No, in context its a very real criticism of their stance. Stop trying to jam every thought terminating cliche into every conversation that criticizes your ideology.
I can’t believe I’ve lived long enough to see “thought-terminating cliche” become a thought-terminating cliche.
More seriously, yes it’s criticism; it’s just (for the reason I gave) not very good criticism. The way the American system works, you don’t need to agree with or like the people in a party to run under its name, and under a two-party system there’s no reason to self-impose that condition.
If that were true quit trying build one with the DNC.
Again, an important feature of the American system is that you don’t have to do that to run under a party’s name. Borrowing the label for name recognition is something you can do here and it doesn’t mean you’re in the same team as the rest of the party.
If you tent with the DNC youre going to pull support from entrenched liberals. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are unless its just to drag the whole thing down. If the DSA does become the majority voice they are still dependant on liberals to uphold the party. Force them out and you will only revitalize the GOP. If thats youre goal fine but youre not better for it.
Or maybe you are but its yet to be seen that a Leftist majority can maintain power. At the very least you should make your intentions more clear and then ill hand it to you.
Yeah I’m an anarchist, I don’t care about platforming Democratic “”“socialists”“”. Actually, I think the DSA ultimately siphons good people away from fighting oppression into liberal power structures, i.e. they benefit liberalism more than they help advance anti-capitalist worker power. There are definitely good people in the DSA, but IMO they’re wasting their time and energy.
I mean you can discount the socialists as a part of the left if you want.
I’m discounting the DSA specifically as a part of the left, with the caveat that this is a minority opinion. While as an anarchist I absolutely disagree with other socialists on a variety of issues, clearly anarchists and non-anarchist socialists are leftists.
Not to be divisive, but…not completely. I would argue that anarchism is more comprehensive in its desire to eliminate hierarchy and authority than socialism. Anarchists are socialists, but most anarchists want to go further than socialism, and we all want to do it in a way that respects means-ends unity, i.e. the means we use to achieve our ends should resemble those ends.
For this reason, even though anarchists and other socialists both want to abolish capitalism and put workers in control of the means of production…we have wildly different visions for what that looks like. We share a common language primarily, and many common values (e.g. egalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-fascism, feminism, anti-LGBTphobia, internationalism, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism), but the theoretical and practical divide between anarchism and Marxism is fundamental.
That being said, non-anarchist socialists are absolutely leftists. No question. We do share enough commonality to share that label. But we do not have exactly the same goals.
This reply was supposed to come sooner but yeah you’re right. I was mostly referring to the goal of establish a true Communist society (stateless classless moneyless). Of course the how we get there and what it looks like can be very different depending on the ideology.
Anarchists are socialists, but most anarchists want to go further than socialism
I’d argue that’s most socialists. Ideologically I’m an anarcho-communist, if I could snap my fingers and instantly give everyone class consciousness and a stable anarch-communist society, I would. But I can’t, so I think in terms of steps to get there. Shifting the perspectives of hundreds of millions of people takes time and effort.
Right now, the next obvious step to me is market socialism. Eventually the market should yield to spontaneous mutual aid, but that will take time. Consequentially, I presently advocate Democratic Socialism. Once we have that, I’ll take another step towards anarchy, rinse and repeat.
we all want to do it in a way that respects means-ends unity, i.e. the means we use to achieve our ends should resemble those ends.
I think this perspective underestimates the strength of the forces opposing us. Not just the actual individuals deliberately working against us, but also the alienated and propagandized working class.
Right now, the next obvious step to me is market socialism. Eventually the market should yield to spontaneous mutual aid, but that will take time.
Why do you think that the market should yield to spontaneous mutual aid? I haven’t seen any historical evidence that free markets tend to do anything other than concentrate wealth. This is a (mild) ideological disagreement I have even with left-market anarchists.
if I could snap my fingers and instantly give everyone class consciousness and a stable anarch-communist society, I would
That’s…not what it means to be an anarcho-communist. Obviously we cannot change the entire world in a day (unless you have access to a gamma ray burst 😆). Anarcho-communism isn’t against stepwise processes, but our critique of state socialists is that the State is structurally incapable of bringing about communism within any time bound. Put simply: the State is a hierarchy that needs to be destroyed. Strengthening it, even in pursuit of noble ends, is a step backwards for proletarian freedom.
When we say that ends should match the means, we do not mean to live our ideal lives immediately as if capitalism never happened. What we mean is that the solutions we pursue should reflect the values and priorities of the world we actually want to see. Since we want to see a world without hierarchy and authority, and as a corollary a stateless world, it makes no sense from an anarchist perspective to support a “socialist” state as part of the transition to anarchy. I.e., we should not build systems that we will have to revolt against in the future.
Consequentially, I presently advocate Democratic Socialism. Once we have that, I’ll take another step towards anarchy, rinse and repeat.
But that’s not a step towards anarchy almost at all. That’s a step towards something else.
I think this perspective underestimates the strength of the forces opposing us. Not just the actual individuals deliberately working against us, but also the alienated and propagandized working class.
I am painfully aware that my views are minority views. Literally all my family and friends are not even socialists at all; most of my family are Trump supporters. Anarchists are doing huge jail sentences for protesting at Prarieland. The settler-colonial project is openly targeting anarchists. My own family would be thrilled to watch me burn if they knew my actual views. And I yell on Lemmy all the time about how the current bourgeoisie are some of the worst creatures ever born, and I am constantly watching news and reading about the vile things the bourgeoisie are capable of, e.g. the Gaza genocide. I’m aware. My comrades are aware. If they weren’t aware of the abuses the capitalists foist upon us…they wouldn’t be anarchists.
Gotta keep the infighting alive! For capital!
It’s not infighting if we’re not within the same organization or coalition. It’s just fighting.
Then quit running DSA candidates under the DNC.
I wish they’d do that too, but also real “but you participate in society, curious” energy there given that America is under a two party system.
No, in context its a very real criticism of their stance. Stop trying to jam every thought terminating cliche into every conversation that criticizes your ideology.
I can’t believe I’ve lived long enough to see “thought-terminating cliche” become a thought-terminating cliche.
More seriously, yes it’s criticism; it’s just (for the reason I gave) not very good criticism. The way the American system works, you don’t need to agree with or like the people in a party to run under its name, and under a two-party system there’s no reason to self-impose that condition.
Again youre missing the context.
Op was saying there is no coalition. If that were true quit trying build one with the DNC. Otherwise, if the DSA can stand on its own, it would have.
Thats why he went straight to gatekeeping because he knows its true that leftys side with liberals in the usa.
I’m not it’s literally right there.
Again, an important feature of the American system is that you don’t have to do that to run under a party’s name. Borrowing the label for name recognition is something you can do here and it doesn’t mean you’re in the same team as the rest of the party.
Again, context has no meaning to you.
If you tent with the DNC youre going to pull support from entrenched liberals. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are unless its just to drag the whole thing down. If the DSA does become the majority voice they are still dependant on liberals to uphold the party. Force them out and you will only revitalize the GOP. If thats youre goal fine but youre not better for it.
Or maybe you are but its yet to be seen that a Leftist majority can maintain power. At the very least you should make your intentions more clear and then ill hand it to you.
Yeah I’m an anarchist, I don’t care about platforming Democratic “”“socialists”“”. Actually, I think the DSA ultimately siphons good people away from fighting oppression into liberal power structures, i.e. they benefit liberalism more than they help advance anti-capitalist worker power. There are definitely good people in the DSA, but IMO they’re wasting their time and energy.
I mean you can discount the socialists as a part of the left if you want. Im just saying titles have lost their usefulness at that level of scrutiny.
I’m discounting the DSA specifically as a part of the left, with the caveat that this is a minority opinion. While as an anarchist I absolutely disagree with other socialists on a variety of issues, clearly anarchists and non-anarchist socialists are leftists.
At least anarchists and socialists have the same end goal in mind
Not to be divisive, but…not completely. I would argue that anarchism is more comprehensive in its desire to eliminate hierarchy and authority than socialism. Anarchists are socialists, but most anarchists want to go further than socialism, and we all want to do it in a way that respects means-ends unity, i.e. the means we use to achieve our ends should resemble those ends.
For this reason, even though anarchists and other socialists both want to abolish capitalism and put workers in control of the means of production…we have wildly different visions for what that looks like. We share a common language primarily, and many common values (e.g. egalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-fascism, feminism, anti-LGBTphobia, internationalism, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism), but the theoretical and practical divide between anarchism and Marxism is fundamental.
That being said, non-anarchist socialists are absolutely leftists. No question. We do share enough commonality to share that label. But we do not have exactly the same goals.
This reply was supposed to come sooner but yeah you’re right. I was mostly referring to the goal of establish a true Communist society (stateless classless moneyless). Of course the how we get there and what it looks like can be very different depending on the ideology.
I’d argue that’s most socialists. Ideologically I’m an anarcho-communist, if I could snap my fingers and instantly give everyone class consciousness and a stable anarch-communist society, I would. But I can’t, so I think in terms of steps to get there. Shifting the perspectives of hundreds of millions of people takes time and effort.
Right now, the next obvious step to me is market socialism. Eventually the market should yield to spontaneous mutual aid, but that will take time. Consequentially, I presently advocate Democratic Socialism. Once we have that, I’ll take another step towards anarchy, rinse and repeat.
I think this perspective underestimates the strength of the forces opposing us. Not just the actual individuals deliberately working against us, but also the alienated and propagandized working class.
Why do you think that the market should yield to spontaneous mutual aid? I haven’t seen any historical evidence that free markets tend to do anything other than concentrate wealth. This is a (mild) ideological disagreement I have even with left-market anarchists.
That’s…not what it means to be an anarcho-communist. Obviously we cannot change the entire world in a day (unless you have access to a gamma ray burst 😆). Anarcho-communism isn’t against stepwise processes, but our critique of state socialists is that the State is structurally incapable of bringing about communism within any time bound. Put simply: the State is a hierarchy that needs to be destroyed. Strengthening it, even in pursuit of noble ends, is a step backwards for proletarian freedom.
When we say that ends should match the means, we do not mean to live our ideal lives immediately as if capitalism never happened. What we mean is that the solutions we pursue should reflect the values and priorities of the world we actually want to see. Since we want to see a world without hierarchy and authority, and as a corollary a stateless world, it makes no sense from an anarchist perspective to support a “socialist” state as part of the transition to anarchy. I.e., we should not build systems that we will have to revolt against in the future.
But that’s not a step towards anarchy almost at all. That’s a step towards something else.
I am painfully aware that my views are minority views. Literally all my family and friends are not even socialists at all; most of my family are Trump supporters. Anarchists are doing huge jail sentences for protesting at Prarieland. The
settler-colonial project is openly targeting anarchists. My own family would be thrilled to watch me burn if they knew my actual views. And I yell on Lemmy all the time about how the current bourgeoisie are some of the worst creatures ever born, and I am constantly watching news and reading about the vile things the bourgeoisie are capable of, e.g. the Gaza genocide. I’m aware. My comrades are aware. If they weren’t aware of the abuses the capitalists foist upon us…they wouldn’t be anarchists.
Until you lock them both in a room together with no one else.
Really living up to your username
Youre pretty clever. You know.