I wish I would have had someone like you as a history teacher in school. Back then we got a very brief and basic “here are the definitions of socialism/communism. These may sound good, but that’s just because you’re young, they’re actually bad. We’re not discussing why, or going into specifics.” I’m not sure the discussion even goes that far today in US schools, as most teachers like having a job.
Of course my gut reaction to this as a teen was to launch into my own “semi-tankie” anti-west, anti-imperialist phase. After a few swings back into liberalism, I eventually found a comfortable (if idealistic) ideological home somewhere between socialist democracy and social anarchism, but it was a long, bumpy, and confusing road there.
It seems quite a few on this site never made it past that angsty adolescent phase. They’ll tell you “tankies” is an insult, or a slur even, but I’m not exactly worried about hurting someone’s feelings with that when they openly call for authoritarianism and even support ethnic cleansing and genocides, as long as they’re done by countries or groups that have their approval.
There are teens here (I’m one) so maybe we’re at least some of the people that “never made it last that angsty adolescent phase”. Although I’d bet that there are quite a few adults falling in to that category here too
That’s nice thanks. I’m nowhere near an authority on these subjects so I am quite afraid of talking out my behind.
All stalinists and maoists I met (very few) were contrarians like you describe, and enjoyed being provocative regarding sensitive questions like dekulakization or the Uyghurs. However I think there must be some kind of current trend in their favor, as maoism seems to be on a slight ascend. Perhaps this is due to a rise in Chinese soft power, as Xi Jinping presents himself as a kind of neo-maoist and reformers have been de-emphasized in Chinese media. Or maybe I just spend too much time on Lemmy lol
Now might be a good time for anarchism. It seems to me we live in a time where people refuse to believe in grand visions of a future society, where people are quite individualistic, and where leninist-inspired leftism has been discredited. But anarchism can offer local-scale and immediate improvement, respects the individual, and doesn’t have much of a record of human rights violations. All is needed is to avoid the term “anarchism” in favor of the phrase “what if there was no leader and we just took decisions collectively?” haha
I don’t think we can win at the word re-definition game. They’ll twist it into something bad no matter what we do. What we want is fairly called anarchism.
Sincerely,
an actual libertarian
P.S. fuck capitalism
I agree with the sentiment but some practicality is needed. I think most unpoliticized audiences would hear a pitch about “workers’ self-management” but balk at “anarchism”. However the word is very good when some bite is needed.
I do think Proudhon messed up when he chose “anarchism” though, it already meant “chaos” long before that. And in the US “libertarian” was heinously stolen. In general words seem to have a very hard life in the US.
I wish I would have had someone like you as a history teacher in school. Back then we got a very brief and basic “here are the definitions of socialism/communism. These may sound good, but that’s just because you’re young, they’re actually bad. We’re not discussing why, or going into specifics.” I’m not sure the discussion even goes that far today in US schools, as most teachers like having a job.
Of course my gut reaction to this as a teen was to launch into my own “semi-tankie” anti-west, anti-imperialist phase. After a few swings back into liberalism, I eventually found a comfortable (if idealistic) ideological home somewhere between socialist democracy and social anarchism, but it was a long, bumpy, and confusing road there.
It seems quite a few on this site never made it past that angsty adolescent phase. They’ll tell you “tankies” is an insult, or a slur even, but I’m not exactly worried about hurting someone’s feelings with that when they openly call for authoritarianism and even support ethnic cleansing and genocides, as long as they’re done by countries or groups that have their approval.
I was in a texas highschool until few years ago. The coach was also teaching the finance class due to teacher shortage.
At least biweekly he would freeze the class to talk about North Korea and say things like “Communists are more dangereous than Nazis.”
So it still goes on, but more aggressive now.
There are teens here (I’m one) so maybe we’re at least some of the people that “never made it last that angsty adolescent phase”. Although I’d bet that there are quite a few adults falling in to that category here too
I’m part plankton, so at least some of me isn’t angsty adolescent anymore at some hundreds of millions of years old.
I think your instinct there is correct, sadly
That’s nice thanks. I’m nowhere near an authority on these subjects so I am quite afraid of talking out my behind.
All stalinists and maoists I met (very few) were contrarians like you describe, and enjoyed being provocative regarding sensitive questions like dekulakization or the Uyghurs. However I think there must be some kind of current trend in their favor, as maoism seems to be on a slight ascend. Perhaps this is due to a rise in Chinese soft power, as Xi Jinping presents himself as a kind of neo-maoist and reformers have been de-emphasized in Chinese media. Or maybe I just spend too much time on Lemmy lol
Now might be a good time for anarchism. It seems to me we live in a time where people refuse to believe in grand visions of a future society, where people are quite individualistic, and where leninist-inspired leftism has been discredited. But anarchism can offer local-scale and immediate improvement, respects the individual, and doesn’t have much of a record of human rights violations. All is needed is to avoid the term “anarchism” in favor of the phrase “what if there was no leader and we just took decisions collectively?” haha
I don’t think we can win at the word re-definition game. They’ll twist it into something bad no matter what we do. What we want is fairly called anarchism.
Sincerely,
an actual libertarian
P.S. fuck capitalism
I agree with the sentiment but some practicality is needed. I think most unpoliticized audiences would hear a pitch about “workers’ self-management” but balk at “anarchism”. However the word is very good when some bite is needed.
I do think Proudhon messed up when he chose “anarchism” though, it already meant “chaos” long before that. And in the US “libertarian” was heinously stolen. In general words seem to have a very hard life in the US.
I think “direct democracy” might be a more palatable alternative.