|
https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1261407090431520768?s=19
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
dex_sda posted:speaking of reading and oral traditions. back when i was drunk on labour day i talked about zapatistas here and someone asked me about where to read more about them and my own knowledge comes from various sources and researching stuff for conversations with other like-minded peeps in the past. so I would have a hard time to give you a good and unbiased reading list. Reitierating that yeah I'd be interested
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
same.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1261486108430524417?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
The Department of Labor has a Hall of Honor and they try to cast Debs as "American" too: George H. W. Bush's Labor Department posted:Labor leader, radical, Socialist, presidential candidate: Eugene Victor Debs was a homegrown American original. He formed the American Railway Union, led the Pullman strike of the 1890s in which he was jailed and emerged a dedicated Socialist. An idealistic, impassioned fighter for economic and social justice, he was brilliant, eloquent and eminently human. As a "radical" he fought for women's suffrage, workmen's compensation, pensions and Social Security — all commonplace today. Five times the Socialist candidate for president, his last campaign was run from federal prison where he garnered almost a million votes. H.W. Bush Inductees: 1989 A. Philip Randolph, Frances Perkins, James P. Mitchell, George Meany, John L. Lewis, Samuel Gompers, John R. Commons, Cyrus S. Ching 1990 Robert F. Wagner, Walter P. Reuther, Henry J. Kaiser, Eugene V. Debs 1991 Philip Murray, Mary Anderson 1992 Mother Jones, Sidney Hillman Clinton: 1993 David Dubinsky 1994 George W. Taylor 1995 Arthur J. Goldberg 1996 William Green 1997 David A. Morse 1998 Cesar E. Chavez 1999 Terence V. Powderly 2000 Joseph A. Beirne W. Bush: 2002 Lane Kirkland, James E. Casey, 9/11 Rescue Workers  2003 Steve Young, Milton Hershey, Paul Hall 2004 Harley-Davidson, Peter J. McGuire 2005 Peter J. Brennan, Robert Wood Johnson 2006 Alfred E. Smith, Charles R. Walgreen 2007 William B. Wilson, Adolphus Busch 2008 Leonard F. Woodcock, John Willard Marriott Obama: 2010 Helen Keller, Justin Dart Jr. 2011 The Workers of the Memphis Sanitation Strike 2012 Dolores Huerta, Mark Ayers, Tony Mazzocchi, Rev. Addie Wyatt, The Pioneers of the Farm Worker Movement 2013 Esther Peterson, Bayard Rustin 2014 The Chinese Railroad Workers, 2015 Janet L. Norwood, Carroll D Wright, Edward (Ted) M. Kennedy 2016 Frank Kameny Trump: 2018 Ronald Reagan, Robert P. Griffin, Howard Jenkins Jr I kind of think Trump is less insulting than Bush's just naming random CEOs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Of course the ex-CIA director would put in Gompers and Meany.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1261340749401972736 Lmfao does my man think that what Adam Smith wrote contradicts what Marx wrote?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
platzapS posted:The Department of Labor has a Hall of Honor and they try to cast Debs as "American" too: Last year I read "American Labor and American Democracy" by William English Walling, which tracks the history of the AFL from the late 1800s through to about 1920, and it does narrate an ideological shift in the labor movement away from socialism per se and into some kind of capitalist-adjacent syndicalism where the labor unions becoming a powerful political force on the national stage becomes the goal in and of itself. They go out of their way to explicitly differentiate themselves from "European Socialism" and instead thinking that there was an exceptionalist The American Way where labor unions coexisting with, and serving as a counter-balance to, capital, was a workable long-term mode of relations. But this was well after Debs had passed and even was at the tail-end of Samuel Gompers's time as AFL leader.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FurlinNick/status/1262164377463070720?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Are anarchist activists (i.e the IWW) as dogmatic as the r/anarchism types? I've been reading some Bookchin lately, and there seems to be a lot of promise in synthesizing Anarchism and Marxism. Edit: Also some of the "Post-Left Anarchist" types are totally whack, it's these guys who got Bookchin to completely break with Anarchism. ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 08:11
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Are anarchist activists (i.e the IWW) as dogmatic as the r/anarchism types? I've been reading some Bookchin lately, and there seems to be a lot of promise in synthesizing Anarchism and Marxism. Yeah as much as we dunk on anarchists online for having some really dumb takes, I've read Kropotkin and Bakunin and have started reading some Malatesta and... it's not objectionable? I can see where they're coming from? I wouldn't personally identify as an anarchist largely because I've made my peace with the need to protect the revolutionary project, the need for centralism, and the need for centralization, but it's not akin to reading things that are largely outside of my ideology where I can recognize off-the-bat that it's wrong (which at this point in my thinking includes liberalism as far as I can tell).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
as a non-anarchist ive never understood the absolute vitriol people always have for them when they come up. a lot of anarchist ideas/theory seem really interesting to think about (but not practice), and as a political force they're probably the one group with less power than us lmao but people go OFF on them constantly. w/e let them live their weird lives
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
Yeah it seems to me that it's more of a case by case thing. Like Anarchism is a lot more tenable for certain regions i.e the Zapatistas and Rojava, and larger-scale movements need more centralism.Varinn posted:as a non-anarchist ive never understood the absolute vitriol people always have for them when they come up. a lot of anarchist ideas/theory seem really interesting to think about (but not practice), and as a political force they're probably the one group with less power than us lmao David Harvey mentions that after the fall of the Soviet Union followed by the WTO protests and OWS, Anarchism is kind of the dominant radical leftist tradition in America. I think a lot of resentment might come from that. ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 08:40 on May 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 08:36
|
|
|
a lot of the self-described anarchists you see online are annoying 'gently caress you dad' types who lash out against any perceived authority without a firm ideological basis. that probably colours things a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah as much as we dunk on anarchists online for having some really dumb takes, I've read Kropotkin and Bakunin and have started reading some Malatesta and... it's not objectionable? I can see where they're coming from? I wouldn't personally identify as an anarchist largely because I've made my peace with the need to protect the revolutionary project, the need for centralism, and the need for centralization, but it's not akin to reading things that are largely outside of my ideology where I can recognize off-the-bat that it's wrong (which at this point in my thinking includes liberalism as far as I can tell). Anarchists are a much more varied group than you think. You got people who follow the ideas of Kropotkin and Bakunin and related thinkers who are very much descendants of Marxist thought, just disagreeing on some readings of the contradictions and disagreeing with the Leninist and Stalinist approach. Zapatistas are like, a practical synthesis of 80% anarchy, 20% Marxism and they're kind of the poster child. I guess I'm in this group. exmarx posted:a lot of the self-described anarchists you see online are annoying 'gently caress you dad' types who lash out against any perceived authority without a firm ideological basis. that probably colours things a bit. And then there are these kinds of people, who are annoying and embarassing. Very much 'libertarian idiots, just less awful morally (e; maybe)' dex_sda fucked around with this message at 11:20 on May 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
Varinn posted:as a non-anarchist ive never understood the absolute vitriol people always have for them when they come up. a lot of anarchist ideas/theory seem really interesting to think about (but not practice), and as a political force they're probably the one group with less power than us lmao Anarchism as an ideology and driver of anti-capitalist revolution is good imo. Ultimately I view myself and the anarchist project as having the same end-state goal with some difficult but workable disagreements on how to get there. otoh goddamn we get a lot of self-described anarchists with no idea what the gently caress anarchism is showing up to organizing or activism work - not to participate, but just to posture and argue about whatever they think we believe. I chalk a lot of this up to online and try to focus on slotting them into whatever work they can't gently caress up for the short time they're there before they get bored or run out for being an rear end in a top hat, but goddamn its a hassle.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Edit: Also some of the "Post-Left Anarchist" types are totally whack, it's these guys who got Bookchin to completely break with Anarchism. A bunch of dudes sitting around deciding they are "BEYOND POLITICS". The entire lineage of Stirner is absolute horseshit. Also if you're looking for some good chuckles read "days of war, nights of love."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
LittleBlackCloud posted:A bunch of dudes sitting around deciding they are "BEYOND POLITICS". The entire lineage of Stirner is absolute horseshit. Also if you're looking for some good chuckles read "days of war, nights of love." until I was explicitly told so, I assumed that anyone quoting Stirner was an advanced Fight Club nihilist, or like, a libertarian. finding out that they were considered "left" really blew my mind.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Edit: Also some of the "Post-Left Anarchist" types are totally whack, it's these guys who got Bookchin to completely break with Anarchism.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterawolf/status/1262108319210065920
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
i still maintain that engels made max stirner up to troll marx. as evidence i'll note the only image of stirner is an illustration drawn by engels and "max" is like a generic german version of "joe blow" and stirner means forehead
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
yeah but i'm thinking that if nathan j. robinson tried to pass himself off as working class that'd be even worse than leaning into his nawlins dandy persona
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
http://exiledonline.com/elite-versus-elitny/quote:Unlike Russia’s elite, America’s liberal elite is completely deluded about who they are and what the American people have become. So I’ll say it again: stop pretending that you’re not elite. Instead, try and be MORE elitist than you really are. It’s the only way you’ll ever get respect.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
brilliant
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah as much as we dunk on anarchists online for having some really dumb takes, I've read Kropotkin and Bakunin and have started reading some Malatesta and... it's not objectionable? I can see where they're coming from? I wouldn't personally identify as an anarchist largely because I've made my peace with the need to protect the revolutionary project, the need for centralism, and the need for centralization, but it's not akin to reading things that are largely outside of my ideology where I can recognize off-the-bat that it's wrong (which at this point in my thinking includes liberalism as far as I can tell). There's a lot of bad blood between marxists and anarchists, mainly over historical incidents that have little bearing in the here and now. I do think there is an unsolvable tension between state socialists and anarchists. Before a revolution these two groups can find common cause, but that all ends when a revolution actually emerges. Both sides have might have the same general end goal but socialists insistence on using the state to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently contradictory with anarchist thought. In which case anarchists are forced to either except the socialist state as genuinely revolutionary (and thus compromise their principals), or oppose the state socialists as a new breed of capitalist. Of course I'm arguing from the state socialist perspective of anarchists. A perspective which has lead socialists to view anarchists as a sort of fifth column among the radical left. From a socialist's point of view anarchists are ultraleftists. That is to say they push revolutionary conditions passed the point of practicality, which is counterproductive at best and endangering the revolution at worst. Which has led to socialists preemptively purging anarchists. A practice which understandably feeds into anarchist's perception of socialists as a new oppressor. In modern times the distinction between anarchist and communist has become less important. With capitalism having no counterbalance and revolutions like the ezln and zapatistas blurring the lines between state and statelessness. However, I'm of the opinion that this mixed approach is only viable on smaller scales where there are no illusions about defining the future of human history.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
one thing I'd add to the pile, also, is for every 'gently caress you dad' anarchist without an ideological backing that won't compromise despite successful anarchist societies doing so sometimes, there is a weird bloodlust powerhungry kind of tankie that poisons the discourse from that side. both those are overrepresented online, esp on reddit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
you're saying that weird obsessive dickheads comprise an equal portion of the population regardless of ideology. on the internet, no lesd
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:you're saying that weird obsessive dickheads comprise an equal portion of the population regardless of ideology. on the internet, no lesd 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
imho the fundamental contradiction between the state and revolution is irresolvable in the context of established ideological thought and terminology. and it will only ever be resolved by the praxis of a successful socialist revolutionary state that incorporates both in synthesis
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:In modern times the distinction between anarchist and communist has become less important. With capitalism having no counterbalance and revolutions like the ezln and zapatistas blurring the lines between state and statelessness. However, I'm of the opinion that this mixed approach is only viable on smaller scales where there are no illusions about defining the future of human history. I'm curious about your reasoning vis a vis the incompatibility of such mixed approaches with larger scales. It seems like full central planning has a lot of downsides at larger scales--especially longterm, ie: less agility to correct mistakes, dependence on longer chains of communication to determine individual needs, and more opportunity for graft.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
I’ve found that most diehard left-wing ideologues, whether anarchist or communist, are usually at least a little bit posturing and they are usually nicer and less irony-poisoned if you talk to them outside the venue of twitter or public Internet forums. The one Marxist-Leninist I met in real life was really nice and I would hang out with him again. unrelated: https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1262268575559147521?s=21
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’ve found that most diehard left-wing ideologues, whether anarchist or communist, are usually at least a little bit posturing and they are usually nicer and less irony-poisoned if you talk to them outside the venue of twitter or public Internet forums. The one Marxist-Leninist I met in real life was really nice and I would hang out with him again. the layers of perfection on this joke are just unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
I trash anarchists online because I try to be cordial and professional with people I may need to work with in real life. This is my outlet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
LittleBlackCloud posted:I'm curious about your reasoning vis a vis the incompatibility of such mixed approaches with larger scales. It seems like full central planning has a lot of downsides at larger scales--especially longterm, ie: less agility to correct mistakes, dependence on longer chains of communication to determine individual needs, and more opportunity for graft. "Full central planning" has only existed on incredibly localized scales. Even the Soviet Union had small businesses that were mostly run day to day without government interference (incredibly high standards regarding regulations notwithstanding) Also you're making a lot of assumptions about planned economies based on one historical timeframe. If we could magically transition the world to a planned economy you can bet modern computing power and lack of capitalist encirclement would produce far different results from those attempted by the ml states that had to make the transition from feudalism to industrialized society ASAP. At the very least the idea that planned economies offer "more opportunity for graft" is only true in the sense that market economies factor the graft in and declare it legal. Look at tech, the most valuable industry in the world and it is run almost entirely on grifting money from venture capitalists. It's not a stretch to argue the entire concept of exploitation is in itself a form of graft, but we are indoctrinated from a young age to view it as natural economic laws. Thus absurd corruption appears to us as the invisible hand of the freemarket.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
The Soviet Union is ironically another good example, it's history is one of increasing liberalization (including market reforms) coupled with increasing inefficiency and diminishing returns
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:22
|
|
Kurnugia posted:imho the fundamental contradiction between the state and revolution is irresolvable in the context of established ideological thought and terminology. and it will only ever be resolved by the praxis of a successful socialist revolutionary state that incorporates both in synthesis I don't think it's irresolvable at all. Anarchism and statism are two necessary components of a socialist movement. You need the statists to handle all the boring poo poo the vast majority of people do not want to bother themselves with and the anarchists to keep advocating for their local poo poo so you have idea of what that local area needs. It's a huge pain in the rear end to micro-manage things (which nerds don't learn because video games simplify it for them) on big scales so any socialist project of significant scale will by it's very nature need state socialists to organize the big overhead stuff while the anarchists handle the small scale stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
From what I understand, even Anarcho-syndicalism presumes central planning, just in a form where decision making is more horizontal. Edit: Also what's with the hate for Jacobin and Bhaskar Sunakra. Jacobin was kind of my introduction to socialism. ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 20:12 on May 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
Lady Militant posted:I don't think it's irresolvable at all. Anarchism and statism are two necessary components of a socialist movement. You need the statists to handle all the boring poo poo the vast majority of people do not want to bother themselves with and the anarchists to keep advocating for their local poo poo so you have idea of what that local area needs. It's a huge pain in the rear end to micro-manage things (which nerds don't learn because video games simplify it for them) on big scales so any socialist project of significant scale will by it's very nature need state socialists to organize the big overhead stuff while the anarchists handle the small scale stuff. yeah, thats the obvious basis for where to begin, but actually building this synthetic state is something that has never been succesfully achieved so far, for reasons specific to each attempt so far. that 'shining city on a hill' is how anglophones put it?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 20:37
|
|
Kurnugia posted:yeah, thats the obvious basis for where to begin, but actually building this synthetic state is something that has never been succesfully achieved so far, for reasons specific to each attempt so far. that 'shining city on a hill' is how anglophones put it? The capitalists don't seem to let failure stop them, why should we?
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:From what I understand, even Anarcho-syndicalism presumes central planning, just in a form where decision making is more horizontal. kind of, a cooperatively planned economy is the way. so there is planning, just more decentralized and horizontal, as you say
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 20:50
|
|