Wouldn’t be a liberal without the homophobia
I had a libertarian socialist YouTuber tell me that I was guzzling cum from the assholes of redfash dictators and, when I called them out on their homophobia and they attempted to gaslight me over it by denying they said anything homophobic
and that they didn’t know my gender, at which point I asked them if they believe that the cum appeared in the assholes of said “dictators” immaculatelyand I pointed out that they were assuming a position of unjust authority over my own experience they again engaged in denialism.(Edit: apparently this slapfight has blurred with other ones I’ve had that are extremely similar over time in my memory; I didn’t play the “unjust hierarchy over my own experiences” card in this exchange and I don’t think that this particular case of libertarian-
socialismhomophobia came with them claiming not to know my gender but the overall point stands and I’m keeping my original wording there for accountability’s sake. Not that anyone’s screenshotting these comments or keeping score but I feel like I made the accusations and a sneaky delete wouldn’t be right.)When I quoted their own words back to them they managed to scrape together enough integrity to admit that they had actually said what I essentially forced them to acknowledge, they simply laughed it off.
These are the anti-tankies who deign to spread their message in the name of anti-authoritarianism
Edit: Fuck it, imma find those comments!
CW: homophobia ahead!
Them (a majority of the comment content has been removed because it’s a long one with extraneous details):
Me:
Them:
Big “You can’t fire me - I quit!!” energy hereMe:
Them:
Big “You [slurs] call anything homophobic these days!” energyMe:
Them:
“Getting real sick of these queers clogging up my good, honest anarchist politics with their concern-trolling over homophobia 😡😡”Me:
Them:
Yeahhh, no small degree of ableism here but I wasn’t even going to try and address it because I was going to pin them on their homophobia and I wanted to make them eat their words by this point. (Also imagine my shock that the radlib who is opining about topics hasn’t done the damn reading.)
Me:
Fuck it, gloves off. I even tried baiting him into making the accusation that me using the grammatical construction cum was homophobic but no dice. Can’t win 'em all…
Them:
“I’m not the non-reader. You’re the non-reader!! 😡😡” and is this tripling-down on the gaslighting? Quadrupling-down? I’ve lost count…
Me:
Yeah, I’m the non-reader. I also need to work on my own ableism.
Them:
“Haha, yeah! You’re right about what I said about you but it’s still not homophobia because I said it in defence of my political position so it’s a justifiable hierarchy! (Also you [slurs] are so obsessed with identity-politicking.) At least I admit when I’m wrong (I’m not wrong though!)”
How dare I use insults!? The absolute audacity…
This guy is a crypto-anarchist. He’s one of these eclectic western leftists who would be a LeftCom if it didn’t require all that damn reading first so instead he’s just an “anti-authoritarian” radical who dedicates a significant amount of their time to being an anti-communist. If it walks like a duck…
This is where the sad excuse for an exchange ends.
There’s absolutely zero accountability or recognition of his homophobia but that’s all for the better because I actually got him to admit he said what he did.
If you could imagine a long-term anarchist (myself) who gradually stopped toeing the line and began to question the orthodoxy, first within anarchist spaces, to meet an increasing level of denialism, apologism, and eventually hostility the more I questioned it then this discussion is something of a metaphor for and a culmination of those prior discussions that I had.
This dork, along with Anark and the nonce who shall not be named, ride on this message of anti-tankies and they claim to have done the reading while fooling their gullible audience by lulling them into complacency by reaffirmating their preconceived political biases.
There was an axis of anti-tankies, prior to the term reaching its fever-pitch use in the discourse, of Jonas Ceika, Red Plateaus, and someone else who I can’t remember… maybe Anarchopac but fortunately Ceika has been preoccupied with cultural critique (lol - poststructuralism really is where praxis goes to die. I’d recommend Gabriel Rockhil’s articles on the Frankfurt school etc. if you’re deprogramming yourself from this particular cohort) and writing a book, Anarchopac has been preoccupied with writing a book and, well, producing video essays at her glacial pace due to her studies, and Red Plateau (who was the least principled and the least well-read of the three) has dropped off.
I haven’t used sexual metaphors to insult others since I was 22.
My advice? Read more books. Or if you have to engage with these dullards, troll them with either falsely reassuring comments (‘That’s a good point. You really showed me how wrong I was.’) or by pretending that you can’t understand them at all (‘What do you mean?’, ‘What are you trying to say?’, ‘What are you talking about?’). They obviously don’t want to learn, so the most that you can do is have some fun with them. Taking them seriously, even for only a minute, isn’t going to get you anywhere. It simply isn’t worth the time.
I can safely say that you’ll learn more about fascism within five minutes of lurking !capitalismindecay@lemmygrad.ml than you will after spending five years in the company of ‘anti‐tankies’. Kindly remind me: who was the one who taught you about the Four‐Power Pact and its purpose? Who was the one who taught you about the Regio Esercito’s persecution of Libyan Jews? Who was the one who taught you about the riot at Christie Pits? Who was the one who taught you about the microstate that voted overwhelmingly to join the Third Reich?
literally doing the thing in the picture
Most likely a westerner.
“Fun Fact: You can be for socialism and still denounce every historical socialist revolution and every historical or existing socialist state. This is totally the way to convince people that your movement is one they should join. Be like the anarchists who have gotten so much done over the past two hundred years.”
The Anarchists have done more than these losers in their time.
The same meme was posted in a meme community here on Lemmy and the reaction was a liberal sh*tshow. I’m a communist person from the global south, and it’s kinda sad and enraging that the west only support the left if it is Scandinavian “socialism” or under the global North standards.
What do you expect comrade? They have been brainwashed against communism for generations. They also benefit from imperialism and don’t want to give up their comforts.
deleted by creator
Ok libtard, lets see you make your own Kapital and manifesto, and independent theory from your own ideas that DO NOT in anyway share ANY similarities with any of the above people/countries.
Bold of you to assume they base their views on theory.
deleted by creator
Harrein Potteramph
People who uncritically, or unironically, use tankie will get the wall.
What is the Wall?
You mean execution?
It’s mainly a joke though. The idea is education and reformation first and foremost and only if people still choose to be unrepentant class traitors who refuse to work with the rest of the people that they get “the wall.”
Yes
Either they’re a LeftCom or the milquetoast “socialist”/“DemSoc” version of the same ultraleft tendency which is simply filtered through liberal indoctrination or they’re an anarchist.
What really gets me is that I’ve had plenty of discussions with anarchists about how “authoritarian” the Spanish Republic and Makhnovia were and they will either denounce my sources as Bolshevik propaganda out of hand (the sources I refer to are either liberals who were openly sympathetic towards the anarchists/POUM or who were anarchists themselves [including eyewitnesses]) or they will literally engage in apologism for the authoritarian measures that these projects resorted to due to the necessity of the conditions and for the atrocities and the acts of “authoritarianism” that were absolutely not a necessity (e.g. the Makhnovist secret police establishing terror cells within the USSR.)
Now, don’t get me wrong I’m no idealist. A large part of why I broke from anarchism is exactly for this reason - the fact that there is an absolute necessity for authoritarian measures and history absolves this necessity.
What rings true is Engel’s quote from On Authority:
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that’s true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
Engels didn’t have the fortune of being able to access a century and a half’s additional historical scholarship at his fingertips the way that I do but I am absolutely convinced that he’d be using the examples of the authoritarianism inherent in Revolutionary Catalonia and Makhnovia as real-world examples rather than the hypothetical of a ship on the high seas if he could have.
And he’s right that the most dogged anti-authoritarians will simply redefine their terms with the idealistic belief that changing the name of something changes its nature.
I’ve literally have anarchists/LibSocs tell me that the Makhnovist secret police, the Kontrrazvedka, was a counterintelligence force and this fact, somehow, justifies their existence to an anarchist.
How the Kontrrazvedka was engaging in acts of counterintelligence when they lined up and shot some of their most competent military officers who also happened to be Bolshevik sympathisers in a summary execution without the authorisation of the Military Revolutionary Council, the so-called democratic organ overseeing the Makhnovist military, you might ask, happens to go entirely unexplained. Shocking.
Or how Makhno was acting in an “anti-authoritarian” capacity when he pulled out his pistol but failed to execute Grigoriev, the commander of an army who had eventually defected to the Black Army after a series of prior defections, because Makhno’s commander Chubenko beat him to pulling the trigger also goes unexplained. (I’m no Grigoriev sympathiser and he got exactly what he deserved and not a moment too soon but this is not something which squares with anarchist principles.)
There’s also the Makhnovist ethno-religious persecution of Mennonites in particular but also of German settlers in Ukraine that gets completely ignored. These were mostly kulaks, although kulaks that were liquidated, slaughtered, and ethnically cleansed before they could act in direct sabotage of food production as seen in the USSR, so again I’m not losing sleep crying over this (although the acts of war against the Mennonites absolutely do deserve to be denounced because they resorted to committing atrocities but I’ll leave that for the people who uphold Makhnovia as an example of anarchism to do that without holding my breath) but it’s fascinating that an anarchist would say “How come the USSR wouldn’t just leave Makhnovia to its own devices to run its own society within the USSR (and to operate their own terror cells in the USSR)?” when the Makhnovists didn’t extend that same consideration to the Mennonites, some of whom actually took up arms and fought alongside the Black Army and the Red Army, no less.
There’s an entire effortpost on Revolutionary Catalonia that I have been drafting in my head but in the vain attempt at brevity, I’ll spare going into it.
The fact of the matter is that these people will run defence for what is in all respects “siege anarchism” but for name and yet they’ll take any opportunity to denounce communists to reinforce the paper-thin distinction between the authoritarianism of socialism in practice and the authoritarianism of anarchism in practice. And I mean that quite literally - the only real distinction between the two that exists is words on pages.
At my worst, especially when people have prefaced their anti-tankie screeds with terms like RedFash, I have taken to the habit of turning their own discourse against them and I make the accusation that they are BlackFash and that they’ll excuse any form of atrocities or authoritarianism as long as it comes draped in a black flag.
Turnabout play is fair, after all.
Libcuck spotted in libcuck central? Say it ain’t so!
I read this with sped up Ben Shapiro voice
R*ddit itself is LibKKKuck Central
Hating Ho Chi Minh is the most lib shit ever. Like you can bash Mao and Stalin, lots of false propaganda on them but also a lots of actual fuck ups they made. Ho Chi Minh simply did not make mistakes. Vietnam was the nation that came to stop Pol Pot even when they literally had to go to war with China over it.
Someone on here could explain to me why they don’t like China/Mao. Probably wouldn’t agree, but it’s not an impossible case to make. Vietnam is so near perfect that I couldn’t find any decent western propaganda on it, it was the nation that showed me just how much I had been lied to over the years. I kept looking at their history and learned that they were pretty much just always in the right. Vietnam being the nation to stop Pol Pot when both China and America were backing them, right after the Vietnam war is just a testament to the revolutionary spirit of Ho Chi Minh’s movement.
There is no justification for not liking Ho Chi Minh. Vietnam should be the example everybody uses to convince people.
-lib spotted in a lib platform
such surprise!
