Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.