There were quite a few people online, who after the attempted coup in Venezuela, and to lesser extent the successful one in Bolivia, would handwring about Maduro and Morales:
"I don't support what happened in Venezuela, but let's not pretend Maduro is a good guy, or is implementing liberatory socialism. I oppose both the government and the opposition, and support the people in a bottom-up assertion of their power."
The problem with this is A) Speech is performative, and B) it's idealism. What I mean by the former is that, even if your position is honest, and even if it's the correct position, by doing anything other than voicing ardent opposition for the coup while it's happening you are giving it legitimacy (to the extent what anyone says online matters at all). You may say "Maduro is evil because he is not far enough left" but what a liberal hears is "Maduro is evil, so it's a moral imperative to get rid of him". You saw similar things about Soleimani after the airstrike; playing up how evil he was after stating that the U.S. was wrong to do this only justifies what the U.S. did.
The second problem, its being idealist: even if it'd be best if the people united in a grassroots manner, organised together, overthrew Maduro and imposed Anarcho-communism, even if that's the best idea, that doesn't mean that it's a currently extant force. What you might wish were there just doesn't exist in order to support; they are not a real party to this conflict, and so you end up opposing both existing sides and supporting a phantom.
I don't necessarily believe this is an Anarchist tendency, as the meme would imply. I think it's more likely a Twitter tendency, where you are pressured to have the "most correct" take, in order to be superior to and more nuanced than everyone else.
On the other hand, it is solidly materialist to argue that relatively small numbers of unorganized leftists who post something short of unequivocal support for the CPC or Maduro on twitter are a decisive force in the outcome of working class struggle.
Oviously tankielover69 on a message board has no effect on what actually happens, but the reality is that a US backed coup will almost always be worse than the current system if governance, no matter how legitimate the criticism of it is or how bad it is.
The problem is not critique itself, which can be very useful for a movement, but criticism from the outside that has almost no understanding of the dialectic internal to it, of the actual material conditions. Criticism of China, specifically, from U.S. outlets is particularly trash, and obviously has nothing to do with China as an actual place, or people¹. In order to make a useful critique, you must understand a place, it's inertia and trajectory, the difference between where it is and where it ought to be, and how to alter its trajectory. These things are hugely specific, even down to the individual communities and neighbourhoods.
This also applies, largely, to praise of China, which is often detached and irrelevant, not coming from an understanding of the actual on-the-ground forces at work that produce certain results, and with no attempt to connect these to local conditions.
You're correct that materialist analysis has to be grounded in conditions as they concretely and actually exist, sure.
But when the stick is bent too far in the other direction, you get this basically anti-Marxist meme of "criticism from the outside," as if the world working class is not an international class within a global capitalist system. The idea that "western" socialists are somehow outside of the international working class is itself a rejection of proletarian internationalism, which is a bedrock principle of Marxism.
I think you may have misread me. I didn't make the statement "Criticism from the outside has no understanding of material conditions", but "Criticism from the outside that has no understanding of material conditions isn't useful or relevant."
Bolivia wasn't a coup because the Bolivian Supreme Court was Unconstitutional and the military actually had the power to remove the President under the Posse Comitatus Opposite Day Act of 1878.
Once Jeanine Áñez slapped a Bible on the President's desk and shouted "Base! No Takesies Backsides!" everything was Democratic again.
Lots of anarchists were saying that Evo had turned on the indigineous by pushing for further economic development in rural areas and they were happy to see him go.
I literally never saw any anarchists say this, and I'm getting really sick of people on this forum trying to blame anarchists for every possible bad opinion.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know that some comment that got 12 upvotes on a random anarchist forum that nobody here even likes was the official stance of all anarchists.
And all the top comments in your second link are complaining about it. Did you even read it?
Yeah, if you go around searching for bad opinions you're going to find them. The difference here is that anarchists aren't going around digging up random horrible takes by MLs in an attempt to discredit them, because we're not a bunch of infighting wreckers who want to seize power for exactly only our ideology.
"anarchists aren’t going around digging up random horrible takes by MLs " That is exactly my fucking problem with online anarchists, you make strawmen about "tankies" and use that as justification for repeating literal CIA propaganda verbatim. MLs push for left unity (or left solidarity) and anarchists can't even keep their criticism contained to left-only spaces, you go anywhere and "anarchists" dogpile anyone who expresses even a remotely ML opinion with the rest of the liberals. Thank god for real anarchists or I'd just write you all off as feds
There was a circlejerk thread here about how this site has more users than raddle.
That was my doing. I'll own that, and I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. It was more specifically a jab at Ziq, who had been trash talking this project and the people who spent the past year and a half working on it. For someone who personally invested weeks trying to get this thing off the ground, it was a milestone I enjoyed passing, even if it was incredibly petty.
No, if you see an "anarchist" in the wild (like reddit), they're too busy bashing MLs with libs and ancaps (at least they don't side with fasc scum, yet). Anyways, all I'm asking for is for them to stop agreeing with every little bit of CIA propaganda - but they don't realize they can both hate China and still be critical of the imperialist media machine and how it is never in the media's best interest to represent the truth about countries that pose a threat to western hegemony
No? You "anarchists" literally accuse anyone who states a remotely ML opinion of being wumaos who are busy shoveling Uighurs into ovens, and I'm fucking sick of this pity party after you guys start shit. No need to fall in line (we ain't libs) but DON'T. PUNCH. LEFT.
First of all you assert (wrongly) that i or other anarchists judge states being authoritarian on a scale like China to Rojava and the US is somewhere on that scale, which is absolute bullsh. The US is bad, probably the worst authoritarian state on the world and i don't know why all of you act like it isn't the very obvious opinion of anarchists.
And again i don't scold CIA targeted countries, i scold leaders whether or not they are targeted by the CIA for obvious abuse of power.
This is a very good gotcha out of context, nice one, too bad that the conflict is almost a decade old and is way more nuanced than "the bad kurds steal oil for the imperialist regime just because they're evil"
deleted by creator
Do any leftists actually support the US coup in Bolivia? Because if so that is incredibly cursed and CIA pilled
There were quite a few people online, who after the attempted coup in Venezuela, and to lesser extent the successful one in Bolivia, would handwring about Maduro and Morales:
"I don't support what happened in Venezuela, but let's not pretend Maduro is a good guy, or is implementing liberatory socialism. I oppose both the government and the opposition, and support the people in a bottom-up assertion of their power."
The problem with this is A) Speech is performative, and B) it's idealism. What I mean by the former is that, even if your position is honest, and even if it's the correct position, by doing anything other than voicing ardent opposition for the coup while it's happening you are giving it legitimacy (to the extent what anyone says online matters at all). You may say "Maduro is evil because he is not far enough left" but what a liberal hears is "Maduro is evil, so it's a moral imperative to get rid of him". You saw similar things about Soleimani after the airstrike; playing up how evil he was after stating that the U.S. was wrong to do this only justifies what the U.S. did.
The second problem, its being idealist: even if it'd be best if the people united in a grassroots manner, organised together, overthrew Maduro and imposed Anarcho-communism, even if that's the best idea, that doesn't mean that it's a currently extant force. What you might wish were there just doesn't exist in order to support; they are not a real party to this conflict, and so you end up opposing both existing sides and supporting a phantom.
I don't necessarily believe this is an Anarchist tendency, as the meme would imply. I think it's more likely a Twitter tendency, where you are pressured to have the "most correct" take, in order to be superior to and more nuanced than everyone else.
Yeah all it does is aid the US in manufacturing consent to invade or coup, no matter the actual intention, so it's very idealistic.
On the other hand, it is solidly materialist to argue that relatively small numbers of unorganized leftists who post something short of unequivocal support for the CPC or Maduro on twitter are a decisive force in the outcome of working class struggle.
deleted by creator
Oviously tankielover69 on a message board has no effect on what actually happens, but the reality is that a US backed coup will almost always be worse than the current system if governance, no matter how legitimate the criticism of it is or how bad it is.
deleted by creator
The problem is not critique itself, which can be very useful for a movement, but criticism from the outside that has almost no understanding of the dialectic internal to it, of the actual material conditions. Criticism of China, specifically, from U.S. outlets is particularly trash, and obviously has nothing to do with China as an actual place, or people¹. In order to make a useful critique, you must understand a place, it's inertia and trajectory, the difference between where it is and where it ought to be, and how to alter its trajectory. These things are hugely specific, even down to the individual communities and neighbourhoods.
You're correct that materialist analysis has to be grounded in conditions as they concretely and actually exist, sure.
But when the stick is bent too far in the other direction, you get this basically anti-Marxist meme of "criticism from the outside," as if the world working class is not an international class within a global capitalist system. The idea that "western" socialists are somehow outside of the international working class is itself a rejection of proletarian internationalism, which is a bedrock principle of Marxism.
"The emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists"
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country."
"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality "
I think you may have misread me. I didn't make the statement "Criticism from the outside has no understanding of material conditions", but "Criticism from the outside that has no understanding of material conditions isn't useful or relevant."
Agreed
deleted by creator
Like I said, I think it's a Twitter thing.
Bolivia wasn't a coup because the Bolivian Supreme Court was Unconstitutional and the military actually had the power to remove the President under the Posse Comitatus Opposite Day Act of 1878.
Once Jeanine Áñez slapped a Bible on the President's desk and shouted "Base! No Takesies Backsides!" everything was Democratic again.
Lots of anarchists were saying that Evo had turned on the indigineous by pushing for further economic development in rural areas and they were happy to see him go.
I literally never saw any anarchists say this, and I'm getting really sick of people on this forum trying to blame anarchists for every possible bad opinion.
Wish I still had access to the chapo subreddit because I could share those posts.
Someone is making a git archive so I'm sure it'll be up soon
So this didn't happen, huh?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/dumdyp/what_exactly_is_going_on_in_bolivia/f775yai/
Or this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/ddqbsp/socialism_going_really_well_in_bolivia/
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know that some comment that got 12 upvotes on a random anarchist forum that nobody here even likes was the official stance of all anarchists.
And all the top comments in your second link are complaining about it. Did you even read it?
Yeah, if you go around searching for bad opinions you're going to find them. The difference here is that anarchists aren't going around digging up random horrible takes by MLs in an attempt to discredit them, because we're not a bunch of infighting wreckers who want to seize power for exactly only our ideology.
"anarchists aren’t going around digging up random horrible takes by MLs " That is exactly my fucking problem with online anarchists, you make strawmen about "tankies" and use that as justification for repeating literal CIA propaganda verbatim. MLs push for left unity (or left solidarity) and anarchists can't even keep their criticism contained to left-only spaces, you go anywhere and "anarchists" dogpile anyone who expresses even a remotely ML opinion with the rest of the liberals. Thank god for real anarchists or I'd just write you all off as feds
"MLs push for left unity (or left solidarity)"
Yes, hence the post.
"and anarchists can’t even keep their criticism contained to left-only spaces"
Like Chapo.chat or reddit's anarchism forum? There was a circlejerk thread here about how this site has more users than raddle.
That was my doing. I'll own that, and I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. It was more specifically a jab at Ziq, who had been trash talking this project and the people who spent the past year and a half working on it. For someone who personally invested weeks trying to get this thing off the ground, it was a milestone I enjoyed passing, even if it was incredibly petty.
No, if you see an "anarchist" in the wild (like reddit), they're too busy bashing MLs with libs and ancaps (at least they don't side with fasc scum, yet). Anyways, all I'm asking for is for them to stop agreeing with every little bit of CIA propaganda - but they don't realize they can both hate China and still be critical of the imperialist media machine and how it is never in the media's best interest to represent the truth about countries that pose a threat to western hegemony
Wait did you just accuse yourself of being a strawman?
No? You "anarchists" literally accuse anyone who states a remotely ML opinion of being wumaos who are busy shoveling Uighurs into ovens, and I'm fucking sick of this pity party after you guys start shit. No need to fall in line (we ain't libs) but DON'T. PUNCH. LEFT.
No absolutely not
No, but you lose tankie points if you don't pretend they do.
Venezuela no Authoritarian leaders who commit human rights abuses and also aren't leftist at all yes.
deleted by creator
First of all you assert (wrongly) that i or other anarchists judge states being authoritarian on a scale like China to Rojava and the US is somewhere on that scale, which is absolute bullsh. The US is bad, probably the worst authoritarian state on the world and i don't know why all of you act like it isn't the very obvious opinion of anarchists.
And again i don't scold CIA targeted countries, i scold leaders whether or not they are targeted by the CIA for obvious abuse of power.
deleted by creator
This is a very good gotcha out of context, nice one, too bad that the conflict is almost a decade old and is way more nuanced than "the bad kurds steal oil for the imperialist regime just because they're evil"
Also you haven't disproven anything i wrote.
deleted by creator
roflmao