealism.
It's not sectarian to have mutually incompatible principles.
That's plainly not what we're talking about here, again see my example of MLs and Islamicists.
But what percentage of anarchists are going to want hang out on a website that has strict rules about criticizing socialist states?
Ones that have their heads screwed on tight enough to not be fixated on talking bullshit about other countries when their own is a neoliberal hellscape. We criticize China all the time, and there are weird cases of softballing like with revisionism in Yugoslavia, but I think that's just because so few people care to investigate it in one direction or another.
The two obvious examples, the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War, are not examples of successful coalition building.
In one case anarchists failed to organize in a way that didn't cause them to produce more fascist militants than they killed, and in the other they just failed to organize period. If you're holding up Makhno as the highest aspiration of big tent initiatives, I'd suggest retirement.
I can say that social democracy is the left wing of fascism, but not that anarchism is the highest stage of liberal idealism.
Sure, but that's because the socdems want to defend capitalism and the anarchists (the ones who fall under the aegis, anyway) don't.
again see my example of MLs and Islamicists
I think this is a complicated example because although at times Marxists and Islamists made common cause, Islamists were also a very effective weapon against communists, such as in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.
If you're holding up Makhno as the highest aspiration of big tent initiatives, I'd suggest retirement
I'm just not aware of many anarchist-communist alliances at scale, so those were the two examples I thought of. I don't think the Zapatistas or Rojava are clear examples, or at a large scale.
but that's because the socdems want to defend capitalism and the anarchists don't
And yet there's comparatively successful political coalitions that involve both socdems and communist parties. I'm thinking particularly in South America. China and the DPRK have sanctioned liberal/socdem parties, but I don't believe anarchist organizations are permitted. I mean, many social democrats see themselves as reformist socialists or Marxists of some stripe. And third world social democracy seems very different from imperial core socdems, but we don't have to qualify socdems as "western socdems" to criticize th
I'm not arguing against tolerance or mutual respect or focusing on primary contradictions.
I think this is a complicated example because although at times Marxists and Islamists made common cause, Islamists were also a very effective weapon against communists, such as in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.
I am begging you to think about this dialectically. Obviously, I am not saying "Islamists are good friends to Marxists". Generally, I would hold the opposite to be true. That having been said, we can see today in Palestine and sometimes other places that MLs and Islamists can work together quite well when they have a common enemy that they oppose more than each other. Even in the best of circumstances, it is a partnership that will end in bloodshed as they turn on each other following the hypothetical defeat of their colonial oppressors, but for a stretch of time it works quite well.
Exactly this is what I am saying of the anarchists and Marxists in, for example, America. Perhaps it will come to an end that one or the other won't like, but if an anarchist thinks it is more worth it to fight muh tankies than to join hands with them to fight fascists, they are smoking crack.
I don't think the Zapatistas or Rojava are clear examples, or at a large scale.
Rojava is worth mentioning but Zapatistas, in the main, aren't anarchists and vociferously object to such a label.
And yet there's comparatively successful political coalitions that involve both socdems and communist parties. I'm thinking particularly in South America. China and the DPRK have sanctioned liberal/socdem parties, but I don't believe anarchist organizations are permitted. I mean, many social democrats see themselves as reformist socialists or Marxists of some stripe. And third world social democracy seems very different from imperial core socdems, but we don't have to qualify socdems as "western socdems" to criticize th
Part of the issue here is the simple inadequacy of anarchism with large-scale organizing and its natural opposition to compromise. What do you expect the PRC to do that would allow a show-and-tell anarchist to feel satisfied? To have a little commune or syndicate? But then mustn't such an entity be beholden to laws at a higher level, in both a theoretical and practical sense, to not just be a liability to the state and a cult-in-the-waiting? Doesn't sound very horizontal to me!
Of course, what I would consider a serious anarchist is someone who supports the revolution that feeds the children while pushing in the direction of horizontality, and by such a definition surely they should be happy with the implementation of, for example, the Tae-an farming system in the DPRK. But one who it more interested in spreading a religion of anarchism, to whom feeding the children with any verticality involved is an insidious deception, the fact that those collectives still must answer to the state means that any virtue they have is farcical.
Your sectarianism is my tolerance paradox, I guess, and it's indeed part of the insidiousness of capital that it's quite willing to compromise when it needs to.
"Socdem" is a difficult term to use the way you've expressed it because the term has a long and varied history with many offshoots in usage. The way that HB usually phrases it is that the people you just identified are in large part actually demsoc, and I think that phrasing is fair. One could also argue that the true dividing line is if the so-called demsoc believes revolution isn't the best strategy, or would actually oppose revolution should it appear seriously viable, with the uprising already underway.
I think we're on the same page. As long as a common enemy is shared, big tent coalitions can mostly function. Although in the cases I mentioned, Islamists came to the conclusion that Marxists were the shared enemy and that they could better function in a coalition with Western forces. That tension is always present. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is only workable as long as victory seems unlikely and nobody thinks about the future. For example the KMT turning against the CPC in WW2.
I think there's serious anarchists who would see in collective farms a revolutionary re-organization of society that is leashed by the state. In the same way that Marxists would see reform as insufficient if the rule of capital is not overthrown. If the state is the origin and mechanism of oppression, the existence of a state means that oppression will continue. So for serious anarchists I would think the goal would be to organize the collective farms to overthrow the state.
And that's a good delineation of socdem vs demsoc, I'll use that in the future.