• Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I did not send my first message to attempt to “convert” you or anyone into another ideology. My intentions were simple: to disprove the popular claim of MLs “betraying” revolutions by taking a closer look at the events that it refers to, and to show that past anarchist projects are equally guilty of engaging in authoritarianism once they see themselves out of idealist theory and into the field where they have to survive: all of it by taking a closer look at history. And, if not to actually manage to convince anyone about it, at least to encourage people lurking here to take a deep dive into the history of their own movement, something that we “tankies” are already forced to do because of constant confrontation but that anarchists usually don’t have to, being instead able to rejoice in a romantisized and adequately simplified version of the past, not having to worry about anyone ever bringing up the “dark” bits of their history.

    You are welcome to attempt discussing it or (although I doubt it) agreeing with it. Yes, we could instead talk about the theory attempting to change each other’s minds in vain about either anarchism or marxism-leninism, but with due respect, that’s outside the scope of my initial intentions, and nonetheless I do not think that neither you nor I have any intent of perpetuating this discussion into eternity. And even if I wanted, attempting to discuss some subjects such as North Korea would eventually get me banned from this sever and have my comments deleted per this site’s rules.

    If you wish to add anything else about our initial topic, you are welcome to do so and I will listen and respond adequately. If not… I’d say it’s been a pleasure talking. You are a well read person, I will give you that.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And even if I wanted, attempting to discuss some subjects such as North Korea would eventually get me banned from this sever and have my comments deleted per this site’s rules.

      How would you analyse NK if it didn’t have hammers and sickles1 painted all over it? If instead it featured a swastika? A cat’s paw? The Klingon emblem? Keep all facts on the grounds the same, look at “the purpose of a system is what it does”, only switch symbols around. Maybe then you’ll understand why other people’s neck hairs stand on edge.


      1 and brushes, a nice addition I have to admit though the graphic design is atrocious.

      • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How would you analyse NK if it didn’t have hammers and sickles painted all over it?

        I just… Told you I won’t. Not here, at least. Just by being here I am already dancing on the knife’s edge and, as this server very clearly states, authoritarian behaviour a bannable offense. I came here limiting myself to talk about history because I am not interested in breaking this place’s rules. If you still insist in hearing what I have to say you are more than welcome to send me a private message.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You pretty much already gave the answer: Your interpretation wouldn’t change, or at least you can’t imagine it would.

          The homework I’ll leave you then, is simple: Analyse Singapore as-is, but with hammer and sickle symbolism and rhetoric. Compare it to your analysis of NK, and see whether any inconsistencies arise.

          • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You pretty much already gave the answer: Your interpretation wouldn’t change, or at least you can’t imagine it would.

            No I did not, and you are putting words in my mouth here. I said I refuse to talk about the specifics of North Korea in this place. But if you insist, I’ll tell you that symbolism is meaningless by itself alone, and that a solid interpretation of a society can only come from a study of its structure seen from the lense of its history and its material conditions.

            If you want a honest conversation without the restriction of moderation, once again, you are welcome to send me a private message. If not, there’s nothing else to say.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?

              Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don’t want to lose your cricket club?

              • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?

                My interpretation consists on actually attempting to explain how North Korea’s apparatus works. I have no interest in critiquing “authoritarianism” (or in other words, the existance of a state) per se, as an idea of an entity above society and separated from it, independent of class struggle.

                Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don’t want to lose your cricket club?

                That’s such a bizarre thing to say. The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I have no interest in critiquing “authoritarianism” (or in other words, the existance of a state) per se, as an idea of an entity above society and separated from it, independent of class struggle.

                  The notion of state as inherently authoritarian is curious. Maybe read into anarchist critiques of ancaps (which aren’t anarchists but neo-feudalists), the anarchist insistence on organisation and structure being necessary (Anarchism is Order is age-old doctrine), or, well, Kerry Thornley (which I already quoted): Nobody gives a damn about a state who busies itself with things like providing public transportation, general infrastructure, safety nets, conflict mediation, suchlike.

                  The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.

                  Nah what it shows is that I’m an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.

                  • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nah what it shows is that I’m an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.

                    Good luck with your future trolling endeavours.