This meme is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. While 98% of self-described anarchists are LARPers, anarchists do exist.
Who the fuck is telling you to vote blue instead of saying burn down Heritsge Foundation properties?
The other guy who left 4 comments on this week old meme today that I just blocked instead of engaging.
Is this about deceptichum
There is a large amount of Anarchist larpers on Lemmy I can't name them all.
edit: Guess not, I have them blocked so I have no idea what they're posting or if they're an Anarchist. I think they crashed out on my instances music comm
Upvote-farming choir-preaching tribeslop garbage. Is this praxis?
Oh, so boomer-tier memes are praxis lol. Gonna hit me with a Minion meme next?
haha, oh not to mention lemmy communists: love to defend imperalism, supports capitalistic explitation of foreign labour (as long as its not US explotation), oh and opposes anyone arming themselves in opposition to said imperialism π€·
eh, internet will always be internet; it sucks but I know I'll get along far better with a commie than a facist afterall. Faces help so much
Provide context and examples of these "lemmy communists" defending imperialism, supporting capitalistic exploitation of foreign labor and opposing anyone arming themselves in opposition to said imperialism (should go without saying but without naming names of course). Which countries doing these things did you have in mind that "lemmy communists" are supporting?
Youre going to get the libs riled up into their Russo/Sino-phobic and anti-DPRK rants, give me a few to get my popcorn at least π
uh, does the original "meme" provide that context? π the point is to point out the diviseness - not to prove that communists are just as bad
tldr. leftist infighting bad.
No, this isn't infighting. The people I'm making fun of aren't leftists. The point of the meme is to make fun of the fact a lot of the people on this service who call themselves Anarchists are not, they are liberals. This is why an Anarchist instance has a "Europe" community for example. I've been called a "Tankie" by "Anarchists" because I don't believe in contracts, voting or nationalist leaders like Zelenskyy. These people don't know what anarchists are and certainly haven't read about anarchism.
No it doesn't provide context for what you specifically pointed out. Which countries are we talking about that cover all these aspects that "lemmy communists" are defending?
love to defend imperalism
No?
supports capitalistic explitation of foreign labour (as long as its not US explotation) No? What do you mean by this?
oh and opposes anyone arming themselves in opposition to said imperialism
No? Again, what do you mean?
Wowzers, dont forget the massive anti-commie liberals of lemmy! Shocking you could forget them considering it appears you are one! π
you should still vote blue even if you're an anarchist.
Oh hey, you're the guy in the meme
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aotearoa-workers-solidarity-movement-why-we-don-t-vote
I don't understand anarchism at least in the context of reading about half of this web page, which basically just repeats the notion that a true radical can not vote because that reinforces capitalism, "well both sides are bad" and the individual can not rule over the many. Truly, in principal I agree with what this is saying. But to spark a revolution, the government needs to become so much worse than it currently is. I don't think anarchism has actually happened and been sustained, tell me if I'm wrong. If Anarchism was on the cusp of succeeding and it was all those democrat voters which caused it to fail I would completely understand not voting.
Rather Anarchism gives permission to the right to continue there slaughter. While in the same way voting in an election gives the magical president that capitalism works, (But still holding a net vote towards a better outcome) not voting in an election has the same president that capitalism doesn't work.
Because a non voter is the same as a centrist when the choice to vote or not to vote is actually the "vote" someone should make. Nobody hears you.
Truly, as an anarchist are you homeschooling your children? Would you go to a public hospital? Sorry to do the "Communism =/ Iphone" but the government has good things, and increasing those good things are, good. Is this kind of Anarchism a kind of Accelerationism where you let the state continue to make living conditions worse on principal that this is the system capitalism created?
I believe in using every resource available to make everything better, and I won't hold those further left than me from succeeding because the enemy is the right, but I also want leftists to come together and agree.
Rather Anarchism gives permission to the right to continue there slaughter.
You don't understand anything about what anarchists believe and are going by vibes.
Because a non voter is the same as a centrist when the choice to vote or not to vote is actually the βvoteβ someone should make. Nobody hears you.
This is honestly the most ridiculous take I've ever read in my entire life.
Look, this is lemmy memes and I'm not the Cowbee for anarchism. You should try reading more in your life instead of politics by vibes. Check out Kropotkin.
homeschooling your children?
Yes
Would you go to a public hospital?
I don't really go to doctors, I take care of my own health. I have basic medical training. In a communal setting I would help others take care of their health. In an anarchist world we'd have hospitals under the Young Lords models. I would prefer a community hospital that wasn't run under capitalism. Under the system we live in and in the country I live in I would go to, but that doesn't mean I support the Mexican government.
kind of Anarchism a kind of Accelerationism where you let the state continue to make living conditions worse on principal that this is the system capitalism created?
There is no alternative than destroying the system and rebuilding it
You are right, my politics are basically just vibes. I think my politics are mostly just common sense which is this current system isn't working how do we fix it. I acknowledge that the system isn't broken, it's working as intended.
You live in Mexico, don't you have a progressive leader right now? This at least improves living conditions temporarily. I heard one of her policies was enforcing the minimum wage increase to be above the increase of inflation. This is a policy that I personally wish would be implemented in my own country.
I would vote for someone like this.
I think fighting for a political system which will likely never come in your lifetime is admirable, but unrealistic. I personally fight for a system wherr the government gives every person the minimum requirements to live. Free food, housing, healthcare, water, electricity, transport, and education. This will make people not need to work under corporations, which will then make corporations meet the need of the worker or fall. I also fight for no government donations, this will make politicians have less alterior motives, making policy better.
That's all I need within my lifetime is a government which makes the health and wellbeing of an Individual as best as it could be.
I think voting is useful tho
If there are decent options, votes can show support for it, regardless of a win or loss. The results would signal that there is decent support on it or became a part of awareness on issues or points.
Not dismissing other parts on direct action and the fact that there is no right to recall in elections(Not USAmerican or EU-ian. Do you have right to recall?)
Have you ever read anything about Anarchists, Anarchism or Anarchist philosophy and thought?
Also, that is an argument for not voting in NZ, which is even stupider than not voting in the USA, since NZ has MMP and a reasonably large left party in the form of the Green party...
Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you're involved in any kind of direct action.
The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don't think that's a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.
I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the "reasonable politician", not the radical that they promised to be.
Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive.
You clearly didn't read past the first paragraph then
Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things.
Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here.
It is literally in paragraph 2
We argue that electoralism ensures that a statist perspective becomes dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention and following the decisions of the leaders, which has always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help β the very keys to creating change in a society.
OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.
But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up
a very cheap one
Basically 1 billion dollars for 2022-2023 alone in Australia
https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/cost-of-elections.htm
"Very cheap" in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved
which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost
Once you're at the point of advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers, you've lost the ability to just dismiss things out of hand by invoking the "human cost".
Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.
Citation needed mate. I'm pretty sure you just mean you'll be more materially comfortable under Labour.
advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers
I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.
If you're in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.
If you're in New Zealand (where I live, so I'm more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won't be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.
citation needed
Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.
Also, don't think I'm saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better
