Decades of infighting. The soviet union would fund communist groups but not anarchist, which was a point of resentment. Later, when the soviet union asked for communist parties to engage in bad policy like the United Front in Spain or the no-strike policy in the US, it built resentment with the independent left.
Later, the 4th international built wedges between themselves and "Stalinists."
Later the CIA posed as anarchists to drive wedges between anarchists and communists.
We're used to sectarianism and we're a little traumatized by it and is it any surprise we're all a little weary of each other?
I think these are all great example, however it does seem a little silly to me that so many people on the internet tie themselves to a past history that they have no real connection with outside of self identifying with certain historical movements or figures. I could see a case for valid disagreement over actual differences of opinion regarding theory/praxis, but how relevant are those differences here and now, really?
I don't think they are and I think the impulse is very online because the likelihood that you'll be thrust into a situation where you have an anarchist button and a tankie button in front of you is infinitesimal. Unless you're in a dedicated group, which you shouldn't give too many details about here because I'm from Langley, and you're discussing intermingling, the tendency towards one style or another your discussion is likely on strategy for the same goal. I imagine a tankie wouldn't mind if you stole from a grocery store to feed the homeless and I think a tankie could make a strong argument for joining the military to bring back organizational and training acumen.
I think part of the issue is genuine feds steering anarchists against Marxists in "the discourse" based on these past aggrievements that they have no connection to. I don't feel aggrievement towards living anarchists for 20th century ultraleft counterrevoltionaries, what sense does that make?
I think part of the issue is genuine feds steering anarchists against Marxists in "the discourse" based on these past aggrievements that they have no connection to.
This has been a proven thing in the past and I agree that it's likely happening now as well. I also think "patriotic socialists" are an op of some kind and maybe other groups that tend to focus a little too much on being wreckers.
Decades of infighting. The soviet union would fund communist groups but not anarchist, which was a point of resentment. Later, when the soviet union asked for communist parties to engage in bad policy like the United Front in Spain or the no-strike policy in the US, it built resentment with the independent left.
Later, the 4th international built wedges between themselves and "Stalinists."
Later the CIA posed as anarchists to drive wedges between anarchists and communists.
We're used to sectarianism and we're a little traumatized by it and is it any surprise we're all a little weary of each other?
I think these are all great example, however it does seem a little silly to me that so many people on the internet tie themselves to a past history that they have no real connection with outside of self identifying with certain historical movements or figures. I could see a case for valid disagreement over actual differences of opinion regarding theory/praxis, but how relevant are those differences here and now, really?
I don't think they are and I think the impulse is very online because the likelihood that you'll be thrust into a situation where you have an anarchist button and a tankie button in front of you is infinitesimal. Unless you're in a dedicated group, which you shouldn't give too many details about here because I'm from Langley, and you're discussing intermingling, the tendency towards one style or another your discussion is likely on strategy for the same goal. I imagine a tankie wouldn't mind if you stole from a grocery store to feed the homeless and I think a tankie could make a strong argument for joining the military to bring back organizational and training acumen.
I think part of the issue is genuine feds steering anarchists against Marxists in "the discourse" based on these past aggrievements that they have no connection to. I don't feel aggrievement towards living anarchists for 20th century ultraleft counterrevoltionaries, what sense does that make?
This has been a proven thing in the past and I agree that it's likely happening now as well. I also think "patriotic socialists" are an op of some kind and maybe other groups that tend to focus a little too much on being wreckers.
Sure, that's reasonable
Do you mean the FBI or did the CIA do it too?
Probably lol, it's hard to tell which head of the hydra you're looking at