Yea, whether the Lefty be Marxist, Anarchist, etc. no Lefty I have met has shied away from that label. Fascists love veiling themselves, however.
Which is weird, because I’ll regularly see two liberals screaming “Tankie!” at one another absolutely credulously
bitch I’m far ting
I’m personally an Anarcho-Syndicalist so yes :3
My views fall mainly under progressive, between liberal and far-left. I believe we should cap wealth at a billion dollars, and use the surplus capital for alternative energy infrastructure.
That’s far too progressive for liberals, yet I’m not on board with the “burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
There are plenty of people on the left that hold non-centrist views, who would also not be considered far-left.
There is no “burn it all down and let a Socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective on the far-left, and I say that as a Marxist. Anarchists wish to build a new society out of the shell of the old, from within, while Marxists advocate building up dual power. In neither case do leftists believe in rising from “ashes,” but building up and replacing the current system.
too many misunderstand anarchy to be about destroying structures that exist. many of them are doing a pretty good job of that to themselves already, and the ones that are left would rather slaughter us than disarm. it’s the final throes of a dying beast. too dangerous to throw more lives at, but nature will run its course eventually.
so we (anarchists) instead create structure to survive where we are, with the goal of directly helping people help each other, aiming to grow past existing power structures. it has been surprisingly possible to do a lot of praxis without even firebombing a second Chipotle
“burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
Yeah, I haven’t really been able to make sense of all the tailism and accelerationism happening on .ml and hexbear. I don’t know how we’ve gotten to the point where stanning a bunch of right winged authoritarian countries is a form of anti-imperialism.
Unlike anarchists, MLs don’t really have a practical plan to get from the here and now to their socialist utopia. All they can do is wait for the collapse of the current society and hope that the subsequent radicalization will lead to them being the vanguard. However aside from the fact that vanguardism (and as an extension, ML) has been an abject failure, they can’t cause that collapse, so they do accelerationism instead.
The only rational approach to change this world is anarchist prefiguration which is the opposite of “burn it all down”.
Any idea where their current definition of imperialism is being grafted from?
I know they use a lot of language from world systems theory, designating America as the imperial core. However world system theory specifies that it’s only a way to analyze global trade, and that global trade is strictly defined by capitalism.
Any time I ask anyone on ml or hex, I just get downvoted and told that If I read lenin I would understand… But fucking lenin defined imperialism as a competition between Great powers, not a war between peripheral states against the “imperialist core”.
Is this all coming from some fucking streamer I don’t know about or something?
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers. The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits, like what Coke for example does in Columbia. The reason multinational corporations produce in the Global South is because they can weild their power to keep wages low and profits higher by selling back in the Imperial Core.
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers.
I feel like that’s a semantic dispute, as a division of the world between capitalist great powers would be done competitively.
The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits
I think you are injecting a little modern bias into the interpretation. Lenin didn’t really ever mention the “global South”, during his time the great powers were more focused on Asia and parts of Africa.
selling back in the Imperial Core.
Again, the term imperial core is a modern term utilized in global systems theory. Imagining that there is a single imperial hegemony is kinda antithetical to the idea of lenins writing about a division of the world between great powers.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively, otherwise I’d link Imperialism and be done with it, like how I used the Coke example. Additionally, “Global South” is shorthand for “exploited countries,” it usually coincides with geography but doesn’t necessarily.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time. The world being divided and having one power with dominance is an example of two opposing ideas that can and do exist at the same time, and will be a source of conflict. Marxists call this a Primary Contradiction, that spawns Secondary Contradictions.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively
But people are utilizing the “short hand” of imperial core to validate conflicts like in Ukraine as anti-imperialism. Which seems to be a byproduct of an extraordinary process.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time.
Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.
I just don’t really see how people are validating the support of the competing great powers, even if it is critical support. It just seems like tailism to me.
Removed by mod
I literally just said it: Anarchist prefiguration
Removed by mod
Prefigurayion doesn’t mean “tight knit communities”. That tactic can be a refuge for some, but ultimately doesn’t work. Prefiguration means showing the people how mutual aid and solidarity can help everyone.
The US army won’t drone strike a community meal, or disaster relief events. And growing within communities, not as a separate bubble should be protection enough from bullets ever being shot.
Removed by mod
It’s called “magic”
My main take on Tankies is that they’re sort of stealth right-wingers.
They believe that the way to communism is through a strongman dictator who will enforce the communism from the top.
If you sub out communism for “social hierarchies” then you have the right-wing wet dream. Because Tankies worship Lenin, the man who betrayed the revolution to seize power after he lost an election. It was the first and last free election in Russia, and Lenin ignored the results because he lost. Then he spent the rest of his life pretending that an authoritarian dictatorship could ever be communist.
No, true communism needs to come from the people. Extreme democracy is the way.
Except this last election cycle American leftists actually said “I’m far left and everyone else is a nazi.” Nobody was left enough for the left, even other leftists.
