On Cognitive Dissonance
On Cognitive Dissonance
As more mainstream libs are discovering Lemmy, we're seeing a pattern of complaints that opinions outside the ones they deem acceptable are allowed on the platform. We've even seen instances defederating because their userbase does not wish to be exposed to these views.
Interestingly, these are the same people who level censorship and control of free speech as their main critique of communists. What we're seeing is that these people absolutely don't care about free speech. They understand the necessity of censorship and actively advocate censoring opinions that they find dangerous. Yet, when societies based on values different from their own use these same tools they screech about authoritarianism.
Turns out it's not authoritarianism libs hate, but having their own views censored. What actually offends them about places like China is that it's their ideology that's being suppressed there.
You're viewing a single thread.
'Anarchists' doing authoritarian censorship because of 'tankies' really makes you
It's illustrative to see that when push comes to shove anarchists tend to side with the liberals on most issues. I find that in genral anarchism is the left equivalent of libertarianism on the right.
This isn't necessarily the case, see Hexbear. I think the most important questions when parsing who we can work with (among anarchists or libertarians, for that matter), are:
- Does this person genuinely want to improve the world for other people?
- Is this person serious enough about that to address the practical implications of stuff like "what do you do when fascists want to start a newspaper on Day 1 of your leftist utopia?"
- Can this person be peeled away from the bipartisan consensus on imperialism?
- Does this person have any other reactionary opinions (e.g., bigotry) that they are unable or unwilling to improve on?
I agree with all that, and I'm never going to discourage anyone from working with other people whose goals are compatible with your own.
I think the issues with anarchism aren't with the goals which are largely compatible with ones that MLs have, but rather with the methodology. Vast majority of people who subscribe to anarchism mean well, but often reject effective methods for organizing and effecting change at scale.
For example, I find the rejection of authority to be highly problematic when it comes to building an effective movement. It's simply not possible for large groups of people to organize and to keep long term consistent goals in absence of centralization. You end up with many fractured groups each having their own idea pulling things in different directions, and a movement rife with opportunists. This is precisely what we see happening with western left at the moment.
There needs to be a consistent vision and some form of a vanguard whose job it is to ensure that all the different groups are pulling in the same direction. There also needs to be a common theory of change that everyone understands in a similar enough way to work together effectively.
In my experience, anarchists often tend to make the mistake of assuming that majority of people naturally shares their ideas, and if current system could somehow be torn down then we'd naturally enter an anarchist utopia. Of course, the reality, is that if the current system did happen to collapse, then it would be groups that have good organization that will end up coming into power. If the left fails to become disciplined then it will be the right that takes over.
Just to defend the vast majority of people who subscribe to anarchism a little, ime huge amount of self proclaimed anarchists don't have particularly strong opinions on methods for organizing or effecting change at scale, mostly because a lot haven't done much organizing. In my experiences with anarchist types they're pretty flexible on the methods part just because it's nice to do anything for a change and doing basic organizing in the maximally anarchist fashion can just get exhausting.
Granted i'm mostly talking abt like new to leftism anarchist by default types but the anarchists who're ideologically committed to the point of opposing all centralization in organizing bc authority are overrepresented online and irl MLs are incredibly unlikely to even have a chance to work with them.
For sure, anarchism is far less stigmatized in the west and therefore it's natural for left leaning people who fall out of the mainstream to get interest in anarchism. I suspect that a lot of people who start seriously thinking about what it takes to effect systemic change end up moving closer to ML point of view later on.
I consider myself an anarcho-communist; it isn't always a rejection of authority but of unjustifiable hierarchies.
Your statement:
“Vast majority of people who subscribe to anarchism mean well, but often reject effective methods for organizing and effecting change at scale.”
is overly simplistic. If were gonna throw out stereotypes, MLs aren't really all that experienced in organizing anything outside a book club. Black Bloc anarchists have been organising street-level protests for years. It wasn't an ML that punched Richard Spencer….
Looking at selfproclaimed anarchists from instances other than hexbear and what they write, the answer is:
- No. They declare so, but then behave like typical crackers. Even the most belivable examples ultimately side or bothside with fash against AES and/or other antiimperialists.
- No. Sometimes they try, but what they say is idealist wishful thinking.
- No. They have zero understanding what imperialism is. At best they will bothside conflicts.
- Yes, not always but often, after some scratching. In case of libertarians its always yes.
Permanently Deleted
I find it really weird when people spend more time worrying about other niche leftists groups more than about the capitalist mainstream. The reality of the situation is that we live under neoliberal capitalism and society is far away from any form of left ideology. Fixating on how much you hate other types of leftists in this scenario instead of figuring out how to dismantle the system that's oppressing you is misguided to put it mildly. It would be great if we get to the point where the question of whether we want to have a society based on ML or anarchist principles was meaningful to ask. We're simply not there yet.
I know It is a hard take but I feel like anarchists got infiltrated just like we did and the worst of unproductive elements are downstream from some three letter agency interference. There is no smoking gun but when I encounter it, it feels like it has cia craftsmanship you know.
There is actually a smoking gun https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
Anarchism is pretty much designed to make it easy to infiltrate. You have no central authority, so anybody can say they're just doing it their own way. There's no formal structure or means of recall, so you end up with implicit power structures forming around charismatic individuals. The ideology is very broad and nebulous allowing for many creative interpretations leading to ineffective action.
I think it's also worth noting how anarchism is constantly promoted in the media. Lots of shows and comics teach people about dangers of authority, and promote ad hoc spontaneous organization over collective action. Anarchism provides a safety relief valve for people to vent their frustration without causing any threat to the system as a whole.
Meanwhile, effective organization such as what MLK, Fred Hampton, and Black Panthers results in violent suppression by the state. That's how we know that ML style organization is seen as a real and credible threat by the system while anarchism is not.
Well fuck me, it really is always just cointelpro isn't it?
always has been