Yes, this is a sub-sub-tweet. Anyway, I was wondering how prevalent this attitude was outside of the Twitter ☭TANKIE☭-sphere. I know there are some MLs that hate Anarchists so much that they spend most of their shitposting power against us instead of fascists or liberals, but this seems to be a sizable minority if not a majority of Twitter MLs, whereas I don’t see it as much here. What really pisses me off is that you literally can’t have a good faith conversation with these people. Since they consider me and my ilk to be enemy of the revolution number one (for whatever reason), they view every interaction with us as a verbal duel. Instead of viewing us as I view them, as comrades with a different ideological background and praxis but comrades nonetheless, they view us as literally white supremacists and western chauvinists.
ML Anti-Anarchist Aktion
imo they're actually talking about the most prevalent form of anarchism, which is liberal anarchism, which supports fascism
some anarchists are good and will side with marxists, but most western anarchists are not.
reminder that 90% of the twitter left is absolute cancer. i've been on imageboards for like 4 years and the stupidity on here is nothing compared to twitter.
I'd say these types are a different beast to the kinds of tanks and Stalinstaches you'd see around here or Zig Forums. Really their main beef with anarchism basically comes down to you're a white male REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and nothing else, in which most twitter anarchists will try to counter signal with their own esjeyduba points. Most of ☭TANKIE☭ twitter is really anti Jason Unruhe and Finbol too.
Most American anarchists are insufferable but so are most American marxists
That goes double for the ones on Twitter
Take this to /leftytrash/ pls
Hal is right insofar that racism is reinforced through adopting a social role perpetuating a system of oppression. For example, a black cop reinforces white supremacy not because he is personally racist but because the role he inhabits is racist, as part of a racist system. Same goes for people who are not personally racist but are active in a racist political organisation - such as Obama deporting more immigrants then any other President combined. Racism is ultimately political, not personal.
"Whiteness", however, is a reactionary category. Racism won't be resolved through a conflict between "whites" and "persons of color", but through a class struggle of labor against capital. Sometimes this struggle unfolds in a racialized manner, but even in that regard that struggle is still not a struggle of whites against non-whites, and even if it were the case, we would not necessarily support that struggle if it turned out to be a struggle of capital against labor, or subordinated labor to capital. For example, in the case of a black boss cracking down on striking white workers, we would support the workers. But the system of racial oppression is, at least in the US, intrinsically connected to the workings of capitalism, so if the workers constructed a slogan that could be interpreted as racist, we would oppose such a slogan because the conflict isn't between non-whites and whites but between labor and capital, who's struggle is necessarily a political struggle, so framing that struggle in terms of race rather than class can undermine the independence of a working class politics.
What racism and nationalism does is divide the working class, and have the workers identify themselves with the bosses who look like them instead of their fellow workers. White labor and black labor have more common interest with each other than they do with the capitalists of their respective races. The most fundamental principle of Marxism and of Leninism is that of the political independence of the working class separate from the bosses.
Something I've never understood is how these people can talk about nebulous spooky concepts like "whiteness" as if they have a concrete, immutable existence. The fact is that whiteness, or national identity, or masculinity, have no material reality, and thus as concepts they can be reshaped in whatever form we want, and thus don't necessarily need to be opposed inherently, merely opposed in their conventional incarnation.
As an aside, Hal is wrong in condemning members of the military however. A soldier is not the same thing as a police officer, and leftist soldiers shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
yeah, sure.
It's not that these ideas do not have any materiality, because all ideas arise from material experience, but that the ideas are abstractions, removed from the material reality that its supposed to reflect.
The problem with the postmodern obsession of finding content without form, for example, the obsession of the anarchist for "spontaneity", of finding a proletarian politics without a party to give this content political form, representing itself through attempting to construct "empty" forms without content is that there is no such thing as a formless content nor can there be a contentless form. All content have form, and all form have content. Through the act of constituting any given content, we give it form; the problem is that this constitution is not merely a mental process but a mental process that reflects a material reality. Ideas are never disconnected from materiality, but are a reflection of it.
The struggle of the working class becomes necessarily a political struggle. To reject giving form to the elemental struggle through a political organization is to submit that struggle to the already existing political forms - which is to say bourgeois politics. For without a political organization of the working class to separate itself, and maintain its own independence politically from the class of capital, working class politics will inevitably be subordinated to the politics of the bourgeoisie.
It is important to have the right ideas, to speak the right slogans, to have the right platform, because without socialist theory, there is no independent working class politics. To reject objectivity for an idealist conception of "spooks" is fundamentally anti-working class.
This is just sophistry. These things only mean something in the context in which they're evoked. Their material reality is realized in the consequences upon the lives of people who they're employed against.
Spooks they may be, but they haunt the minds of a great many Liberals and people in power, and in that they gain their power.
The issue being that these exist within the context as defined over centuries by the bourgeoisie, used to destroy working-class coalitions nationally and internationally. If you want to try and rehabilitate them, go forth with God by your side.
That context is material, not mental. It's not just that ideas are rendered meaningful through their "materialization", the context that constitutes this "materialization" is itself material. Ideas don't have meaning in some transhistorical sense, outside of history, ideas themselves are reinvented whenever they are reconstituted. It's not that these ideas are defined as such and such, but that beliefs have believers and these believers are part of a system which the beliefs arise from or at the very least are situated within.
so they're sorta like terms like "bourgeois" that only have meaning in marxist circles?
No. Capitalism and the capitalist class are real, they exist objectively regardless of whatever you call them.
But how we refer to reality is important because truth is important. A working class politics not based on the truth will ultimately fail. Ideas, yes, are abstractions, but they’re abstractions from an objective reality, and that should never be forgotten.
If you don’t believe in the value of truth, you don’t belong on the Left.
Its not just about “meaning”. To reduce politics to “meaning” and without investigating what meanings are supposed to reflect and where they originate is idealist and reactionary.
To be fair, the last tweet is correct in that anarchism was something which solely developed in the West. Proudhon and Bakunin were both inspired by Kant and Hegel, not the Qur'an or Buddha.
Real in what sense? What makes something real to you?
How does one catch the master-signifier?
Well this is really fucking stupid. No state has a "right to exist"; your state only has a "right" to whatever it can adequately defend on its own.
That largely applies to Marxism Leninism and Post Colonial theory too, in the sense they are mainly based off western philosophical traditions. Hakim Bey's anarchism is much more "eastern" than what any twitter ☭TANKIE☭ honestly.
his feels
what any twitter ☭TANKIE☭ believes honestly*
Newsflash: most communist movements are just facades for nonwhite ethnocentrism.
Why would it be in my material interests to end white imperial dominance?
True, but these ideas have proven to be highly malleable, in some cases even independently of significant material changes. Or alternatively, if a material change is necessary, socialists could easily promote an alternative notion of nationalism or patriotism alongside a socialist program, so as to transform it from a reactionary into a revolutionary force upon the introduction of the material changes that revolution would bring. The fact is that these radlibs on twitter take a conventional social concept like whiteness or America (the idea of the American nation), point to its traditional incarnations and all their reactionary tendencies, and then proceed to categorically reject them as concepts. Instead we should see the potential for these things to be coopted for progressive purposes, ie reform them to our own ends. I believe this is possible because while ideas are broadly reflections of material factors, they do also operate within their own realm, they evolve with a certain degree of autonomy from the material.
The irony is, postcolonial theory (which is mainly literary theory, not political philosophy) derives its methodology from people like Levinas, Benjamin, and Derrida, who were all strongly traditional Jewish thinkers.
It's almost as if Palestinians suck at de-occupying their minds too.
I haven't seen anything "postcolonial" theory derive its methodology from Derrida beyond a namedrop in support of a dime-a-dozen thing x isn't as real as they say, so what it really is is a trick by the white man to keep the poc down production line papers and articles.
PoCo relies heavily on deconstruction to my knowledge.
Calling someone white on left is how you win arguments on left Twitter.
These autistic liberals aren't representative of ML lmao
Thanks dude. Same with my experience IRL parties. Most (serious) ML parties are always leaning towards anti-IdPol, while almost definitely respecting the struggles of racial minorities at the same time, which is a good mix for me (if the party is run by really old dudes they might not give a shit about gays and trans people but then on the other hand you have tons of liberals already fighting for them so w/e).
The people in these screencaps use communism as a front to advocate for black/Asian ethno-nationalism, plain and simply. Just when you notice that an account which identifies as a communist talks 95% of the time about black nationalism (and I don't mean anti-racism, I mean black nationalism with posts a la "kill all whites tbh") than they talk about communism or Marxism, this should raise a hugeeee red flag. Generally a problem with the ML online community as well, not so much on YouTube (Jason, FinnBol, Hakim, Endymion, etc. are all reasonable), but Twitter is infested with this radlibs. The ML bubble is one of the most horrible Twitter spheres you can be in, and the ML community can only blame himself when more intelligent young communists are naturally drawn to the nihilistic Leftcom community - which is pretty cancerous in other ways (anime profile pictures, "let's have a marxist analysis of this popcultural phenomenon", etc) but at least you won't be shamed for your skin color.
while always respecting*
Every account that goes "I love when this white cracker talks about XY" gets ignored by me. Seriously, and I know I'm using Zig Forums tier arguments here, you have to unironically be a cuck to go along with that - yes, a cuck, because you are not denying atrocities committed within the history of the white race, or ongoing racism against PoC, but because you are being okay with being shamed for your skin color. Fuck these people, I've been in communist orgs since 7 years now, fuck them so much.
Reality isn't dependent upon mere personal interpretation. It doesn't matter if it's real to me, what matters is that it is real period, through scientific investigation. It is an undeniable fact that capitalism is real and so are its class divisions.
Class under capitalism exists in two dimensions, apolitically through the machinations of the economy, and politically through the unfolding of the class struggle. One is bourgeois or proletarian regardless of whether or not they believe they are or not. Classes are objective social roles born from a system of productive social relations, not just identities. Capitalism creates the conditions for science, for the ability to scientifically understand the movement of society, therefore opening the possibility for the proletariat to become self-aware of its own social role so as to break with capital and establish an independent politics.
There is a difference between a class in itself and a class for itself, and do not confuse the two. There is a difference between the proletariat and the people. "The people" do not exist in itself, it is divided into classes, with, under capitalism, places capital or labor as the hegemonic class. "The people" as such is constituted politically through organs of "democracy". There is a difference between a class in itself and a class for itself, and do not confuse the two. There is a difference between the Party and the class. The constitution of the proletariat politically for itself is not the same as the class in itself.
Fuck off. All arguments based on a postmodern individualism based on a reductionist psychoanalysis can be used to explain that any arguments constitute feels > reals because the premises of such an argument is that knowledge is based on personal feelings. In other words, they're can argue anything is based on feelings because they're idealists where all knowledge is rendered personal. A reality exists, and it can be understood through science. If you don't believe in science or reality, you're a reactionary.
You're forgetting the dimension of class under capitalism, that of capital and labor. Labor requires capital to exist, and capital requires labor. Without employers you can't have employees, and vice versa. Because capital constitutes itself as the ruling class, this relation of presupposition can represent itself as a relation of dependency, as the common interest between capital and labor conceal the exploitation inherent in their relation, leading to the politics of the working class becoming subordinated to the politics of the bourgeoisie.
Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, it is the ideology of progressive capitalism. You cannot have communism without capitalism, as you can't have a proletariat without a bourgeoisie. It is through liberalism that the ground is seeded with the potential of socialism; just as communism is the fulfillment of the logic capitalism, communism is the fulfillment of the values of liberalism. Erstwhile Communism presupposes many liberal values, and in a sense is the realization of the values of liberalism inhibited by capitalism, liberalism itself must be ruthlessly criticized, to establish and maintain the independence of the working class. What a capitulation to nationalism represents is the subordination of the politics of labor to the politics of capital. The fundamental principle of Marxism is the political Independence of the working class.
Yes, I believe that it is necessary for the Left to "co-opt" these values, but not because of the "relative autonomy" of the superstructure to the base. To a certain extent, not all ideas are themselves the direct result of the specifics of the process of production, but through the unfolding of the class struggle, these ideas become politically subordinated to that struggle. As you said, an idea in one case would be progressive and in another would be reactionary, and it is through the unfolding of the class struggle whether these ideas are understood to be progressive or reactionary. To argue for these ideas by arguing for the "autonomy" of the superstructure, is to, in reality, deny the class roots of these ideas.
Jesus Christ, whats with the IdPol? It's not a new thing but every time they somehow manage to make it worse. Fucking Derrideans, or foucauldians, aren't as bad.
Not a Leftcom or anything but I don't think "anime profile pictures" are on the same level as stupid pandering marxist analysis of vapid popculture or unironic ethnonationalism
How many pictures do you have of anime girls smoking a hookah and where can I find more?
safebooru.org
You can try the other booru's and Sankaku too but I personally prefer using safebooru for non lewds/porn
I didn't see ☭TANKIE☭s in portland
Thank you, Stalin-kun
Because what you call ☭TANKIE☭s are
A) faggots like on twitter
B) serious people that Don't want to get mixed with liberal faggots like antifa
I know Phil Greaves had a major fight with these people.
reminder that OP is a faggot and to sage
Oh look! It's twitter leftists being retarded again.
Yeah Phil isn't the worst personality on ML twitter by far, tho he still exhibits a lot of the moralistic personality traits that are common on ML twitter even if he isn't a esjaydubya/'idpoler". Honestly Unruhe might actually be the best ML personality with a large number of followers on left twitter. Its also kind of bizarre because in a lot of ways Unruhe is much less of a third worldist than most of ☭TANKIE☭ twitter, despite being one of the few who proclaims himself as such
With greaves I think it's because he doesn't really have a sense of humor not out of moralism
...
GRINGOS BEING GRINGOS IN THEIR OWN FART BUBBLE WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED
we have this thread every day please stop
Tbh I've seen plenty of critiques of anarchism, these twitter MLs are not representative of MLs in general and at least their criticism may be based on theory and praxis. But this whole trend of "hurr durr anarchism is white supremacy" is fucking retarded.
I think that both Marxist-Leninists and anarchists need to be less ideologically pure, and more pragmatic. Ideologically I'm an anarchist, but I'll support a ML revolution, as it serves to increase the quality of life for the proletariat, and helps remove the shackles of capital. I hope that any MLs here would be do the same with an anarchist revolution in order to be able to form a popular front.
That said, I wouldn't support an extremely authoritarian state-capitalist regime. Left unity only goes so far.
Does this include, say, the USSR? Because if so it sounds like you'e saying "I'd support a revolution led by Marxist-Leninists but not the logical conclusion of that revolution."
...
I'd support the USSR under Lenin, but I'm not such a fan of Stalin. I think that the idea of socialism in one country, and the cult of personality surrounding him (granted, there was still some around Lenin, but it seemed more organic), and the centralization of power away from the Soviets, are somewhat contradictory to socialism.
That said, I'm not super knowledgeable about the history of the USSR. That's something I've been meaning to look into more recently.
You really should. Because Lenin NEP was state capitalism, stalin built socialism
All these hoes are mad that a rich white Chad never took an interest in them. They wanted to be "confirmed" as a "valuable" female.
Those "tankies" sound like COINTELPRO trying to shut down any meaningful discussion among leftists with their own
special branch of idpol. DO NOT allow these people in your organization.
Uwu
Jesus fuck that's retarded.
But not more retarded than this.
No, you're right, anime profile pictures are far worse than the latter two.
Nobody should be banned
>>>/reddit/
Can we stop this terrible habit of twitter-obsessed faggots collecting screencaps of other twitter-obsessed faggots to smear anarchism or marxism-leninism? You should know by now that the anarchists and MLs of Zig Forums are not the same as the "anarchism is racist" or "leninism is fascist" twitter crowd.
If you dislike Zig Forums's anarchists or MLs then actually engage them instead of showcasing a bunch of LARPers as proxy for ideological debate.
check out post-left and individualist anarchism, and postmodern anarchism (pic related)
ML twitter loves Tito and hates Hoxha, that says it all tbqh
Anarchists are lots of things but "white supremacist" isn't really the first thing that comes to mind
If you don't specifically attack all instances of white oppression with utmost fervor, you are personally responsible for racist outcomes. Every time you let slide some piece of shit "these idpol blacks/asians aren't true communism" ideology only works toward encouraging people to ignore race and gender. And in the end you'll have another white supremacist anti-woman "socialist" state. Please quit spouting this nonsense because every time you do is more proof you're a class-dividing racist.
