• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    There’s a good retrospective on the mass protest movements of the 2010s called If We Burn. The main takeaway I got was that leaderlessness and horizonalism do not work.

    If you don’t pick your leaders, they will pick themselves.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Anarchism can’t defend itself. That’s the point. Either it gets coopted and recuperated under capital, or it gets hijacked by reactionary forces for their own purposes.

        • Zloubida@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          While Marxism-Leninism gets hijacked by reactionary forces for their own purposes and gets recuperated under capital after that.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            50 minutes ago

            The USSR lost the Cold War, but there’s plenty of ML counties still around. I’m sure you’ll whine they aren’t paradises, but they’re all generally progressing and developing in a positive direction (when they aren’t being strangled to death like Cuba)

            Not a lot of anarchist spaces by comparison. There’s the Zapatistas and they’re pretty cool, but like, the record is pretty clear.

            • Zloubida@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              40 minutes ago

              And before the end of the cold war, USSR was a reactionary country governed by an elite for its own interests. It’s the same in China. The same in Vietnam, the same in Cuba (but at least there they have the excuse of the unjust US politics against them).

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                12 minutes ago

                Eliminating homelessness, eliminating illiteracy, eliminating hunger, increasing life expectancies, increasing graduation rates, increasing quality of life, actually existing socialist countries accomplish incredible things (some more than others, admittedly). They’re not perfect utopias, but you can’t ignore the context they exist within (i.e. they’re still developing countries and they exist within US global hegemony)

                I’m sure you have some specific criticisms of China or Cuba or whatever, but they’re doing pretty fucking good considering what they’re up against.

                While you keep on dreaming of utopia, I’m more concerned with defeating than US empire in the real world. Anarchism can’t.

      • Derp@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I mean, anarchism was the initial state, so it has been tried. It seems that it is not very resilient against being replaced by other systems, so it can’t really be the best system in the real world.

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Unlike the resilient anti-capitalism of Marxist states amirite.

          It’s almost like you need to learn and evolve from the mistakes of the past to create systems that work in the present.

          For example, when white colonizers land on your shores, don’t ignore them and start an escalating series of tribal wars to sell them war-slaves.

          Also, maybe don’t have slaves.

          See? We’ve already improved on proto-anarchism.