Just to explain this meme to ppl not familiar. Ted Kaczynski [left] (aka the Unabomber) wasn’t a leftist or an anarchist. The person on the right is Murray Bookchin, a pioneer in the environmental movement.

[Kaczynski] was extremely critical of anarchism and the left, and would certainly reject that label. He was a primitivist, which is more in line with radical conservative concepts than leftism. Primitivism bases its rhetoric on a romanticized past, much like moderate conservatism, but just goes much much farther back. Thus, his writing is more in line with “eco-fascism”, the new right, etc than with anarchism. - source

Primitivism argues that civilization is at the root of societal and environmental problems, and that the best/only solution is to eschew technology and contemporary social relations, and to return to a more primitive existence, i.e., blow it all up and go back to the past.

Tldr: be like The Chad Bookchin, not like The Virgin Kaczynski

That’s an ambitious topic to get across in a meme format :p

How gauche - a quill and vellum does the exact same job!

Your archive article link is just another link to the original article.

I admire your optimism, but do you really think justice will come for the rich and corrupt? That’s why the rich bought out both parties.

As is tradition.

Ok then.

Please refer to community rule 3.

Well said!

And you’re also free to do anything you want in business so long as it makes money, and if millions die because of it then that’s just the “free market” at work Right, healthcare CEOs?

They seem to be arguing its ok to weaponize homophobic bigotry against someone who is themselves a bigot. But I simply don’t agree. That’s like saying it’s ok to be racist against a black person simply because they are homophobic. Or that it’s ok to be homophobic towards closeted people. IMO either it’s wrong to use “gay” as a slur or it’s not. And just because its a commonplace slur, and most straight people don’t seem to think about, or care, about it’s psychological impact on gay folk, doesn’t mean it’s suddenly ok to use just because its politically expedient.

These jokes are in poor taste. The joke is basically “Trump gay, haha”. How is that not simple homophobia? I mean I despise the POS, but using “gay” as a pejorative is commonplace bigotry. There’s no shortage of legitimate criticisms, so why stoop to this?

But yet again (because this happens on every critical vote) they won’t face any consequences for their “betrayal”. The real traitors are the Democratic leadership like Chuck Schumer who once again allowed this to happen, and who according to some sourced, “negotiated” the deal in the first place.

I think that I didn’t say anything at all in any of my comments that could be misconstrued as taking a position one way or the other.

and yet…

What if they’re wearing them around you because you punch people in the face for odd reasons.

That seems a lot like you are saying you disapprove of them but you you think a punch in the face is way over the top, right? So your problem is mostly with the offhand hyperbole of cassandrafatigue saying they should be “punched in the face”? The whole civility bit?

You have created strawman position out of thin air, assumed that I believe the thing that you just made up and then accused me of being a bootlicker because of this imaginary position that you yourself just invented.

I never accused you of anything. I asked you a question to clarify what you were saying. You seem to be confusing me with cassandrafatigue?

You’re either trying to farm outrage and division, or you’ve spent too much time in social media spaces where this kind of behavior is promoted. Either way it’s toxic and, assuming you’re a real person, you should really step away from social media.

Again, not sure what comment I made supports any of those assertions, at all. Literally the only thing I said to you was:

You don’t think ubiquitous surveillance is something people should get upset about? Those things will be hooked up to flock in about 5 seconds flat.

It isn’t normal or healthy to have kneejerk paranoid reactions to disagreements. It isn’t normal to think punching people in the face for wearing consumer electronics is acceptable behavior. These are behaviors driven by paranoia, not rationality.

Define normal and healthy. Would it be the ability to have simply replied to my question with something like…

I do think it’s worth getting upset about, just not to the extent of punching someone in the face.

… or some other reasonable response?

Anyway I’ll leave you to your faux outrage.

You don’t think ubiquitous surveillance is something people should get upset about? Those things will be hooked up to flock in about 5 seconds flat.

Love that guy. [edit: Coffeezilla!]

In total, anarchists should uphold the soviet experience, and disprove bourgeois framing of Stalin and the USSR. This weakens bourgeois cultural hegemony, strengthening both anarchist and Marxist movements. I know this was long, but I hope it was at least interesting to read!

I appreciate the interesting read! Just been a bit hectic irl. Personally, I’m sympathetic to the fact that the West has collectively demonized the USSR with propaganda ever since 1917. Objectively, yes, the USSR achieved a lot in a very hostile environment, both military and economic, and they also did a lot of stuff I don’t agree with, but that’s not confined to the Soviets, of course.

I guess I just don’t see the point in the exercise though. You’re never gonna get much traction trying to rehabilitate Stalin, because anti-Soviet propaganda is so deeply ingrained. Like why even fight that fight? You’re gonna hit a brick wall every time, because it’s a “toxic brand” of sorts. Arguing over Stalin’s legacy feels genuinely counterproductive to me, compared to just advocating for community groups, socialism and direct action. I guess we are just coming at the same task from different angles. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?

I don’t think it’s accurate. And no, definitely not. It seems like he is describing libertarians more than anarchists imo, as mutual aid and community building are core principles of anarchism.

I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because […]

For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of anarchists hold to that view, especially given stalin’s view of anarchists (see below).

We are not the kind of people who, when the word “anarchism” is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: “Why waste time on that, it’s not worth talking about!” We think that such cheap “criticism” is undignified and useless.

Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists “have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous.” It is not who has a larger or smaller “mass” following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the “doctrine” of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the “doctrine” of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

So if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin’s reputation? It makes no sense. But sure, keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.

That couldn’t possibly be it… surely it’s more likely to be a Russia / North Korean / Chinese psyop instead?