the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Funny cuz most of the anarchists on
are the ones screaming at you to vote for Joe.
Gonna have to defend the honor of anarchists here - those aren't real anarchists.
I was on r/anarchism for a while, anyone serious left reddit long ago, that sub was fairly active over a year ago but is dead last I saw
As a former anarchist, the western anarchist movement had a bit of a weird liberal undercurrent for a while. I knew people who were pretty solid comrades in most regards, did really good local activism, but whenever discussion left the US borders things got... weird. There was always weird takes on AES states and US foreign policy. I never knew an anarchist back then who was straight up PRO-Iraq War but I knew a few who were gun-shy about coming out fully anti-war cuz they didn't want to come of as "Saddam apologists". Hence the rise of NATO-anrchists didn't really surprise me as much as some people.
You think if it originated more in the context of the Global South, that Anarchism would be less 'libby' and more better on political views
I mean, it's still prbly gonna ultra-left but come on....
I've only encountered a handful but yeah I would say non-western anarchists tend to have better perspectives on geopolitics.
The ones in the global south are more or less the same. Find leftists in AES countries doing CIA work and you’ll find Anarchists. Didn’t Pussy Riot claim to be Anarchists?
lol. lmao. reddit anarchists have always been shitty.
sincerely,
a former reddit anarchist who hasn't logged into the site in four years
Hot take: I don't really like this whole "they aren't REAL [insert ideology]", it's a game anyone can play, and win, and feels like a bit of a cop out. The definition of a political ideology is malleable and changes all the time, anyone can come up with their own interpretation and the only thing really determining it's validity is it's popularity. If Vaush became as popular as Kropotkin was in his day and remained that way long enough his interpretation would be as valid.
I think it's better to attack them on more solid grounds than whether it's a real/not real interpretation, you can say it's ridiculous, contradictory, in contrast to pretty much every other earlier interpretation, but it's not really "fake", no more or less so than any idea floating in the human collective consciousness.
??? “If Racist Pedophile Marx became more popular than Regular Marx his interpretation would be as valid.” This doesn’t work, this isn’t some “no true Scotsman” fallacy, these people are genuinely just not anarchists by definition. Like, yeah, they call themselves as such, but I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’m saying they’re wrong about anarchism
Not "valid" in the moral sense, but it would be a "valid" in the sense that people would consider it an interpretation, a horrible, awful one, but it would exist. We don't really pull this with anyone to our Right politically, nobody really gives a fuck that modern MAGA doesn't seem to have anything to do with Thomas Sowell or William F Buckley Jr.
But who sets the definition? With Marxism you do have the fact the ideology is named after a specific guy so you can argue people who claim to be "Marxist" but who's conceptualization of Marxism is too far from Marx's original ideas are operating in error, but even early anarchism had a lot of internal divisions and wildly different interpretation.
Idk I’m
actually
Here's the thing, people have different conceptualizations of what a "hierarchy" is. Plus a lot of anarchists say they're only opposed to "unjustified hierarchy". I think how the AnCaps conceptualize it is that me declaring myself feudal baron over the parcel of land I acquired by being such a brilliant entrepreneur is a justified hierarchy, cuz I actually earned that unlike the evil guberment. That completely falls apart in practice, which is what we should be attacking them on.
With NATO-Anarchists I think their logic is "lesser-of-two-hierarchy-ism", they see NATO and the West as hierarchical, but Russian Nationalism and Chinese Dengism are WORSE hierarchies, so unless full anarchism is on the table you should support NATO in the short term.
See the thing is these bull-crap pseudo-left ideologies usually have a kernel of logic to them, unlike the far right which is just willfully incoherent mind palace shit. We should be attacking them on the logic of it, not having semantic debates about what is and isn't an actual anarchist.
We can push him left if we make him google Murray Bookchin. That's my only demand.