Anarchism

2310 readers
2 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
101
 
 

More about FreeQuency and their fantastic work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mwende_Katwiwa

https://www.freequencyspeaks.com/media

Video transcript:

This is for the 45 lies campaign.

The title of this piece is 1 through 45 have lied, 46 through 100 will be no different. And it is in conversation with the piece "I want a dyke for president" by Zoe Leonard.

Oh silly humans, how quickly we forget.

We who were once ruled by thrones and those who told us they were born to sit upon them.

We the descendants of those who overthrew dynasties and decapitated dictators.

Who are we, in this moment, to not remember how much we've already overcome.

How dare we dream so small.

No, I don't want another four years of Trump.

I don't want any republican for president.

But I don't want a democrat either.

No democrats, no dykes, no people who've been unemployed.

I don't want a black woman in office.

Not Oprah, Ava or even Michelle.

No immigrants in the oval.

I don't care how many or which drugs they've done, I don't want a president at all.

After all, what is a president but a small king?

An emperor whose new clothes I cannot see.

An agreement we made collectively that we can unmake just as easily.

I pledge no allegiance to America because white men defiled it with borders and called the result a country.

I do not confuse dying to vote with dying for freedom even though they meant the same thing at one time in history.

I will not beg for a seat at a table whose legs are bent backs and we dine only on scarcity.

I want us to dare to dream beyond the dictates of this dystopia.

To say that the ending that so many feared was coming came long ago and we have simply been living in it's shadow.

I want us to admit more than this being a failure from the start.

To say America never was great and never can be.

That sometimes, sometimes the rot is so deep in the root that a pruning does not breed possibility.

That the only hope for a harvest lies in the fields being re-sown entirely.

And I wanna know why this isn't possible.

I wanna know why we started learning somewhere down the line that a president is always needed, that a country is always needed, that the police are always needed, that any of this has ever been and will always be needed.

And I wanna know how after slavery, genocide, colonialism and all of the ways that they've renamed the taking, how in the world that they convinced us that they knew how to run one better than we did, or do.

And I know it's sometimes hard to imagine that all of us can truly get free, but I need you to believe that we already are.

I need you to believe that we always have been, no matter the master or the monarch, but only if we dare to dream beyond what we can see, only if we understood that re-skinning or re-gendering the beast would never change a rumbling in it's belly.

See sometimes, sometimes I daydream I will live to see a day that a child is born so free that they will hear this poem and wonder what the hell a president even is.

And I believe that we can do it.

And I accept that we will be ourselves in the doing.

I accept that there will be disagreement, that we will conflict as we unravel our imposed inhumanity, as we realize that we have less to learn than to unlearn as we remember our collective body.

And I wanna know why this isn't possible.

I wanna know why we started learning somewhere down the line that a president is always needed, that a country is always needed, that the police are always needed, that any of this has ever been and will always be needed.

And I wanna know how we were asked to write to one lie, from one president in one poem, as if the sum of this country's presidencies have been anything but an untruth.

45 lies, yes, but so did 44 and so will 46, and so will our writing if we do not speak to the entirety of this.

Oh silly writers, how quickly we forget.

We who were once ruled by thrones and those that told us they were born to sit upon them.

We the descendants of those who overthrew dynasties and decapitated dictators.

Who are we, in this moment, to not remember how much we've already overcome.

How dare we write so small.

102
103
104
105
 
 

For such a useful website it has a really annoying pop-up.

106
107
 
 

I just read this essay by Dan La Botz from 2022 which '[...] examines the ideas of people coming out of the left who call themselves “anti-imperialists,” but who have become defenders of dictatorial governments—some of which call themselves Communist or Socialist—that oppress national minorities, beat down movements for democracy, and crush workers’ struggles for a better life.'

TBH, I think it's useful in understanding the mentality of a lot of the MLs on Lemmy, who tend strongly towards this type of "campism". Definitely worth a read. Extract below:

Many older, former leftists who today are campists adopted this mindset with its origins in Maoist or Third Worldist notions Some of these political analysts and activists today, who still think of themselves as leftists, tend to subordinate all questions to imperialism, arguing that it is the most important and virtually the central issue. If a state opposes the United States, then it is by definition anti-imperialist, so that its government’s own political, economic, and social system is irrelevant to that principal world conflict, which is imperialism. Moreover, whatever the problems of any of the so-called anti-imperialist states, they should not be examined or criticized, because that might weaken support for the anti-imperialist camp and its struggle against the United States and its allies. So, today’s campists will not discuss the authoritarian and oppressive political powers or the exploitative economic systems of what they consider to be the “anti-imperialist nations,” such as Russia, China, or Cuba, or of Iran or Syria. The campists are even more hostile to the notion that one should examine the class character, governmental system, and economic regimes of beleaguered nations like Venezuela or Nicaragua. To question these governments, they argue, is to aid U.S. imperialism. So traditional Marxism, based on analyzing the political economy, social classes, class struggle and oppression in a country, as well as its international relations, is discarded.

These same people generally also tend to define imperialism to mean only U.S. imperialism, ignoring or pushing aside the practices of other imperialist nations and their acts. Since in the eyes of these activists the United States is the only or by far the dominant imperial power everywhere, they then define nations that are opposed to the United States—such as Russia, China, Iran, or Syria—as anti-imperialist nations. And having defined those nations as anti-imperialist, they often then become apologists for the governments of those nations, even though they are authoritarian governments ruling capitalist countries. They will even attribute to these nations “socialist” or “democratic” characteristics that their governments do not in fact have.

The logic is something like this: X is an enemy of the United States, therefore X is anti-imperialist, therefore we support it, and since it is anti-imperialist, it must be progressive. It follows that any criticism of country X is reactionary. People who criticize any anti-imperialist nation such as X must be on the side of imperialism. So, for example, since the United States is an imperial power, and China opposes the United States, then China must be progressive (some will even say socialist). So then, the argument goes, those who criticize China for putting some 1.5 million Uyghurs in concentration camps or for its crushing of the democratic movement in Hong Kong, must be allied with the United States government and are objectively pro-imperialist. This is the campist logic.

108
109
 
 

I’m asking in an anarchist group chat, because literally every series I can find is heavily embedded in a statist and capitalistic context… Are there any you enjoy despite that? Are there any that provide you a respite from it?

110
 
 

[blocked for privacy]

111
112
 
 

Direct action of the most antifa variety.

113
 
 

It’s about the anarchistish commune in Copenhagen Denmark.

I’m wondering if it’s worth the watch, or if it feels too Bourgeois biased?

114
 
 

it's not made for anarchists but for people who have probably never heard of it.

115
 
 

For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.

How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?

Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.

Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn't welcoming.

116
117
118
119
120
 
 

This is such cool community action and decentralisation.

121
122
123
 
 

Cross-posted from "If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution" by @Db0@dbzer0.com in !dbzer0.com@dbzer0.com


I see tankies keep trying to argue with people about “Actually Existing Socialist” states like USSR and China and try to argue with me or others about how “they were good actually”. It’s bad enough when most of their arguments are whataboutism, but it grinds my gears when I hear then prattle on about all the statistically significant material improvements the life of the people received. It’s like listening to a terminally-liberal prattle on about how “statistically, the life quality actually increased under capitalism”.

Why is this bothering me so much? Because tankies completely suppress the freedom aspects of those states. Sure the improvements in life quality in those nations improved compared to the feudal/agrarian societies they had before, much like liberal capitalism also improved those same metrics.

But the freedom of the populace barely improved improved whatsoever because that freedom is anathema to authoritarian regimes. When anarchists talk about our ideal society, we mean both positive and negative freedom together together. It’s not enough if your health expectancy is increased and infant mortality is reduced, if you have to constantly fear the secret police knocking on your door. It’s not enough to have food on your plate, when the state determines what you can create and where you can work. It’s not enough to get a free car and internet, if your family member got shipped to the concentration camp for criticizing the movement leaders online.

Tankies explicitly avoid this. They are desperate to argue that “authoritarianism is not a thing actually”, hilariously and endlessly promoting the worst socialist essay ever written to justify this. But authoritarianism is very much the crux of the problem here. A society with a hierarchical structure like capitalism or marxism-leninism (i.e. state capitalism) can never be good. It might be better than other states, but it will only get worse and worse as power concentrates to fewer hands and the grip of authority tightens the more control slips through their fingers.

We keep seeing this historically both in liberal and ML states. Clearly material quality of life is not enough to justify the system, or even be stable long-term, when actual human liberty is the sacrifice for it.

124
 
 

I’m looking for news sites that offer anarchist perspectives.

I stumbled upon: https://www.anarchistnews.org/

125
 
 

Hi! In the past I've only read some extremely basic theory on anarchism, I haven't really had time to go more in depth, but recently I've had more time on my hands and am looking to get more educated, currently the only books I have on my list are "The Conquest of Bread" and "Anarchy Works", and I'm looking for anything else that I should read.

Audiobooks are also greatly appreciated!

Thank you! I take frequent breaks from social media, so I may not respond in the day, but I do greatly appreciate any recommendations.

view more: ‹ prev next ›