Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don’t want to abolish capitalism, and don’t want to fight archism?

Link to the comment

I suspect this is just because libs absolutely DESPISE comrade @Cowbee@hexbear.net and will upvote anything smart-sounding that supposedly addresses whatever is being discussed?

Also, gotta love the whole “I have this opinion and many anarchists will disagree and that’s what anarchism is about”. Like, buddy, you haven’t read one book or talked to one anarchist IRL, let alone organized in your entire life.

  • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    29·
    10 days ago

    I suspect this is just because libs absolutely DESPISE comrade @Cowbee@hexbear.net and will upvote anything smart-sounding that supposedly addresses whatever is being discussed?

    I had a comment the other day criticizing mainly Hexbear (because that’s what the conversation was about), but I think the criticism applies at least as much to many other nominally radical left spaces, and then in the replies comrade @Dirt_Possum@hexbear.net had her own thoughts along with linking to a comment that is sort of like mine but much, much better.

    Anyway, my main point there is to say yes, just use the right words to sound like you’re an enlightened radical and a lot of people who have no real understanding will get behind you.

    (btw sorry dirt_possum for not responding at the time, it was a good comment and I really appreciated the whole reply chain you linked to)

    Also, gotta love the whole “I have this opinion and many anarchists will disagree and that’s what anarchism is about”. Like, buddy, you haven’t read one book or talked to one anarchist IRL, let alone organized in your entire life.

    I love this lib line that disagreement is a virtue, because it shows their position is nonsensical and nihilistic. Freedom to disagree is a virtue, and it’s a primary virtue of science to be able to challenge things constantly, but science has rigor that allows for a consensus to be reached via that process of challenging. Merely sitting around in a state of everyone contradicting each other shows that there’s a serious problem preventing any sort of actual resolution being reached, which is detrimental to any sort of successful organizing by definition.

    If we are taking this person at their word, of course, but actually they are full of shit and almost any irl anarchist would have no respect for this view or identify it as genuinely anarchist.

    • towhee [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      10·
      10 days ago

      Freedom to disagree is a virtue, and it’s a primary virtue of science to be able to challenge things constantly, but science has rigor that allows for a consensus to be reached via that process of challenging.

      Excellent point, I do wonder whether NDT-style I Fucking Love Science shit is ultimately the germ of these approaches to politics. I suppose The Market is supposed to fulfill the role of objective Big Other here that is filled by the actual physical world in science, which is how this leads to basic liberalism.

      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        9·
        10 days ago

        Ultimately I’m also just crassly speculating, but I’d say you’re probably right. In an environment where the only currency is speech and the only profits are clout and lifestyles, why would they produce something fundamentally hostile to liberalism and able to challenge it? Then they’d get more friction and for no benefit, because it’s not like changing things was on the table to start with. Performatively opposing liberalism can still be rhetorically beneficial, but fundamentally they are still frequently bound to very liberal sensibilities (see the “anarchist” in this thread who only believes no one can be made to do anything).