As more mainstream libs are discovering Lemmy, we’re seeing a pattern of complaints that opinions outside the ones they deem acceptable are allowed on the platform. We’ve even seen instances defederating because their userbase does not wish to be exposed to these views.
Interestingly, these are the same people who level censorship and control of free speech as their main critique of communists. What we’re seeing is that these people absolutely don’t care about free speech. They understand the necessity of censorship and actively advocate censoring opinions that they find dangerous. Yet, when societies based on values different from their own use these same tools they screech about authoritarianism.
Turns out it’s not authoritarianism libs hate, but having their own views censored. What actually offends them about places like China is that it’s their ideology that’s being suppressed there.
‘Anarchists’ doing authoritarian censorship because of ‘tankies’ really makes you
It’s illustrative to see that when push comes to shove anarchists tend to side with the liberals on most issues. I find that in genral anarchism is the left equivalent of libertarianism on the right.
This isn’t necessarily the case, see Hexbear. I think the most important questions when parsing who we can work with (among anarchists or libertarians, for that matter), are:
- Does this person genuinely want to improve the world for other people?
- Is this person serious enough about that to address the practical implications of stuff like “what do you do when fascists want to start a newspaper on Day 1 of your leftist utopia?”
- Can this person be peeled away from the bipartisan consensus on imperialism?
- Does this person have any other reactionary opinions (e.g., bigotry) that they are unable or unwilling to improve on?
I agree with all that, and I’m never going to discourage anyone from working with other people whose goals are compatible with your own.
I think the issues with anarchism aren’t with the goals which are largely compatible with ones that MLs have, but rather with the methodology. Vast majority of people who subscribe to anarchism mean well, but often reject effective methods for organizing and effecting change at scale.
For example, I find the rejection of authority to be highly problematic when it comes to building an effective movement. It’s simply not possible for large groups of people to organize and to keep long term consistent goals in absence of centralization. You end up with many fractured groups each having their own idea pulling things in different directions, and a movement rife with opportunists. This is precisely what we see happening with western left at the moment.
There needs to be a consistent vision and some form of a vanguard whose job it is to ensure that all the different groups are pulling in the same direction. There also needs to be a common theory of change that everyone understands in a similar enough way to work together effectively.
In my experience, anarchists often tend to make the mistake of assuming that majority of people naturally shares their ideas, and if current system could somehow be torn down then we’d naturally enter an anarchist utopia. Of course, the reality, is that if the current system did happen to collapse, then it would be groups that have good organization that will end up coming into power. If the left fails to become disciplined then it will be the right that takes over.
Looking at selfproclaimed anarchists from instances other than hexbear and what they write, the answer is:
- No. They declare so, but then behave like typical crackers. Even the most belivable examples ultimately side or bothside with fash against AES and/or other antiimperialists.
- No. Sometimes they try, but what they say is idealist wishful thinking.
- No. They have zero understanding what imperialism is. At best they will bothside conflicts.
- Yes, not always but often, after some scratching. In case of libertarians its always yes.
I find it really weird when people spend more time worrying about other niche leftists groups more than about the capitalist mainstream. The reality of the situation is that we live under neoliberal capitalism and society is far away from any form of left ideology. Fixating on how much you hate other types of leftists in this scenario instead of figuring out how to dismantle the system that’s oppressing you is misguided to put it mildly. It would be great if we get to the point where the question of whether we want to have a society based on ML or anarchist principles was meaningful to ask. We’re simply not there yet.
I know It is a hard take but I feel like anarchists got infiltrated just like we did and the worst of unproductive elements are downstream from some three letter agency interference. There is no smoking gun but when I encounter it, it feels like it has cia craftsmanship you know.
There is actually a smoking gun https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
Anarchism is pretty much designed to make it easy to infiltrate. You have no central authority, so anybody can say they’re just doing it their own way. There’s no formal structure or means of recall, so you end up with implicit power structures forming around charismatic individuals. The ideology is very broad and nebulous allowing for many creative interpretations leading to ineffective action.
I think it’s also worth noting how anarchism is constantly promoted in the media. Lots of shows and comics teach people about dangers of authority, and promote ad hoc spontaneous organization over collective action. Anarchism provides a safety relief valve for people to vent their frustration without causing any threat to the system as a whole.
Meanwhile, effective organization such as what MLK, Fred Hampton, and Black Panthers results in violent suppression by the state. That’s how we know that ML style organization is seen as a real and credible threat by the system while anarchism is not.
What actually offends them about places like China is that it’s their ideology that’s being suppressed there
Is it even suppressed in China? There seems to be plenty of libs in China, even outside of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Liberalism just isn’t the government’s official ideology in China. That’s about it
Plenty of libs from the big cities, places like Shanghai, Guangzhou and even Beijing.
They’re the type to go silent when commemorating the victims of Nanjing or celebrating the anniversary of the Japanese surrender. But in the same breath they cheer fanatically for Azov, US invasions and dream about one day leading the way for western imperialists to kill and enslave their fellow citizens.
Granted, a lot of these are paid 1450 trolls from Taiwan but liberals are not as suppressed as they claim. Zhihu, Weibo etc. are full of types who idolise the west and even the third reich vs what they regard as “evil yellow russian pinkos” lol.
More than a decade ago, mainstream opinions were even more heavily liberal with constant portrayals of the US as a magical utopia while we were ‘backwards, dirty and polluted’.
It’s ironic how liberals yell authoritarianism every time China’s brought up on fediverse. One of the few criticisms I have of China is that they’re letting liberals run too free in Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc. but that’s still not enough freedom for liberals who really just want to suppress other opinions so that it’s outside the realm of acceptable discourse.
As communists, we’re open about the fact that we think certain ideas are harmful to society and need to be suppressed. We have a clear rationale for why we consider ideologies such as fascism and liberalism harmful and why we wish society to function a certain way.
Liberals have found an interesting rationalization to reconcile their support for free speech with the need to censor ideas outside the liberal bubble. The trick is to say that the total sum of valid ideas falls within the liberal ideology, and that all other ideas are fundamentally invalid. This is why liberals love the fake news and disinformation narrative so much. In their mind, they’re not censoring other valid ideas that are contrary to their own ideology, but are rather fighting against misinformation that has no fundamental value.
And interestingly, there’s little defederating going the other way. Honestly the only real criticism I see is that libs don’t like that they can’t regurgitate anti-China made up nonsense without being corrected.
As far as I am aware, we have pretty much exclusively reserved that option for instances that are just overtly cesspools of fascism. Not even in the “scratch a liberal” kind of fascist, but the vocal and proud neo-nazis.
We also always seem to be willing to at least give the libs that wander in a fair shot. They rarely last long, but every so often you get somebody who is actually willing to hear reason.
