The idea that we cannot have real change without some for of revolution, so we should make things go to their extreme, and cause some kind of cultural revolution.
Those are just nihilist. Actual anarchist generally aren’t the fuck shit up kind. Those are generally angsty young teens with very little understanding.
You are however 100% right about lemmy.ml. hexbear and Lemmygrad. They are all Marxist leninist. Which was an ill-conceived transitory authoritarian style anti communist government that was supposed to facilitate the build up to and transition to communism. But not communist itself. Which has failed everywhere it’s ever been tried. Much like capitalism if you go by it’s stated goals and ideals.
They love to blather on and on and on about communism and how great and wonderful it would be. And it would be. But everything they do is actually in opposition to it so they are very much fake/ performatory communists.
To be politely pedantic, while I agree generally, in the defense of nihilists, not all of them want to actively burn it down. They just don’t care and nothing matters. It’s the unique combination of anger and anti-establishment that makes the type of person we are talking about. And if they care enough to burn it down, I’d argue they can’t be a nihilist by definition.
That’s absolutely a fair assessment. My biggest issue was the way anarchism is most commonly misrepresented and used. Of which I absolutely used to be one of those people. So it’s not a dig at anyone in particular. Just trying to help us be a little more accurate in things. But you’re absolutely correct to point out that that isn’t all nihilists either.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about anarchism in general for sure. Much like the term “Liberal,” as every so-called-communist likes to point out to me. Political ideologies are ridiculous in general, as no one actually agrees 100% with any single idea. Why we can’t all agree to stop hating each other, I dunno haha.
I hate that “Marxism-Leninism” refers to the brand of communism and socialism that Stalin practiced. It should be called “Stalinism”. From the little I know about Marx and Lenin is that Marx had some good ideas and while Lenin had some bad policies, he also had a genuine interest in trying to do what was best for Russia. Meanwhile Stalin let millions starve.
Also Marxist-Leninism is doomed to fail imo. I believe that in order for socialism to truly succeed, you must ensure that the world’s leading countries practice socialism; or at least ensure that your country is capable of fulfilling every step in the supply chain for any given good for now and the future, either by itself or via allies. Attempting to do it on your own like Marxist-Leninism suggests, is a road to failure because capitalism will attempt to starve you (and likely succeed at doing so).
Capitalism is inherently opposed to socialism because the true end game of capitalism is for an individual, or group of individuals, to own everything. However, they can’t own everything if a country’s culture is opposed to that form of selfishness. Additionally, the capitalist’s peasants might get funny ideas if they see a country based on mutual goodwill succeeding. Stalin played right into the hands of capitalists. He deserves to have the inherently flawed and doomed-to-fail ideology named after him.
Fuck, I barely got any sleep last night and I can’t tell if I’m being coherent or not. Additionally, now I have a conspiracy theory that this was all intentional. Tying a form of socialism that was oppressive and doomed to fail to Marx and Lenin was an intentional move by capitalists to conflate Stalin’s garbage with a legitimate desire and attempt to create a better world. By doing so, you create the belief that even Lenin and Marx supported oppression and that oppression is therefore inherently a part of socialism and communism. As such, by calling themselves Marxist-Leninists, they are falling into a trap created by capitalists to defame such ideologies like communism and socialism.
Also I wanted to make a comment about how capitalism is like economic heroin or something: extremely enticing and addictive; but I’ve got no clue where to put it.
It’s fair to call it stalinism / maoism etc. And I also dislike associating Marx that closely with them. The Marx parts of Marxism are pretty tough to have issue with. Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc are where a lot of the backward reductive and damaging stuff comes from. But it’s about hitting them where they live. And these days they identify as ML.
And yeah I agree. Despite making wildly flawed ideology I absolutely believe Engels and Lenin had good intentions. And despite all of them, including Stalin. Russia absolutely had successes. I can’t say it was enough to out weigh the failures. Similar things can be said about China too. Though xi jinping will mark the end of all that.
The last bit, I don’t think I can go in for. If it was capitalists calling them ML and them calling themselves something else then perhaps. But it’s what they largely self identify as. The thing to remember however, is that it’s the ideas that are important. Not necessarily the names. Would Marx want to be associated with future systems based on his concepts? Sure. Would he not want it implemented without his name. That I doubt.
No, it’s people who think accelerating the country into a hyper capitalist fascist hellhole will lead to the accelerated collapse of the capitalist system. Then revolution will bring the promised land to them. Of course they don’t realize that collapse isn’t necessarily guaranteed.
“accelerationist”? Pardon my ignorance, but what’s that?
The idea that we cannot have real change without some for of revolution, so we should make things go to their extreme, and cause some kind of cultural revolution.
I see. I understand that as a path, but that seems like the “option of last resort” to me, and these guys want to make it the proposed one?
Fake communists. Hexbears. It’s just Anarchy, but the “fuck everything” type of anarchy.
I understand the frustration and desire to burn everything down, but I just think that’s lazy and won’t end up working at all.
Those are just nihilist. Actual anarchist generally aren’t the fuck shit up kind. Those are generally angsty young teens with very little understanding.
You are however 100% right about lemmy.ml. hexbear and Lemmygrad. They are all Marxist leninist. Which was an ill-conceived transitory authoritarian style anti communist government that was supposed to facilitate the build up to and transition to communism. But not communist itself. Which has failed everywhere it’s ever been tried. Much like capitalism if you go by it’s stated goals and ideals.
They love to blather on and on and on about communism and how great and wonderful it would be. And it would be. But everything they do is actually in opposition to it so they are very much fake/ performatory communists.
To be politely pedantic, while I agree generally, in the defense of nihilists, not all of them want to actively burn it down. They just don’t care and nothing matters. It’s the unique combination of anger and anti-establishment that makes the type of person we are talking about. And if they care enough to burn it down, I’d argue they can’t be a nihilist by definition.
That’s absolutely a fair assessment. My biggest issue was the way anarchism is most commonly misrepresented and used. Of which I absolutely used to be one of those people. So it’s not a dig at anyone in particular. Just trying to help us be a little more accurate in things. But you’re absolutely correct to point out that that isn’t all nihilists either.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about anarchism in general for sure. Much like the term “Liberal,” as every so-called-communist likes to point out to me. Political ideologies are ridiculous in general, as no one actually agrees 100% with any single idea. Why we can’t all agree to stop hating each other, I dunno haha.
I hate that “Marxism-Leninism” refers to the brand of communism and socialism that Stalin practiced. It should be called “Stalinism”. From the little I know about Marx and Lenin is that Marx had some good ideas and while Lenin had some bad policies, he also had a genuine interest in trying to do what was best for Russia. Meanwhile Stalin let millions starve.
Also Marxist-Leninism is doomed to fail imo. I believe that in order for socialism to truly succeed, you must ensure that the world’s leading countries practice socialism; or at least ensure that your country is capable of fulfilling every step in the supply chain for any given good for now and the future, either by itself or via allies. Attempting to do it on your own like Marxist-Leninism suggests, is a road to failure because capitalism will attempt to starve you (and likely succeed at doing so).
Capitalism is inherently opposed to socialism because the true end game of capitalism is for an individual, or group of individuals, to own everything. However, they can’t own everything if a country’s culture is opposed to that form of selfishness. Additionally, the capitalist’s peasants might get funny ideas if they see a country based on mutual goodwill succeeding. Stalin played right into the hands of capitalists. He deserves to have the inherently flawed and doomed-to-fail ideology named after him.
Fuck, I barely got any sleep last night and I can’t tell if I’m being coherent or not. Additionally, now I have a conspiracy theory that this was all intentional. Tying a form of socialism that was oppressive and doomed to fail to Marx and Lenin was an intentional move by capitalists to conflate Stalin’s garbage with a legitimate desire and attempt to create a better world. By doing so, you create the belief that even Lenin and Marx supported oppression and that oppression is therefore inherently a part of socialism and communism. As such, by calling themselves Marxist-Leninists, they are falling into a trap created by capitalists to defame such ideologies like communism and socialism.
Also I wanted to make a comment about how capitalism is like economic heroin or something: extremely enticing and addictive; but I’ve got no clue where to put it.
It’s fair to call it stalinism / maoism etc. And I also dislike associating Marx that closely with them. The Marx parts of Marxism are pretty tough to have issue with. Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc are where a lot of the backward reductive and damaging stuff comes from. But it’s about hitting them where they live. And these days they identify as ML.
And yeah I agree. Despite making wildly flawed ideology I absolutely believe Engels and Lenin had good intentions. And despite all of them, including Stalin. Russia absolutely had successes. I can’t say it was enough to out weigh the failures. Similar things can be said about China too. Though xi jinping will mark the end of all that.
The last bit, I don’t think I can go in for. If it was capitalists calling them ML and them calling themselves something else then perhaps. But it’s what they largely self identify as. The thing to remember however, is that it’s the ideas that are important. Not necessarily the names. Would Marx want to be associated with future systems based on his concepts? Sure. Would he not want it implemented without his name. That I doubt.
No, it’s people who think accelerating the country into a hyper capitalist fascist hellhole will lead to the accelerated collapse of the capitalist system. Then revolution will bring the promised land to them. Of course they don’t realize that collapse isn’t necessarily guaranteed.
Someone who thinks we should have the worst right now and get it over with.