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
Incredibly funny to me that anarcho-feminism and queer anarchism are in different tiers. Like yeah dude let's start ranking liberatory struggles good idea, tell me which types of anti racism are "very cool" and which are just "aight" next
It's actually sad to me how low Ho Chi Minh thought is.
Vietnam resisted US imperialism and won. They haven't been the target of such a focused propaganda campaign like DPRK or China. There's no reason to believe they've done anything wrong. No atrocity propaganda comes out of Vietnam. They mind their own fucking business and try to help their people.
And still, STILL it's not good enough for western leftists. It's fucking pathetic.
100% i'm used to all the shit the other tendencies gets but i have no clue how someone who believes themselves to be on the left could possibly hate Uncle Ho.
yeah i can't imagine being an anarchist who places any importance at all in your tendency label. like do you have a body of theory that you value? no not a page on the /r/PCM wiki, i mean something that someone who wanted to drive a stake through the heart of the state wrote.
Love how all these are all unique and localized reponses from the global south yet they are damaging somehow lol. Something something civilizing mission.
4 tiers of "Hasn't made a material impact on the world" and one tier of "Has made a material impact on the world"
I'd move Anarcho-communism/syndicalism down to the bottom tier because they also had material impact on world, while moving nazbol, "unconditional accelerationism" and... I think it says Ujaman? The green one on the very berry bottom. No offense but I haven't heard of it. Anyways, move those three out of there, and lastly merge Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Stalinism into one, because thats just repeating yourself three times.
Oh that's really neat actually. It can stay in the bottom row, though a shame that Tanzania acts as a U.S military outpost on the eastern coast of Africa.
Good = things that now exist largely as quirky choices in the ideology section of the supermarket. Bad = anything that has actually managed to win any power
Why is anarcho-bidenism not included in the list btw?
"some people on twitter said that anarcho primitivism is based, but some other people said it's equivalent to fascism. i cannot be bothered to find out what their arguments actually were, and i have never actually read any critiques of civilization because my interest in the topic extends to finding a new polandball guy to draw, so i'll uncritically download and repeat both opinions as my own."
anti/post "civ" is a different critique from the primitivist one, its not about technology but like the ideological/cultural construction of "civilisation" and its opposite "uncivilized".
i've read some okay takes on it, but its not like a full political programme. not that that stops these reddit idiots trying to invent tendencies, lol
I used to think like this. I really did. Anarcho-Communism was my gateway. You can only really think this way if you don't read any older theory though.
I also had a point where I thought, well, anarchism and communism both seem cool, and we all want the same thing, right? Maybe anarcho-communism is the thing to do.
And then I learned the absolute lowest basics of the history and political theory and realized that Marxists and anarchists disagree on fundamental issues. There really is no squaring the circle.
I'm definitely an anarchist by disposition and theory, but (like most actual anarchists) I recognize the contributions that vanguard MLs have made/will make, and am happy to work with them. The strong walls between the "ideologies" is mostly an Internet thing, in my experience. The biggest impact it has in the real world is in determining which affinity group you tend to gravitate toward, but at the end of the day we all absolutely can and do work together.
Yeah the real world tends to be less stark in regards to this stuff and more complicated based on situation. The Venezuelan socialists are all sorts of leftists, including a lot of rural indigenous people living in small horizontal communes. I frequently see the EZLN claimed as anarchist, and while they do promote anarchist theory, they're also collaborators with Cuba.
Internet arguments are often stuck in the 1930s, back when socialism was still trying to get off the ground in the first place.
New ideology on display here - Western Burger Thought. It's anarchism with Burger American characteristics, which boils down to the belief that since you've never experienced or seen a good leader wield the power of the state for the liberation of the working class, then it must not be possible. Ergo, the power of institutions is the only enemy of the working class.
wait we can do this? BRB I'm gonna go do a tier list about which trees make the best lumber despite knowing next to nothing about milling and curing wood. Then I'm gonna do a tier list of all the anime I haven't watched based off vibes I get from what people who don't like anime have said.
Yeah it's doing anarchism a disservice. People always say "online anarchist" as if there's a hypothetical "real anarchist" who basically agrees with Marxists in every respect but is still an anarchist somehow. As if it's only internet-poisoned fake anarchists spoiling potential left unity.
Anarchists disagree with fundamental tenets of Marxism and especially MLism, and pretending they don't is disrespecting their actual views. "Left unity" papers over major, important differences. There's no reason to be antagonistic, but people let's be real. You can't be pro Stalin and pro anarchism without being at odds.
I don't even know what the qualifier "internet" is doing here. The majority of this site is pro-USSR, pro-Stalin, pro-China, etc. Even among the most principled, well-read, serious, committed, internet-avoiding anarchists, you will find 0 people who agree with or even tolerate those views.
Maybe where you're at is where they are logging on from? If MLs can make common cause with Islamicists for the sake of anticolonial struggle, anarchists should be able to tolerate MLs for the purpose of opposing their much more present common enemy. The basis of "big tent" theory is that groups should mutually tolerate each other, and groups that cannot do not receive the same protections. Your argument is essentially "all real anarchists are hopelessly sectarian, so speaking as though the non-sectarian ones are the preferable ones is itself sectarian". If you were right -- and you demonstrably aren't -- all you'd be arguing for is that anarchists cannot function in a big tent.