I have no doubt that any MLs here are pretty based, I don’t think anyone needs to prove anything to me, but I’m curious as to why you think Marxist-Leninism is the best way forward towards liberating the working class. Personally, I lean more towards authoritorian tendencies I just don’t think anything other than anarchism is a viable path forward and I think all the theory and history I’ve read tracks with that.analysis. I suppose you could call me socially ML but fiscally anarchist, lol.

  • crime [she/her, any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    What's dumping on anarchists about "I haven't seen any anarchist plan to solve this problem, or any anarchist group do this successfully at scale"? If you have counterpoints bring them up, don't just complain that criticisms of anarchism are mean

    • Spinoza [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      you could always just leave out these parts:

      I’ve yet to see that happen through anarchism.

      ...and I've yet to see how anarchists plan to handle that besides hoping they’ll realize the error of their ways.

      since they don't really add anything to your point anyway

      • crime [she/her, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        That's not even my post, it's just not mean spirited and the OP of the thread is directly comparing anarchism with MLism, and it's a huge pet peeve of mine when any critique of an ideology is met with "but you could just not critique :angery:"

        • Spinoza [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          yeah fair enough, i didn't mean to jump on you. i think maybe for us it doesn't always feel something like that is being said in good faith and it can be hard to tell

        • existentialspicerack [she/her,they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          totally but this wasn't a critique, it was 'why is x good' 'because y is bad' which is usually a tell that the person in question doesn't actually know any virtues of x, whether they exist or not.

      • crime [she/her, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Saying you take issue with certain aspects of anarchism isn't the same thing as telling anarchists they suck. If you can't respond to criticisms of your ideology without taking it personally or using it as an opportunity to educate, how do you expect other people to take it seriously?

        No one was saying kill the anarchists, I've never seen anyone say kill the anarchists even on more ML-heavy and less left-unity boards than this one. Seriously how did you get "I haven't heard an anarchist plan for this problem I am concerned about" with "kill all the anarchists"?

        • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          Because they (this specific poster) tend to call out sectarianism even before it occurs on a thread and they believe that it is a good use of their time.

        • existentialspicerack [she/her,they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          im not saying don't criticize.

          im saying "is it possible to say why you're good without dumping on anyone else?" because if not, you maybe have a problem.

          I've seen "kill the anarchists" said pretty frequently, it's just removed by mods pretty quick so you don't see it unless it shows up in your replies.

          • crime [she/her, any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            If you're doing a direct comparison, like the prompt in the post, it's worth mentioning why you prefer one ideology to another yes.

              • crime [she/her, any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I don't think we're ever going to reach a point of agreement that saying "I haven't seen an anarchist plan for this problem I am concerned about, and anarchists have not achieved revolution at scale" is "dumping on anarchists" because it really just reads as mild materially-based critique to me.

                And thank u uwu

                • existentialspicerack [she/her,they/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  it's not that we don't have solutions, it's just that they're always dismissed as 'utopian nonsense that could never work (excpet where it kinda has)' by ml's in a way not too far off from how communism in general is dismissed as 'harmful evil utopian nonsense' by libs.

                  • crime [she/her, any]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    I totally get that — I don't consider myself an anarchist but there are plenty of anarchist ideas and organizations that I really like, I just align more with MLism in terms of how I think we should get to communism. My point is mainly that I don't think that saying you haven't heard any anarchist solutions to specific problems that resonate with you is necessarily "dumping on anarchists" — I'm not the OP of that comment but usually if I make remarks like that I'm always curious to hear of anyone more well-read about or more well-versed in anarchism has any solutions that I may not have heard before. Its not dumping, it's at most mild criticism with an opening for discussion or education on anarchist views on the topic.

        • existentialspicerack [she/her,they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          i know less about spain than ukraine, but anarchist projects have existed and been stable until the communists stabbed them in the back. you are our libs.

          but also, say why you're good without mentioning why anyone else sucks. I want to see if you can.

            • existentialspicerack [she/her,they/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              nah sorry done here. if you think the anarchists in ukraine and spain were in the wrong relative to the soviets, im not having this discussion with you.

                • existentialspicerack [she/her,they/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  ive heard mixed things about makhno, but generally more positive than I have about lenin and his ilk. The situation was extreme, but I don't think there were any ways his people were worse than the red army.

                  I know less about spain, I mostly read lib shit on the subject so I don't entirely trust my knowledge base there.

                  every criticism I have for the USSR is tempered, like, there was never a reason to expect it to be less awful than it was and a lot of reasons to expect it to be worse, and the reasons it wasn't worse were probably entirely down to communism, but it was not a good or nice place. not that it ever had the chance to be, having been a pre-industrial shithole full of illiterate peasants used to being ruled by a king with barely any concept of their own authority spread out over 11 time zones with almost no infrastructure in most of them and immediately, from the moment of its conception, which only happened because everyone was already angry and hopeless and wracked by grief and loss at taking the ass end of the worst war humanity had known to date, attacked by capitalist world powers looking to sabotage it and cutting it off from anything it couldn't produce domestically(in their extreme climate) while it had to play at being a first world country AND defend itself from literally the entire rest of the continent plus like three others. they punched way above their weight class in a lot of things, and did far better than they had any right to. but also it was a totally reactionary shit hole that pumped its people full of xenophobic propaganda out of fear, and should never be held up as the example of 'communism works'. cuba or vietnam both work better for that, not that they don't have their own problems.