You must log in or register to comment.

Defasher wrote (edited )

You have to understand their entire ideology revolves around the writings of a couple of dead blokes aka their idols.

Anarchists aren't hung up on any particular dead person in most cases, and we don't go in for idolizing anyone because we don't think like that.

So when we're critical of aspects of their beloved idolology... See, they judge everything by holding it up to Marx / Lenin's writing...

So when we're like "No, seizing the state and its police force and putting our friends in power will just lead back to capitalism, comrade..." their fanboy defense mechanism kicks in.

Their understanding of the world is built on the opinions of just a couple of long dead white blokes, and they assume anyone that doesn't share those opinions is a pariah that needs to be silenced. 'Liberal' is their go to insult, despite how ridiculous it is to call someone a liberal when we reject -

  • capitalism

  • statism

  • dictators

  • vanguards

  • civilisation

  • patriarchy

  • police

  • military

  • industry

  • ideology

  • etc

While MLs reject just, what?

  • capitalism (in theory - even though their beloved USSR was state capitalist and never achieved communism)

But yeah, we're the liberals because we don't stop at (kinda sorta) overthrowing capitalism.


josefStallman wrote

ML here, although not one who thinks anarchists are liberals.

A lot of Leninists see anarchists as ineffective life-stylists. They think that because anarchist revolutions are very rare and on much smaller scales than ML ones, this makes them less valid.

But fundamentally a ML has an attitude of, "By any means necessary", which is why they will commonly defend clearly misguided actions by ML leaders. Anything that advances the cause is worth it. If we have to live under a tyrannical dictator with a massive secret police force to protect a revolution, then that's what we have to do. An anarchist is much less willing to allow that, and as such is seen as less dedicated to the cause, a false leftist, like liberals.

I think that anarchist ideas are vitally important to protect a society from abuse of power, and that anyone who dismisses them doesn't really understand them. I also think that a purely anarchist society will fail to protect itself from outside forces.

TLDR; because anarchists aren't willing to do whatever it takes to establish something even close to socialism, they're less dedicated and therefore liberals.


rdko21 wrote

Fellow ML here with sympathy towards ancom philosophy. A lot of my ML comrades seem to have an impression that anarchist philosophy is too idealistic. I have heard some sentiment that it is a product of Western comfort and bias, and that doesn't take material conditions in Russia/China/wherever into consideration. (I don't personally agree with this)


zer0crash wrote

That's pretty funny they call us ineffective considering ML's have not done anything significant in decades (ANSWER coalition doesn't count). Meanwhile Anarchists are making International headlines, literally fighting fash and changing discourse like whoa.


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

It's amusing to think also that a lot of anarchists see other anarchists as ineffective life-stylists, too, in relation to this.


DeathToAmerica wrote (edited )

I got banned from r/shitliberalssay for being an anarchist and disagreeing with them that overthrowing capitalism would solve everything. They called me a liberal.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I have never heard a ML do this - is it a regional thing?


moon_princess wrote

I actually saw a nice breakdown of what different groups (Marxists, anarchists, and I think maybe the right) mean when they call other people liberals a few months ago, but for the life of me I haven't been able to dig the link up out of my browser history. It's a shame because I keep running across situations where I'd like to share it.

But I'm pretty sure the point is that because once upon a time anarchism was rooted in ideas of individual rights and personal autonomy, that makes it "liberal" in the eyes of Marxists. Like most Marxist critiques of anarchism, this is mostly just a parroting of some century-old argument that only applies to the shitty anarchists who are likewise trapped in the past (the kind who call themselves "libertarian socialists" and love Chomsky, usually).