You might want to look up what happened at Kent State, when American soldiers fired on unarmed student protestors. The media spread all sorts of lies about the victims, like that they were a bunch of outside agitators putting LSD in the water supply, and things like that. A week after the shooting, a poll was conducted in which 60% of Americans blamed the students, while only 10% blamed the National Guard. Of course, the media’s narrative didn’t hold up in the long term, and they issued “corrections” about their “mistakes,” once the moment had safely passed.
Othering is not something that’s reserved for foreigners, and there are plenty of people without consciences who the state is more than happy to recruit to do whatever dirty work needs to be done.
A protest is easy to put down, and even then the propaganda machine had to go in overdrive. If a lot of your society is practicing prefiguration (and not just protests), violence like that becomes counter-productive.
Sure. But a lot of our society isn’t practicing prefiguration (at least, as far as I can gather what you mean by that).
Whether violence is effective or counterproductive can’t just be assumed ideologically, it has to be assessed based on the situation. The bulk of human history has involved violent state repression, that the perpetrators have frequently gotten away with (and made bank off of).
If we are in a position where, because of the lack of prefiguration, the state is able to use violence with impunity and then simply lie or blame the victims, then it follows that the state can use violence to prevent prefiguration from occurring, to the extent that it sees it as a threat to its power. It’s a bit of a Catch-22.
That’s not to say it’s a bad idea to try. It’s just a reminder that being right doesn’t stop bullets.
Whether violence is effective or counterproductive can’t just be assumed ideologically, it has to be assessed based on the situation. The bulk of human history has involved violent state repression, that the perpetrators have frequently gotten away with (and made bank off of).
Sure, but the bulk of human history was not ideologically anarchist. I.e. the people were not self-consciously trying to avoid hierarchies. If they didn’t have any, it was just the way things evolved, but they weren’t conscious about rejecting them actively.
If we are in a position where, because of the lack of prefiguration, the state is able to use violence with impunity and then simply lie or blame the victims, then it follows that the state can use violence to prevent prefiguration from occurring, to the extent that it sees it as a threat to its power. It’s a bit of a Catch-22.
In the 20th century, the Marxist-Leninist experiments sucked out all the oxygen from the room by turning all socialist momentum towards those failed projects which just became capitalist again. The world is not the same anymore and a lot of lessons have been learnt and as the empire hegemony weakens and collapses through its own contradictions, there will be space for prefiguration to be practiced and grow. You can’t just take the last 100 of the US at the height of its power and posit that this is how the world will always play out.
Anyway, the best part of prefiguration is that it allows people to do it based on their appetite for risk. What we’re doing right now is a form prefiguration. Supporting piracy, supporting distributed social media, rejecting VC-based capitalism and so on. Not everything can be solved by violence and we can and should flow around it.
Sure, but the bulk of human history was not ideologically anarchist. I.e. the people were not self-consciously trying to avoid hierarchies.
The bulk of people today are not anarchist either. You don’t have to be an anarchist to recognize it as bad when the state enacts violence against you. And for the record, there were various historical movements such as the Diggers in the 1600s, who wanted to create small, egalitarian communities with communal land ownership and public health insurance.
In the 20th century, the Marxist-Leninist experiments sucked out all the oxygen from the room by turning all socialist momentum towards those failed projects which just became capitalist again.
I disagree with this on every count, but the most relevant is this idea that Marxism-Leninism “sucked the oxygen out of the room.” This seems to be coming from a position of philosophical idealism as opposed to philosophical materialism. Why was Marxism-Leninism able to suck the oxygen out of the room? Is it just because people happened to believe one thing over another thing? Or were there material reasons why people turned to Marxism-Leninism?
You can’t just take the last 100 of the US at the height of its power and posit that this is how the world will always play out.
I’m not? I’m both looking at thousands of years of world history, and also not saying that the world will always play out that way.
Not everything can be solved by violence and we can and should flow around it.
Of course not. The idea that violence can solve everything is just as ideological and baseless as the idea that violence never works.
The bulk of people today are not anarchist either. You don’t have to be an anarchist to recognize it as bad when the state enacts violence against you. And for the record, there were various historical movements such as the Diggers in the 1600s, who wanted to create small, egalitarian communities with communal land ownership and public health insurance.
Yes, but those driving for anarchism and prefiguration are.
Utopian socialists trying to create small communes during feudalism were doomed to fail and entirely irrelevant to our situation.
Is it just because people happened to believe one thing over another thing? Or were there material reasons why people turned to Marxism-Leninism?
Sure, ML was a great transition plan for agrarian/feudalist societies to pivot towards capitalism, and as such it provided comparatively a lot of the same benefits liberalism did.
As to why it sucked the oxygen out of the room, it’s because US and USSR propaganda happened to align for a brief moment in time to paint state capitalism as “socialism” for different reasons, until it inevitably collapsed upon itself. Therefore those interested in socialist alternatives thought ML-styles communism can work during that time and tried to do the same instead of anarchism.
I’m not? I’m both looking at thousands of years of world history, and also not saying that the world will always play out that way.
Thousands of years of history under monarchy are also irrelevant in this situation.
Of course not. The idea that violence can solve everything is just as ideological and baseless as the idea that violence can solve everything.
You misunderstand. Not every problem of the state can be solved with violence. Which is to mean, state violence can’t crush prefiguration
Yes, but those driving for anarchism and prefiguration are.
I don’t understand why that would matter in the slightest.
Utopian socialists trying to create small communes during feudalism were doomed to fail and entirely irrelevant to our situation.
Why are they irrelevant? Didn’t you assert that the reason violent state repression worked in the past was because people weren’t opposed to hierarchy? The existence of people opposed to hierarchy trying to build community in what seems to me to be similar to your ideas, doesn’t somehow become irrelevant just because you say it is.
Sure, ML was a great transition plan for agrarian/feudalist societies to pivot towards capitalism, and as such it provided comparatively a lot of the same benefits liberalism did.
This is a remarkably reasonable assessment.
As to why it sucked the oxygen out of the room, it’s because US and USSR propaganda happened to align for a brief moment in time to paint state capitalism as “socialism” for different reasons, until it inevitably collapsed upon itself. Therefore those interested in socialist alternatives thought ML-styles communism can work during that time and tried to do the same instead of anarchism.
But American and Western leftists were pretty much always very critical of the USSR, and constantly distancing themselves from it. George Orwell, for example, asserted that opposition to the USSR was the litmus test for socialists to be intellectually honest. British socialists coined the term “tankie” ages ago. Marxists were kicked out of unions, like the AFL-CIO. It seems strange to me to assert that these anti-ML socialists would think that socialism would have to be defined by what the US and USSR say it is.
Thousands of years of history under monarchy are also irrelevant in this situation.
Again, things don’t just become irrelevant just because you say they are.
Is there any historical data that I am allowed to look at? Like, at all? If I can’t use the past 100 years and I can’t use the past 1000 years, can I use the past 10 years?
You misunderstand. Not every problem of the state can be solved with violence. Which is to mean, state violence can’t crush prefiguration
That depends on the specific conditions. It can’t always crush prefiguration. It can’t never crush prefiguration.
I don’t understand why that would matter in the slightest.
You don’t understand why the people pushing and training others to practice prefiguration being consciously anti-hierarchical would have an impact?
Why are they irrelevant? Didn’t you assert that the reason violent state repression worked in the past was because people weren’t opposed to hierarchy? The existence of people opposed to hierarchy trying to build community in what seems to me to be similar to your ideas, doesn’t somehow become irrelevant just because you say it is.
No, the reason is that monarchy != capitalism and there’s different norms on how state repression works. And also small isolated communes in capitalism are also doomed, which is why it’s not what we suggest we do.
But American and Western leftists were pretty much always very critical of the USSR. George Orwell, for example, asserted that opposition to the USSR was the litmus test for socialists to be intellectually honest. British socialists coined the term “tankie” ages ago. Marxists were kicked out of unions, like the AFL-CIO. It seems strange to me to assert that these anti-ML socialists would think that socialism would have to be defined by what the US and USSR say it is.
Sure, some were. But I am not certain the majority were, given how even now on lemmy, there’s a ton Stalin stans. Growing up in Greece, the vast majority of socialists were of the ML variety until the failure of ML regimes became too much to ignore.
Again, things don’t just become irrelevant just because you say they are.
Different situations are not relevant just because you say the are.
You don’t understand why the people pushing and training others to practice prefiguration being consciously anti-hierarchical would have an impact?
Yeah, I don’t understand that at all. I feel like you lost the plot here.
We’re talking about the possibility of violent state repression, right? If everyone in your movement, but just the people in it, got so pissed off they decided to take up arms against the government, would that be enough to overthrow it? Or would you also need the support of people not in your movement? You know, the ones who aren’t anarchists and don’t follow your ideology. If you present a problem for the state’s control, then the reason they don’t just round you up and shoot you is because of the possibility of a backlash from the broader public. But if that broader public is manipulable or unreliable, then you don’t really have a guarantee of safety - which is all I’m really saying here.
No, the reason is that monarchy != capitalism and there’s different norms on how state repression works.
So then, do you agree that a community of people promoting community and opposition to hierarchy can be violently suppressed, under certain circumstances? It isn’t, like, an inherent trait of the universe, and you have to look at the specific conditions to evaluate it?
Sure, some were. But I am not certain the majority were, given how even now on lemmy, there’s a ton Stalin stans.
Lemmy was created by Marxists, so it’s hardly surprising there’s a lot of Marxists here. But there has been a broader surge in popularity for that ideology. The reasons for that have little to do with any sort of significant, long running movement and more to do with modern politics and circumstances.
You might want to look up what happened at Kent State, when American soldiers fired on unarmed student protestors. The media spread all sorts of lies about the victims, like that they were a bunch of outside agitators putting LSD in the water supply, and things like that. A week after the shooting, a poll was conducted in which 60% of Americans blamed the students, while only 10% blamed the National Guard. Of course, the media’s narrative didn’t hold up in the long term, and they issued “corrections” about their “mistakes,” once the moment had safely passed.
Othering is not something that’s reserved for foreigners, and there are plenty of people without consciences who the state is more than happy to recruit to do whatever dirty work needs to be done.
A protest is easy to put down, and even then the propaganda machine had to go in overdrive. If a lot of your society is practicing prefiguration (and not just protests), violence like that becomes counter-productive.
Sure. But a lot of our society isn’t practicing prefiguration (at least, as far as I can gather what you mean by that).
Whether violence is effective or counterproductive can’t just be assumed ideologically, it has to be assessed based on the situation. The bulk of human history has involved violent state repression, that the perpetrators have frequently gotten away with (and made bank off of).
If we are in a position where, because of the lack of prefiguration, the state is able to use violence with impunity and then simply lie or blame the victims, then it follows that the state can use violence to prevent prefiguration from occurring, to the extent that it sees it as a threat to its power. It’s a bit of a Catch-22.
That’s not to say it’s a bad idea to try. It’s just a reminder that being right doesn’t stop bullets.
Sure, but the bulk of human history was not ideologically anarchist. I.e. the people were not self-consciously trying to avoid hierarchies. If they didn’t have any, it was just the way things evolved, but they weren’t conscious about rejecting them actively.
In the 20th century, the Marxist-Leninist experiments sucked out all the oxygen from the room by turning all socialist momentum towards those failed projects which just became capitalist again. The world is not the same anymore and a lot of lessons have been learnt and as the empire hegemony weakens and collapses through its own contradictions, there will be space for prefiguration to be practiced and grow. You can’t just take the last 100 of the US at the height of its power and posit that this is how the world will always play out.
Anyway, the best part of prefiguration is that it allows people to do it based on their appetite for risk. What we’re doing right now is a form prefiguration. Supporting piracy, supporting distributed social media, rejecting VC-based capitalism and so on. Not everything can be solved by violence and we can and should flow around it.
The bulk of people today are not anarchist either. You don’t have to be an anarchist to recognize it as bad when the state enacts violence against you. And for the record, there were various historical movements such as the Diggers in the 1600s, who wanted to create small, egalitarian communities with communal land ownership and public health insurance.
I disagree with this on every count, but the most relevant is this idea that Marxism-Leninism “sucked the oxygen out of the room.” This seems to be coming from a position of philosophical idealism as opposed to philosophical materialism. Why was Marxism-Leninism able to suck the oxygen out of the room? Is it just because people happened to believe one thing over another thing? Or were there material reasons why people turned to Marxism-Leninism?
I’m not? I’m both looking at thousands of years of world history, and also not saying that the world will always play out that way.
Of course not. The idea that violence can solve everything is just as ideological and baseless as the idea that violence never works.
Yes, but those driving for anarchism and prefiguration are.
Utopian socialists trying to create small communes during feudalism were doomed to fail and entirely irrelevant to our situation.
Sure, ML was a great transition plan for agrarian/feudalist societies to pivot towards capitalism, and as such it provided comparatively a lot of the same benefits liberalism did.
As to why it sucked the oxygen out of the room, it’s because US and USSR propaganda happened to align for a brief moment in time to paint state capitalism as “socialism” for different reasons, until it inevitably collapsed upon itself. Therefore those interested in socialist alternatives thought ML-styles communism can work during that time and tried to do the same instead of anarchism.
Thousands of years of history under monarchy are also irrelevant in this situation.
You misunderstand. Not every problem of the state can be solved with violence. Which is to mean, state violence can’t crush prefiguration
I don’t understand why that would matter in the slightest.
Why are they irrelevant? Didn’t you assert that the reason violent state repression worked in the past was because people weren’t opposed to hierarchy? The existence of people opposed to hierarchy trying to build community in what seems to me to be similar to your ideas, doesn’t somehow become irrelevant just because you say it is.
This is a remarkably reasonable assessment.
But American and Western leftists were pretty much always very critical of the USSR, and constantly distancing themselves from it. George Orwell, for example, asserted that opposition to the USSR was the litmus test for socialists to be intellectually honest. British socialists coined the term “tankie” ages ago. Marxists were kicked out of unions, like the AFL-CIO. It seems strange to me to assert that these anti-ML socialists would think that socialism would have to be defined by what the US and USSR say it is.
Again, things don’t just become irrelevant just because you say they are.
Is there any historical data that I am allowed to look at? Like, at all? If I can’t use the past 100 years and I can’t use the past 1000 years, can I use the past 10 years?
That depends on the specific conditions. It can’t always crush prefiguration. It can’t never crush prefiguration.
You don’t understand why the people pushing and training others to practice prefiguration being consciously anti-hierarchical would have an impact?
No, the reason is that monarchy != capitalism and there’s different norms on how state repression works. And also small isolated communes in capitalism are also doomed, which is why it’s not what we suggest we do.
Sure, some were. But I am not certain the majority were, given how even now on lemmy, there’s a ton Stalin stans. Growing up in Greece, the vast majority of socialists were of the ML variety until the failure of ML regimes became too much to ignore.
Different situations are not relevant just because you say the are.
Yeah, I don’t understand that at all. I feel like you lost the plot here.
We’re talking about the possibility of violent state repression, right? If everyone in your movement, but just the people in it, got so pissed off they decided to take up arms against the government, would that be enough to overthrow it? Or would you also need the support of people not in your movement? You know, the ones who aren’t anarchists and don’t follow your ideology. If you present a problem for the state’s control, then the reason they don’t just round you up and shoot you is because of the possibility of a backlash from the broader public. But if that broader public is manipulable or unreliable, then you don’t really have a guarantee of safety - which is all I’m really saying here.
So then, do you agree that a community of people promoting community and opposition to hierarchy can be violently suppressed, under certain circumstances? It isn’t, like, an inherent trait of the universe, and you have to look at the specific conditions to evaluate it?
Lemmy was created by Marxists, so it’s hardly surprising there’s a lot of Marxists here. But there has been a broader surge in popularity for that ideology. The reasons for that have little to do with any sort of significant, long running movement and more to do with modern politics and circumstances.