I used to say this stuff about needing to come together and all. Then I worked with people who called themselves “comrades” until it became obvious I’d been used by awful people who wanted power and who saw hurting others as an unfortunate necessity or even a perk of the job. Then I started paying attention.
It’s not a matter of historical grudges, it’s a question of who we’re propping into power. Arguably less important than avoiding fascism but still very much worth some discusssion.
You had a bad experience with some people, and have made up your mind about a whole political philosophy? Of course there’s asshole communists that are unpleasant to work with. I absolutely cannot believe that you’ve never had similar experience with anarchists. I certainly have, but it hasn’t made me write off anarchism, it just made me write off working with those specific people.
Well I had a bad experience, which made me research the history of the party I was in, and its predecessors, and the underlying ideology; and I found leninism and its branches (ML, trotskyism, maoism, etc) hold as a core tenet that there is a small group of people (the vanguard) who must have absolute uncontested authority over all others and must eliminate all contestation. Regardless of whether you believe that ideology by itself is justifiable, it has historically been used over and over as a rhetorical hammer to justify and fortify the power of power-hungry individuals (this is also true of other marxist branches, even beginning with Marx himself). I learnt “co-secretary” means supreme leader, “materialism” means trust me bro, “democratic centralism” means shut the fuck up, and “petty-bourgeois” means you are a bad person regardless of your actual deeds or social situation.
I also realized that the party sociology was deeply divided, with the upper ranks being political science graduates who were planning a career within the system while the lower ranks thought they were fighting against the system. Votes were a masquerade in which the upper ranks decided what the best outcome would be before discussing how it could be passed — there was absolutely no belief in any “collective wisdom”, only shepherds looking to guide their flock. None of this is part of leninist doctrine, but the social split and patriarchal outlook absolutely were characteristic of Lenin’s party — and is it a wonder that technocrats who look down on the common people would be attracted to an ideology that promotes there being a small cadre of very smart people who should yield absolute power over the rest of them?
All this sounds a bit naive of me; I sort of knew about this stuff before joining, but I didn’t really think it could happen to me, you know? I thought 1920s USSR had little in common with my life, and I just wanted to support some leftist organization that had at least some bite and radical character. I wouldn’t have though it necessary to read all these books and articles on the subject beforehand. Probably had I read them before, I wouldn’t really have grokked them anyway.
So yes I do believe at the very least leninism is fundamentally rotten. Revolutionary leninist parties turn into sects, electoral leninist parties turn into alternate career paths for the social-conscious lower managerial class. I also regard marxism as a mere historical artifact due to its keystone (materialist dialectics) being pseudoscience that can be used to claim or explain anything and glaring omissions in its social analysis. I do think “post-marxist” thought can be very interesting though; that is, thought that is in line with marxist lineage but deconstructing parts of the marxist orthodoxy.
And I wouldn’t write off a person based on the organization they find themselves in, since many people just want to help and find themselves in one organization or another based on luck. I’m sure many left-anarchists are assholes but I don’t think we’ll ever see a dictatorship that uses left-anarchism as its ideological underpinnings, for obvious reasons.
The point in anarchism is that nobody can be trusted to have coercive power over others, because there’s always that one dipshit who will seek that position of power for selfish ends, or then the position of power corrupts a person to become a dipshit.
Dipshit anarchists aren’t a problem in that sense because they never get into a hierarchical position of power because there are none.
I have absolutely seen power dynamics in anarchist spaces. Nobody is making you work with anyone. I have removed myself from communist and anarchist organizing in the past because I wasn’t vibing with one thing or another. Reducing (or writing off) individuals to their tendency isn’t productive. I’m not asking anarchists to become communists or vice versa, I’m just asking for us to work together where we can.
Interpersonal dynamics are impossible avoid and charismatic people are difficult to deal with in this regard, yes, but those should be easier to address than when there’s institutional structures propping up the dipshit in question.
I’m not against cooperation with more hierarchically structured factions, just explaining my interpretation of what falcunculus was talking about. Like them, I’m also quite wary of the prospect of replacing our current dipshit overlords only to end up with a different dipshit waving a red flag.
How likely do you think it is that we’ll have communist leadership, or broad anarchy in your lifetime? We are fighting for survival and the fascists are painting targets on all of us. I beg you to keep your focus on the present situation when deciding who you will or won’t work with.
As I said, I’m not against cooperation with more hierarchically structured factions.
And to answer your question: I won’t pretend to know. With the current wave of fascism, we might end up with a thousand year reich, or then it crashes and burns and the swing goes the other way real fast. Or maybe nothing happens and capitalism just reinvents itself yet again to sputter along for however long it can (at this rate a century at most).
I used to say this stuff about needing to come together and all. Then I worked with people who called themselves “comrades” until it became obvious I’d been used by awful people who wanted power and who saw hurting others as an unfortunate necessity or even a perk of the job. Then I started paying attention.
It’s not a matter of historical grudges, it’s a question of who we’re propping into power. Arguably less important than avoiding fascism but still very much worth some discusssion.
That is why I’m a solarpunk anarchist!
You had a bad experience with some people, and have made up your mind about a whole political philosophy? Of course there’s asshole communists that are unpleasant to work with. I absolutely cannot believe that you’ve never had similar experience with anarchists. I certainly have, but it hasn’t made me write off anarchism, it just made me write off working with those specific people.
Well I had a bad experience, which made me research the history of the party I was in, and its predecessors, and the underlying ideology; and I found leninism and its branches (ML, trotskyism, maoism, etc) hold as a core tenet that there is a small group of people (the vanguard) who must have absolute uncontested authority over all others and must eliminate all contestation. Regardless of whether you believe that ideology by itself is justifiable, it has historically been used over and over as a rhetorical hammer to justify and fortify the power of power-hungry individuals (this is also true of other marxist branches, even beginning with Marx himself). I learnt “co-secretary” means supreme leader, “materialism” means trust me bro, “democratic centralism” means shut the fuck up, and “petty-bourgeois” means you are a bad person regardless of your actual deeds or social situation.
I also realized that the party sociology was deeply divided, with the upper ranks being political science graduates who were planning a career within the system while the lower ranks thought they were fighting against the system. Votes were a masquerade in which the upper ranks decided what the best outcome would be before discussing how it could be passed — there was absolutely no belief in any “collective wisdom”, only shepherds looking to guide their flock. None of this is part of leninist doctrine, but the social split and patriarchal outlook absolutely were characteristic of Lenin’s party — and is it a wonder that technocrats who look down on the common people would be attracted to an ideology that promotes there being a small cadre of very smart people who should yield absolute power over the rest of them?
All this sounds a bit naive of me; I sort of knew about this stuff before joining, but I didn’t really think it could happen to me, you know? I thought 1920s USSR had little in common with my life, and I just wanted to support some leftist organization that had at least some bite and radical character. I wouldn’t have though it necessary to read all these books and articles on the subject beforehand. Probably had I read them before, I wouldn’t really have grokked them anyway.
So yes I do believe at the very least leninism is fundamentally rotten. Revolutionary leninist parties turn into sects, electoral leninist parties turn into alternate career paths for the social-conscious lower managerial class. I also regard marxism as a mere historical artifact due to its keystone (materialist dialectics) being pseudoscience that can be used to claim or explain anything and glaring omissions in its social analysis. I do think “post-marxist” thought can be very interesting though; that is, thought that is in line with marxist lineage but deconstructing parts of the marxist orthodoxy.
And I wouldn’t write off a person based on the organization they find themselves in, since many people just want to help and find themselves in one organization or another based on luck. I’m sure many left-anarchists are assholes but I don’t think we’ll ever see a dictatorship that uses left-anarchism as its ideological underpinnings, for obvious reasons.
That’s a suspiciously ong reply for someone who’s not a communist ;)
Lol I guess I just like blathering
The point in anarchism is that nobody can be trusted to have coercive power over others, because there’s always that one dipshit who will seek that position of power for selfish ends, or then the position of power corrupts a person to become a dipshit.
Dipshit anarchists aren’t a problem in that sense because they never get into a hierarchical position of power because there are none.
I have absolutely seen power dynamics in anarchist spaces. Nobody is making you work with anyone. I have removed myself from communist and anarchist organizing in the past because I wasn’t vibing with one thing or another. Reducing (or writing off) individuals to their tendency isn’t productive. I’m not asking anarchists to become communists or vice versa, I’m just asking for us to work together where we can.
Interpersonal dynamics are impossible avoid and charismatic people are difficult to deal with in this regard, yes, but those should be easier to address than when there’s institutional structures propping up the dipshit in question.
I’m not against cooperation with more hierarchically structured factions, just explaining my interpretation of what falcunculus was talking about. Like them, I’m also quite wary of the prospect of replacing our current dipshit overlords only to end up with a different dipshit waving a red flag.
How likely do you think it is that we’ll have communist leadership, or broad anarchy in your lifetime? We are fighting for survival and the fascists are painting targets on all of us. I beg you to keep your focus on the present situation when deciding who you will or won’t work with.
As I said, I’m not against cooperation with more hierarchically structured factions.
And to answer your question: I won’t pretend to know. With the current wave of fascism, we might end up with a thousand year reich, or then it crashes and burns and the swing goes the other way real fast. Or maybe nothing happens and capitalism just reinvents itself yet again to sputter along for however long it can (at this rate a century at most).