I don't like the way people on the internet define radical and how they think about converting people to leftism.
A person who is really into 4chan content listens to a podcast and they consider that de-radicalizing. Changing from pepe memes to gritty memes isn't a political shift. It's just changing something you think because all your thoughts come from (social) media consumption.
If you have two people, who go to the same job, behave the same way, but on the way to work one listens to Jordan Peterson while the other listens to Citations Needed, that is not some grand political difference. If the Citations Needed person convinces the other to start listening to Citations Needed, the other isn't a communist who's been de-radicalized from Nazism. They took their big open brain and dumped better content into it. They'll be more informed/educated and have better opinions, but the political part isn't there.
Of course it's preferable to have a society of people with better opinions, but that doesn't equate to political action.
Now if the Christchurch shooter becomes a devout BLM activist because they listened to a podcast, you got me. But that doesn't happen because a person like that is taking political action and it goes way beyond just their media preferences.
What radicalizes you is what drives you to political action. It doesn't matter if everyone listens to the right podcast if they don't do anything. And I know people will argue that we should at least start with media consumption if nothing else, and that's better than nothing. But that's not my point. My point isn't that we should either kill all billionaires or do nothing. My point is to change how you conceptualize political action and what it means to radicalize.
I think if people are really honest with themselves and are very attentive to who they are, then they'll realize that they didn't become a communist because someone on a podcast told them to. It's that they happened to start consuming left wing media while they were already being radicalized by other things.
In a country where most people don't do political action outside of voting, I can see where the misconception happens. Because the forces that radicalize people act on them but they still don't do anything. So radicalization, to them, has to be about how you feel while doing nothing. Otherwise nobody is radical and that's a bummer.
Oh, THAT'S why trying to explain this shit to wealthy old retired people is useless.
I... have a hard time imagining American alphabet soups abandoning the nearly unlimited power and wealth offered to them by the status quo, but who knows what would happen when shit actually hits the fan?
These people just seem to not know what they're talking about. "Yeah, I'm an anarchist who wants a transitional period to anarchy" no I'm pretty sure you're a demsoc.
Yeah, I'm a Jokerite Anarchist. I've watched Joker (2018). I've watched The Dark Knight. I've watched Superman: Red Son. I've watched V For Vendetta. I've watched The Batman (2022). I've watched all the X-Men movies. I used to be a Magnetoist Marxist-Leninist when I was younger and stupider. Not anymore.
I get this vibe from a lot of folks on twitter. Like a lot of people throwing around tankie accusations seem to think they can achieve whatever they think anarchism is without any kind of revolution.
I don't trust anyone who says they are or were a "burn it all down anarchist". Literally just fascism; society in freefall to appease some great unrest that you cannot solve within your own ideological bounds.
Liberals will always be so sure of their "transcendence" to Communism that they still end up wallowing in liberalism.
Liberal capitalism isn't working out? Then society itself must collapse for people to survive.
How is that any different to someone who believes that, without liberal capitalism, society will collapse?
It's the same ideological base.
There's a bunch of larpers calling themselves "anarcho-nihilism" on twitter right now. Their ideology seems to be dressing in black, doomerism, and talking about how cool vandalism is but not doing any. Their chosen symbol is the eight point star of Chaos, which they claim the took from Moorcock. As a result it's really funny to tease them about being Warhammer nerds. I'd be shocked if there were more than a dozen of them.
I'd argue that anarchism is a far, far greater organizational challenge than any hierarchical system. In a hierarchy you can form a government by having a few experts who tell everyone else more or less what to do. In an anarchy every single person has to know how to participate in a devolved democracy or god help you a consensus system, deal with wreckers, deal with pickmes, deal with that fucker who always brings up the same dead horse topic at every meeting.
Like everyone likes anarchism until it's their turn to be secretary or bring the coffee.
Anarchism when you need to do anything that requires ten or more people to cooperate
Mostly joking, but one of my biggest critiques of Anarchism I have is that the anarchist groups I've been part of have been absolutely horrible at running meetings. I know a lot of Anarchists who aren't so much Anarchists who are really just very, very individualistic and want to do whatever they feel like doing. Which is great on a very, very local level but isn't helpful when you want to do anything that takes time or requires cooperation.
I think a lot of people just have not put thought in to what it would take to run an anarchist society, especially with regard to the huge amount of education, cultural shift, and buy in that is needed to get hyper-individualistic westerners to actually cooperate with each other on a large scale. Most leftists can't even get a small commune to hold together for a few years, and actually doing Anarchism requires figuring out really, really complex problems like managing the production and distribution of medicine and maintaining global supply chains. I don't really focus on Anarchist theory so I'm not sure what the current state of Anarchist thought is on those large scale problems, but a lot of the Anarchists I meet day to day don't seem like they've ever really zoomed out to what it would mean to have, like, a society of hundreds of millions of Anarchists. I also run in to "Anarchists" (in name only) sometimes who are just completely ablest and dismissive of questions like "How are you going to manage the manufacture and distribution of insulin?" or related issues. And don't get me wrong; You don't need to have a complete answer to a question like that, but it's something you should at least be giving thought to, if only to get a better understanding of the scale of the problem you're trying to solve.
the anarcho-nihilists are a pretty small part of the overall anarchist cohort, and i gather they tend to be people burnt out from a lifetime of political action going nowhere and so retreating more into lifestylism. the key theory for this is blessed is the flame by serafinski which focuses on the idea of "jouissance" (sp), of taking joy in resisting for the sake of resisting even when the situation is hopeless, and going down fighting. it parallels this with (actually interesting) stories of concentration camp resistance in nazi germany in the face of imminent death, and suggests we are in a (much milder and early-stage) parallel situation today calling for similar tactics (although to the authors credit they do emphasise the differences). the obvious counter being that, at least in the current west, we arent otherwise facing immediate death and i would argue that the average western leftist can do much more by biding their time and organising rather than doing an adventurism and spending the rest of their days in prison. one of the orgs they hold up is one that decided the best praxis was to firebomb a greenpeace office for being too lib sooooo. anyway theres some stuff in there thats food for thought for if/when our situation becomes much more dire but it doesnt seem like the most sensible approach right now. the whole lifestylist thing of "living as though youre already free" is pretty cool though, as long as you dont mistake it for substantive praxis. also yeah the irony of covering yourself in symbols of subjugation to domineering chaos gods to represent your "no gods no masters" ideology is also pretty funny to me too.
i agree about a lot of anarchists being individualists first and leftists second, which to me seems like the wrong way around. the growing trend among real-world anarchism these days is a return to more organisational forms of anarcho-communism (platformism/especifismo), which to me is a very welcome change. this is a quite good introduction, with a lot of stuff that i think a lot of mls would agree with, if you can get past some mostly unnecessary jabs at aes states. there is absolutely the realism that everything cant be abolished and overturned overnight and that alternative organisational structures need to be built and put in place over time (which i think can be missing in some of the more naive baby anarchist thought), but with an emphasis of ensuring that these structures dont replicate existing hierarchies.
and yeah anarchist-aligned orgs have their dramas and splits and clowns and shit but thats just leftism in general, i dont feel like its any more so than any other leftist groups
I also run in to “Anarchists” (in name only) sometimes who are just completely ablest and dismissive of questions like “How are you going to manage the manufacture and distribution of insulin?” or related issues.
i mean yeah this is a problem with some people who call themselves anarchists, but part of this is that we cant currently know how exactly things would be organised and will have to determine what works and what doesnt as we go (and its really the same for a revolutionary ml society in this respect). i think thats the problem with the bread book, kropotkin tried to answer a kinda unanswerable question and its not super convincing to people who are cynical about "human nature" etc. i really like
this honest passage from malatesta though (long)
That’s all very well, some say, and anarchy may be a perfect form of human society, but we don’t want to take a leap in the dark. Tell us therefore in detail how your society will be organised. And there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a miner’s job or be a seaman? And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving? ... And so on to the point of assuming that we have all the knowledge and experience of the unknown future, and that in the name of anarchy, we should prescribe for future generations at what time they must go to bed, and on what days they must pare their corns.
If indeed our readers expect a reply from us to these questions, or at least to those which are really serious and important, which is more than our personal opinion at this particular moment, it means that we have failed in our attempt to explain to them what anarchism is about.
We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity!
We are very concerned with all the problems of social life, both in the interest of science, and because we reckon to see anarchy realised and to take part as best we can in the organisation of the new society. Therefore we do have our solutions which, depending on the circumstances, appear to us either definitive or transitory — and but for space considerations we would say something on this here. But the fact that because today, with the evidence we have, we think in a certain way on a given problem does not mean that this is how it must be dealt with in the future. Who can foresee the activities which will grow when mankind is freed from poverty and oppression, when there will no longer be either slaves or masters, and when the struggle between peoples, and the hatred and bitterness that are engendered as a result, will no longer be an essential part of existence? Who can predict the progress in science and in the means of production, of communication and so on?
What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.
After all, a programme which is concerned with the bases of the social structure, cannot do other than suggest a method. And it is the method which above all distinguishes between the parties and determines their historical importance. Apart from the method, they all talk of wanting the wellbeing of humanity and many really do; the parties disappear and with them all action organised and directed to a given end. Therefore one must consider anarchy above all as a method.
also i wrote a whole long thing on here once and it got memoryholed, but the tldr is that i work in a complex medical field running enormous projects with thousands of people across wildly different international jurisdictions in a minimally-hierarchical federalist way (and most of the hierarchical bits could easily be flattened out) and its remarkable how well it all works even for very precise technical stuff and even within a world of ruthless capitalism. it has absolutely reaffirmed my belief in the real-world possibility of much less hierarchical forms of organisation. and every leftist wants to get to the classless stateless society, so deep down we have to all believe something like this is possible
anyway not trying to start The Big Leftist Debate here, just a few alternative perspectives
Of course there is the capacity for more horizontal organization, the problem is getting everyone up to speed at that point. If you are working in a complex medical field, everyone working within it is already at a certain level of competence, and even that level of competence is likely hierarchically barred within society by wealth, opportunity for education, etc.
The issue is how do you get to that point with everybody, or at least enough people to create a stable, self-replicated cultural apparatus, that can withstand challenges from highly hierarchical organizations.
taking joy in resisting for the sake of resisting even when the situation is hopeless, and going down fighting.
I'm familiar with the idea, but I came to it from old warrior philosophy. One of the key themes in the Prose Edda is that Ragnarok will happen, but that the gods strive against it none the less. Odin pursues every option and submits to deeply, personally shameful social transgressions in his quest to postpone the inevitable for just one more day. Even in the face of certain defeat they continue to fight stalwartly, not out of hope of victory, but because their cause is just. People often forget that Valhalla is not a paradise; It's a training ground. The Einherjar are gathered in anticipation of a final battle with the fire giants at Ragnarok.
Another favorite of mine is the Book of Five Rings, especially Musashi's line "Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death." Accepting that things can go wrong, that you don't really have much control of the situation, that you may die or be injured or maimed, or that you may have to take action that will result in your injury, capture, or death for the good of others, prepares you to act immediately and without hesitation when necessary.
If you can come to terms with those things you're ready to "live as though you are already free".
the growing trend among real-world anarchism these days is a return to more organisational forms of anarcho-communism
That's good to hear. I think Anarchism is a very powerful theory that has some strategic advantages when compared to Communism, but it's very reliant on being community and close coordination. It's good to know that there are people working in that direction. A small group of well drilled, coordinated people can cause an enormous ruckus and run circles around much larger disorganized groups. : )
I mostly use the medicine question as a gotcha for people who seem like they're interested with action as an end to itself, or people like anprims and others who are interested in very individualistic or destructive tendencies. I like it as a gotcha because it highlights a blind spot in some peoples thinking where they're more concerned with action than what's good for their comrades and community. It's not so much specifically asking them "Give me a detailed plan about how to produce aspirin" as it is a general challenge against overly individualistic thinking.
I do think considering macro problems can help at a micro level in some cases. Doing "war games" or thought experiments can lead to new ideas, highlight blind spots, or just provoke interesting discussions about theory and praxis.
its remarkable how well it all works
That's really good to hear! I think an issue a lot of people have with buying in to revolutionary leftist tendencies is they've never encountered examples of how society might work when these ideas are applied, or in the case of 20th century socialist states they have wildly distorted ideas about how things worked. Being able to provide concrete examples of large scale, complex operations can be really helpful in convincing people to take the next step and start reading theory or attending meetings. : )
There’s a bunch of larpers calling themselves “anarcho-nihilism” on twitter right now. Their ideology seems to be dressing in black, doomerism
persona 2 is a game about when 2 gods made a bet on wether people would actually read nietzsche and the good god lost that bet
I strive for transcendence of capitalism, not the destruction of it. You need a platform to leap from.
*raises hand* I am dependent on difficult to manufacture drugs and will literally die, along with millions and millions of other people, if we "burn it all down".
Four Thieves espouses, and is fairly consistent with, anarchism in the context of collapse.
That's a good answer, and a good example of ethical anarchists who are serious about considering what people need and diligently working to make that possible.
okay, serious answer, this is a non sequitur on par with "why do you hate the global poor." it's false consciousness that identifies your very existence with the systems destroying you.
In my experience there are some anarchists who have very anti-social, individualist views. I have encountered a number of people over the years who are dismissive or openly contemptuous of this question. Others have simply never considered how to handle large scale, complex problems like drug manufacture or the manufacture of heavy equipment.
"Burn it all down" anarchists whose theory stops at lighting cop cars on fire and breaking things exist, and I have found that people who are not able or willing to consider the role of disabled people or people with specific needs in their revolution do not generally make good comrades.
The most frequent way I have encountered this is during protests and demos where a small group of people will start taking aggressive action beyond what the majority of the group considers appropriate, without regard to the wellbeing of the other people in the group. But it shows up in other contexts, too.
When I bring it up its generally because I want to emphasize that anarchism is hard and demanding work that asks a great deal of people, something which very individually minded anarchists often have trouble with.
but like, that's my question, why is knowledge of medical production salient to the work of breaking things and lighting cop cars on fire? I fully agree with the principle that consideration of disability must be a priority for any revolutionary effort, but I don't know how to read this sort of objection as anything other than "you must lay out your utopian plan in full detail before you lift a finger against the present order." I certainly appreciate the need for strategy over adventurism, but who does it benefit to ingrain this sort of anxiety and self-doubt in the revolution before it even exists?
"How will you make medicine" is a big picture question that stands in for a lot of smaller questions that can cause issues when organizing. Thoughtfulness and consideration are needed at both the macro level and the micro level.
When you're burning cop cars, are you diligently maintaining opsec? If you're captured you may be coerced or tortured to rat on your comrades, so you have a responsibility to do everything in your power to avoid leaving evidence the pigs could use to hunt you down.
Are you acting in accordance with the will of the group? I've seen people who escalate, seemingly confident of their own ability to evade police retaliation, while the group contains elderly people, children, or disabled people who are much more vulnerable.
On a less dire note, are you being considerate of other people's time and resources? Are you making sure to recover equipment and materials whenever possible, and return them to their owners if necessary, to avoid wastage and make efficient use of resources?
Are you showing up to meetings on time and prepared?
Basically, are you holding in your mind that anarchism is not about adventurism or cathartic aggression, but about building community power and mutual aid?
Again, this is only some people, but America is a hyper-individualistic culture where concern for the needs and wellbeing of others is actively, violently discouraged. Not everyone has fully internalized and worked through that, and people who primarily express an interest in street confrontations, aggressive direct actions, or other escalating confrontations often turn out to be liabilities.
To cite a personal example; A few years ago my community went out to confront a MAGA group that was having a barbecue in a prominent public location. We wanted to contest their presence and re-take the space. Things went as well as can be expected; Lots of yelling past the MAGA creeps, lots of staring down the riot cops, some pepper spray but no serious violence. The issue arose when the security team informed us that several busses of additional riot police were on their way to our location. We were already closely hemmed in on three sides by police. Even a few additional police would be able to kettle us and we would have no realistic means of escape. The organizers called for us to withdraw and head back to our assembly area. Most of the group complied and began making their way out of the police encirclement. But a few people were so caught up in yelling at the MAGA that they stayed close to the line even as their comrades were leaving. Leaving people behind when it's not absolutely necessary is unacceptable, so I and some people from security tried to get them moving, explaining the situation and gently nudging them to start moving away. Some resisted for a few minutes before we were able to convince them to move.
They weighed their desire to engage in a cathartic confrontation over both their own safety and the safety of the group. Especially in a potentially violent situation it's vital to stick tight with your people and move as one body whenever possible. We were able to get them moving eventually, but we had to put ourselves at some, albeit small, risk to do so. In this case these comrades were behaving in an individualistic and inconsiderate matter that was tactically inappropriate.
That's just one possible example of comrades who view confrontation and aggressive action as an end unto itself, or a source of personal catharsis or satisfaction. If a persons goal is "burn it all down" they are often a liability rather than an asset.
Being pragmatic by approving every single statement the CIA puts out
To be fair the Anarchists first gained their notoreity by throwing bombs at stuff back in the day, which does sound cooler than collecting food donations and handing out blankets to unhoused people, so that's what sticks to the word
the dollop isn't a great podcast in general but dave seems to ramp further left (or at least get angrier at the West, which in internet discourse terms amounts to the same thing) every year
it's gotten so rambly and predictable in its rhythms over the years that I almost only put it on to fall asleep to
Real heads remember the lost dollop episodes that were just Dave ranting by himself. There was one about hot dog eating contests where he said they should do one in a famine stricken nation in africa in front of starving people and after the contest the crowd could tear the gluttons apart and eat the hot dogs.
I’m not sure, when the dollop first started they were on the feed but as soon as Gareth came in after the first three episodes or so Dave deleted em. They might be available to download somewhere but it’s a pretty small niche
Mine doesn’t either but I’ve used it multiple times with no issues. Nice username btw
clear to me that we need rules and regulations
IDK that's not that unradical we do need rules and regulations
I would say that listening to those same exact 2 podcasts bolstered my radical positions.
if you can have your worldview changed by a fed podcaster then you don't have an actual worldview
