Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Hi Grace, thanks for doing this.

No one is going to harass you.

What initially attracted you to anarchism?

9

Grace OP wrote

I found /r/shitliberalssay on hot page of Reddit. I originally thought it would be a place where conservatives dunked on liberals. I was surprised. They crossposted ChapoTrapHouse, and I checked out that subreddit. I had a similar sense of humor, so I stayed there. I created /r/GenZanarchist about a month after i was an anarchist.

7

subrosa wrote

Other than the similar sense of humor on the ChapoTrapHouse subreddit... why anarchism? What initially attracted you to anarchism? Or, in other words, what did anarchism mean to you when you first identified as one?

6

Grace OP wrote

I don't know, immediately saying shit like the USSR was good and Lenin is epic seemed weird I guess. After years of being brainwashed that Communism is bad, Anarcho-communism seemed like a good bridge between liberalism and where I am now.

6

GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )

What’s the appeal of being a tankie?

Edit: I don’t mean this in a hostile/accusatory way. I’m simply curious.

8

Grace OP wrote

Well, it's not appealing being shat on by every old anarchist you knew if you support China or whatever.

I guess the community, and seeing how the global south has had entirely ML revolutions. You don't see Anarchists in like, the Phillipines. ML revolutions have also 'worked' a lot more than anarchist ones. Of course, you could blame the united states.

America has a lot more Anarchists than MLs, that's for sure. Me and my comrades agree that this is because it's harder to realize American propaganda, and libertarianism is already a known thing, so it makes sense to be something you're familiar, at least a little, with.

You can't go up to some dumbass conservative and say Stalin was good, they'd call you a dumbass. BUT you can go up to the same dumbass conservative and say FUCK THE STATE, and they'd support you (even if their support means nothing, like they support cops or something)

3

GlangSnorrisson wrote

Have you ever met people who come from those places? What have they had to say about MLs?

And I’m pretty sure you’ll find anarchists pretty much anywhere.

What does a revolution “working” mean to you?

8

Grace OP wrote

I've met leftists from every part of the globe, but a lot of them are from the global south.

A revolution working would be basically crushing the bourgeois counter revolution. Of course, anarchist communes in the middle of America are nice, but Maoists in the Phililipines are doing some real shit. The Paris Commune failed because of lack of a leader, and I guess you could put that comparision to CHAZ, to a much lesser extent.

A revolution that works usually has a specific leader, and an organized system around socialism. Makhnovia failed due to Trotsky's invasion. (Trotsky is still a bitch)

I'd say if we had a socialist revolution in America, we could create anarchist experiments in different parts of the country, like Wyoming, and see how they succeed without any state intervention besides military protection. Marxism-leninism is an ever-evolving science, after all.

2

ziq wrote

crushing the bourgeois counter revolution

When you consider that China has more billionaires than any country in the world while the vast majority of the population have their labor exploited by those billionaires, do you feel a bourgeois counter revolution has been averted?

7

Grace OP wrote

There are only 24 capitalits in the Chinese congress or whatever it's called. There's a good graph but I cant find it at this time.

China is consistently giving justice to these billionaires. The richest billionaires of China are already beginning to flee to Taiwan.

You would not see America kill it's billionaires for exploiting workers.

Xi Jinping is doing a good job at keeping the Communist Party with almost no corruption.

0

[deleted] wrote

6

Grace OP wrote

That latest article seems to be discribiing folks who like the aesthetic of anarchism.

0

[deleted] wrote

8

Grace OP wrote

I am not greatly educated on the Philippines, and I'll always support international comrades trying to overthrow a Dictatorship of the Bourgeois. I'm sure they're alright folks. The Maoists are just more well known there. One of these days they might overthrow their government. They're doing a lot of awesome shit there.

4

ziq wrote (edited )

I've seen you defending China a lot on reddit. How do you feel about that government's ongoing history of openly homophobic policies? For example, banning LGBTQ+ representation on television and social media?

https://variety.com/2018/digital/asia/china-bans-gay-content-online-1202753562/#!

https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/china-bans-gay-characters-tv-shows/

Furthermore, as a trans ML, how do you feel about Stalin sending queer people to prison for being queer? Castro did the same thing, as did most other socialist party leaders.

https://libcom.org/history/gay-gulag

Since you now seem to identify as a Marxist Leninist (the ideology created by Stalin and followed by all successive ML states), does this long history (up to the present day) of homophobic persecution, including state-sanctioned slavery and murder give you pause at all?

8

Grace OP wrote

Of course, I will not uncritically support every socialist state. I'm a ML, not a moron.

I'd say people like Stalin and Castro were products of their time. Homosexuality was seen as bourgeois because you had the ability not to need children. That's how Stalin saw that, at least.

If we had a ML revolution in america for example, we'd see trans rights definitely. Stalin was just a product of his time. Which sucked, but that's life. Makhno was also homophobic and his revolutionaries were known to rape women and children in Ukraine.

"I'd choose Marxism-Leninism, because in a ML revolution I am less likely to be raped."

  • anonymous woman on which type of revolution she would prefer.
−2

[deleted] wrote

9

Grace OP wrote

There may have, like there were LGBT MLs too. But generally, the left had a stigma against them. The Leftists of the past are no longer with us, so we can not ask them. We need to make sure leftists of the now support LGBT rights.

0

train wrote

What makes you confident that the left of today does not hold problematic views that we have yet to identify or aknowledge?

5

Grace OP wrote

of course that is true. The modern day left definitely has ableism issues and stupidpol is a thing. But generally, it's a much better improvement than modern day conservatives or leftists of the past.

There is always room for improvement.

2

train wrote

In that case how can you be certain that a vanguard party would not end up in the hands of people with stupidpol, sex worker exclusionary, or anti indigenous tendencies?

5

Grace OP wrote

If the Vanguard party does it's job in defending socialism, there is nothign to be worried about. If the Vanguard party fails, then the people have a duty to rise up. When Evo Morales was in power for example, he definitely gave indigenous rights. Sex worker exclusion is disappointing but not surprising. If Socialism comes to the west, we must do everything we can to shape it to an acceptable form.

3

train wrote

But what socialism means to one person is different from another. What a vanguard party defends can never truly represent the conflicting desires, tendencies, and needs of a diverse populace. This is especially true when you recognize that the party line as prescribed to party members, not even the populace at large, is determined by majority rule.

Furthermore, Evo and the MAS party are far from what Lenin might consider a vanguard, particularly when it comes to their lack of democratic centralism. MAS achievements have also come by participating sincerely in liberal democracy. Additionally, their respect for indigenous persons and their political success is a result of their dependency on a marginalized indigenous populous that constitutes a majority of the Bolivian electorate.

So to me MAS is not a great example to use if you want to show that Vanguard parties can truly be representative. Lastly, if a vanguard becomes reactionary and the only remedy is armed insurection, that seems to me like a bloody waste of the potential that comes from abolishing a capitalist state.

5

Grace OP wrote

Socialism is a simple thing to define. When the workers control the means of production. Chinese socialism is the same. Marxism evolves, like every other ideology. We will see 'American' socialism even, eventually.

2

train wrote

There are a lot of assumptions built into any socialist ideology though. Like in order to consider the CCP as a socialist party you would have to assume that they are a true proxy for the will of the working class. Otherwise the working class would not effectively control the means of production. This is a point of debate amount socialists and so my point remains. Socialism does mean different things to different people.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

Do you believe there can be an ML revolution in the US?

Are you aware that Stalin instructed the red army to rape scores of women after their victory?

4

Grace OP wrote (edited )

A ML revolution, like any other revolution in America, is futile unless the idea of America is destroyed. America is the heart of Imperialism. I'd say that America must be destroyed and balkanized for a socialist revolution of any kind to be possible. Or America to be so fucking dumb like the Tsar of Russia was, that we get Communism in America. Who knows?

Lenin didn't know he was going to lead the revolution, he did. Things can change to quick.

Also on that Stalin claim, can I see a source?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Yeah but do you think the majority of people of the USA will ever be open to a Marxist Leninist revolution in your lifetime?

You said here:

When the revolution comes, I want to guillotine liberals like Biden, Buttigieg and Obama. Such shitheads.

Have you considered your adoption of ML ideology is tied to your wanting to brutally punish the people who benefit from this unjust world? Do you maybe see an ideology that has a long history of successfully executing, raping, torturing (the cheka), colonizing (Afghans, Uighurs, Ethiopians, etc) and enslaving its "reactionary" enemies as the best chance you'll have to actualize your thirst for revenge?

Have you ever considered that historically and currently, the kind of people who lead ML parties have been nothing like you and have in fact been much more likely to enslave, exile or murder a trans person for being "subversive to the common order" before a liberal politician, who were simply given a pension and allowed to retire?

Have you considered what happens all throughout history when a state is granted authority to murder those it perceives as a threat?

Red army's institutional rape:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/red-army-in-yugoslavia-19441945/8D212624135E340F6DAF0E8298776464

8

Grace OP wrote

When you mention Ethiopians, do you think that Mussolini was a ML? That's bizarre and downright wrong. Dreaming of a socialist revolution is nice, but I'm not optimistic today and it feels more and more unlikely in America. If it happens, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Deng was thrown out of the Communist party multiple times, but he still was loyal to Communism. I was not alive during the time of Lenin, but I do know modern day MLs, at least western ones, arent genocidal murderers like you think they are.

0

ziq wrote

When you mention Ethiopians, do you think that Mussolini was a ML? That's bizarre and downright wrong

No of course not.

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lrs-paper-bear.htm

There are Soviet military bases on every major continent and Soviet warships in every major sea. Soviet and Soviet-backed aggression in Angola, Kampuchea, Ethiopia, Afghanistan (and the continued threat to Poland) show that Moscow bears no respect whatsoever for the sovereignty of other countries.

Ethiopia wasn't the best example tho, they intervened in Ethiopia militarily but nowhere near to the extent they did elsewhere.

4

suma wrote (edited )

modern day MLs, at least western ones, arent genocidal murderers like you think they are.

The western ones don't have power right now. But whenever MLs have come to power, they instantly turn into genocidal murderers. That's why anarchists reject all authority - we understand that institutional power will always be used to do harm. All power corrupts absolutely. If you have the privilege to witness literally every ML state in history, including current ones, doing harm to marginalized people, and you support ML, you're either lying to yourself or you don't really care about the lives ML rulers destroy. I just saw you say China is "re-educating terrorists" (Uighurs) on reddit because China has empathy for them. I know you're a kid, but goddamn wtf.

3

GlangSnorrisson wrote

What makes a state socialist in your view?

4

Grace OP wrote

State socialist? I don't understand what that means. Do you mean a ML, or any leftist that isn't an anarchist?

2

GlangSnorrisson wrote

No I meant what, in your opinion, constitutes socialism? What does a govt need to do for a country to officially be “socialist”?

8

Grace OP wrote

A vanguard party that enforces the will of the people, I guess. When the people control the means of production. I believe that's the def of socialism.

3

ziq wrote

Do you believe China or North Korea's vanguards are enforcing the will of the people?

8

Grace OP wrote

86% of Chinese approve of the Government. DPRK sources are a bit difficult, but watch 'Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul' on YouTube to learn about their opinions. I'd love to visit / live in China or DPRK eventually.

1

_caspar_ wrote

I lived in China for a month, and it is certainly far from liberatory, especially for the supposed proletariat youre speaking of. under what metrics is the chinese state being considered liberatory by anyone? and for whom?

the select few folks that I actually built up enough trust with to open up their actual opinions, are very critical of the government. but most wont tell you outright due to fear of being ratted out by colleagues or passers by for dissent. and these arent radicals that are afraid to speak out, but college students with what would be considered moderate opinions anywhere else.

save for the massive urban expansion projects ecociding at incredible rates, mass surveillance and police presence, many clever ways to control how people (and which people) move through cities, its like any other country Ive visited: you get what you can pay for.

9

Grace OP wrote

Liberalism wouldnt be tolerated in my ideal society. The bourgeois should naturally fear a proletariat state. Being a radical is the only ethical solution in this world.

1

_caspar_ wrote

I didnt refer to your ideal society, and I didnt refer to liberalism. are you not claiming the goal of the chinese state is to liberate the proletariat?

7

Grace OP wrote

The proletariat are already liberated from the chains of Imperialism and slavery. It's implementing the next step towards socialism that can be difficult. But I trust the Chinese government and it's steps toward socialism. They are much better than the US in everything. Right now China is market socialist, but soon enough that will change.

There is no socialism button, sadly. So it will not be clear to the west.

0

_caspar_ wrote

The proletariat are already liberated from the chains of Imperialism and slavery.

would be very interesting to see you explaining that to the workers in one of the many temporary (but funny enough, never-ending) worker-camp style slums on the outskirts of Beijing that only exist to expand the metropolis further out. they build what is basically a small city for a number of years, then pick up and move, only to repeat the process..

7

Grace OP wrote

China is not perfect. I never said it was. It just has many things to look forward to, and to learn from it's mistakes. Generally, the Chinese are doing a good job at treating it's poor, and less than 0,5% of the population is in poverty. The UN confirmed that statistic.

0

ziq wrote

Are you familiar with the theory of manufactured consent?

7

Grace OP wrote

Yes

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Do you not see how a population who get all their information from the state and its various arms and are forbidden from even speaking of non-state-sanctioned information would be under the impression that their government is good?

Do the alarmingly frequent arrests of Marxist dissidents who speak out against the state's officials not alarm you?

If people around you were being arrested for not approving of the rulers, do you think you would then be brave enough to publicly announce you don't approve of them?

8

Grace OP wrote

The state exists to oppress a class. That's how states have always been. The dictatorship of the proletariat use the state to oppress the bourgeois. It is a necessity to silence the bourgeois and their counter revolutions.

Criticism of the Chinese party is fine, and Chinese forums are known to debate on new policies the party has put forward. Read State and Revolution by Lenin to learn more about why it's good to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

The state exists to oppress a class.

But historically, the new ML state has always given rise to new classes and those in a privileged class have invariably exploited workers, peasants, colonized and indigenous peoples. China even has a billionaire class at the top of the hierarchy right next to the politburo, and ethnic minorities in China occupy the lowest classes, exploited and persecuted by every class above them. The state directs this institutional inequality with its monopoly on violence.

The dictatorship of the proletariat use the state to oppress the bourgeois.

Since you were an anarchist, I'm sure you understand how power dynamics work and that when you give an institution a monopoly on violence (private ownership of guns is forbidden in socialist states) and the power to oppress, they will not simply use that authority against the rich. They will use it against everyone and anyone that they decide poses any kind of a threat to their power and their personal vision for society (which will be based on their ability to maintain that power), including competing Marxists, anarchists, queers, ethnic minorities, disabled people and migrants.

Since we've seen the exact same thing play out for 102 years now all over the world, with socialist revolutions spawning state capitalism, mass executions of revolutionaries, mass censorship, forced labor for dissidents, and then the amassing of wealth and power for the party elite and their friends, don't you think it's time to break the death cycle and try something different?

Read State and Revolution by Lenin to learn more about why it's good to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Or better yet, witness exactly how this theory played out in practice multiple times in history. Witness the proven failure and don't repeat it again.

7

Grace OP wrote

Reading Lenin changed my entire ideology. He is a true genius, and explains all of this really well. China prides itself on being a multi-ethnic country, and han supremacy literally doesnt exist. Tibet literally was a slave theocracy, and I'm glad it was liberated.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Tibetians don't seem to think they're liberated in any way, do their wishes not matter to you because you consider them reactionaries?

Do you not see how this thinking is no different than your fellow Americans insisting Iraq has been "liberated" by NATO?

Don't you think people are deserving of self determination? Would you rather their decisions be made for them by outside forces? Their lives governed by a state they reject as an invader? Is this socialism to you? Because it sounds no different to me than US imperialism.

Since you're an American, is it possible you've internalized a deeply ingrained colonizer mentality and are now applying it to your politics and the lives of people in distant lands who have no interest in your plans for them?

6

Grace OP wrote

The Tibetan people were liberated, and I mean it. They were literally in a feudal slave state. Anything is better than that. They used to be the Dalai Lama's personal slaves.

1

suma wrote

Do you agree with Lenin's orders to "introduce mass terror" - to torture and then slaughter scores of workers and peasants? What about his order to carry out a massacre of sex workers who he said were corrupting dock workers? Both orders are discussed in w/tankies if you don't know about it.

If you don't agree with these moves, why do you you consider him a "true genius"? How can someone who was responsible for such unthinkable atrocities, and ultimately the counter-revolution that ensured the eventual reversion to free market capitalism?

6

Grace OP wrote

I'm sure you have a source on these extreme claims, right?

1

suma wrote

I gave you the source. Scroll to the bottom of the wiki for the citations.

w/tankies

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

Grace OP wrote

of course not. I get sources from many people and sources that dont come straight from the mouth of the US propaganda department.

3

mofongo wrote

They're questioning if you only get your news freon the Chinese propaganda department.

5

Grace OP wrote

I get my news from leftist subreddits and chapo.chat. I don't care for liberalism.

3

[deleted] wrote

6

ziq wrote

There are a lot of rural Chinese field workers who work here during harvest season and not one of them I've spoken to has voiced support for their government.

6

Grace OP wrote

/r/Sino and /r/Hong_Kong is a good place to learn about the Majority of Chinese who love their government, who saved them from the century of humiliation.

1

ziq wrote

Just a note to say Reddit is blocked in China and has been since 2018.

2

GlangSnorrisson wrote

So in your opinion, does the vanguard party of these socialist countries truly represent “the people”? How can you know that? “The people” are hardly know for agreeing on much. How does one gauge and enforce their collective will?

6

Grace OP wrote

86% of the Chinese population approve of the Chinese government. Lately, you'll see Chinese ambassadors on Twitter getting more ambitious and start discussing Marxism. I recommend you watch Bay Area415 on Chinese Socialism

1

GlangSnorrisson wrote

I’m not going to bother with the whole USA vs. China nonsense but I do wonder: what makes you believe what the Chinese government says? Or what any government says?

5

Grace OP wrote

of course that is a very good question. You must take cautiousness on what every media says. American media will always discuss death and despair, but CGTN for example mainly talks about foreign diplomacy and infrastructure being built. The Chinese government gains nothing lying to a bunch of westerners.

3

GlangSnorrisson wrote

That’s not entirely true: China has diplomatic and economic ties to a bunch of western countries. Its image does have some importance.

You or I don’t matter for shit to them of course but economic sanctions could be a problem.

5

Grace OP wrote

If they're trying to 'trick' western countries, it's obviously not fucking working. I trust Chinese media because they do not try to sell stuff to us. Other media sells more clicks, but Chinese media just wants information. Their foreign diplomacy can be questionable sometimes, but generally they have nothing to gain by telling me how cool their new trains are.

1

GlangSnorrisson wrote

To be clear, I don’t mean they’re trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. I’m saying they do what any country does: do your best not to look shittier than the others.

As for infrastructure I have 0 doubts that it’s a booming business: China has an incredibly quickly growing middle class.

This brings me to my next point, and I’m sorry but there’s no way for me not to be blunt here: how are they not just as capitalist as the west? Billionaires, middle class, expansionism into Africa, landlords?

7

Grace OP wrote

They have market socialism. Socialism with Chinese characterstics. The material conditions of China were unique, and Deng saved China from infinite sanctions, and let China grow.

Billionaires exist, but they are commonly executed and jailed for their crimes against the laborers. Out of the entire Chinese communist diet (or congress or whatever it's called) there is about 4000 people. Only 24 of them are capitalists.

2

train wrote

Most state media is directed at ones own citizenry and not foreign populations. How do you think manufacturing consent plays a role in Chinese state media?

3

Grace OP wrote

The Chinese, thanks to the media and a proper education, are Marxists. If we let 'free speech' or whatever, you already know the western Media will do everything they can to destroy the idea of Communism.

What does the Chinese government gain in 'brainwashing' 1 billion people?

2

train wrote

They gain what any other country gains from state propaganda targeted at it's citizenry. They gain consent to do as they will with limited resistance.

I think you're operating under the presumption that Chinese education has made Chinese citizenry immune to that kind of propoganda. But as you well know state media is not limited to news. It's also an inherent part of education systems globally. I'm not sure what makes China different besides outwardly touting Marxism which in and of itself does not make them Marxists.

5

Grace OP wrote

The chinese are educated on Marxism. It's basic knowledge that if the vanguard party does not do it's duty of defending Socialism, the people have no choice but to resist against it. The Chinese are doing a good job, and once the world shatters under Capitalism, they will rebuild.

I recommend watching bay area415's video on socialism w/ chinese characteristics.

1

_caspar_ wrote

for a country so saturated with a devoted marxist following, its interesting to see how much commodity fetishism has taken root: with vast shopping malls lined up by the droves with folks looking to get the latest gadgetry.

communism in china is a spectacle, just as it was in the soviet union.

4

Grace OP wrote

China is not perfect, like the USSR was not. Perfection is not required for a socialist society. You do know you can support a socialist country if theyre not a perfect anarcho-communist fantasy, right? Idealism should be laughed at, not taken seriously. I don't see any anarchist states (communes? regions? whatever) doing better on the incredible scale China is.

1

_caspar_ wrote

Idealism should be laughed at, not taken seriously.

indeed, which is why the concept of the people should be laughed out the room.

anarchism is opposed to such projects, why would it want to do them better? and what is better? china certainly is doing much on an incredible scale, but none which looks desirable, especially for anyone working there.

5

Grace OP wrote

China is doing a great job, and their labor laws are improving every day. Their persecution of the elite is more and more rigorous. Their pure survival is an amazing feat, thanks to Deng and MZT. Anarchism has no real way to counter the elite. Revolution is in itself authoritarian.

0

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

I guess youve taken the "if you cant beat em, join em approach," however I would argue that those whom you see as beneficiaries of this project are just as miserable as any wielding power anywhere else in the world: living alienating, mechanistic lives, marching to the tune of leviathan toward control and ecocide.

"Revolution is in itself authoritarian."

in a bizarrely different way, I agree with you there.

5

Ellepix wrote

Ah, so you're a Blanquist then. An ideology Marx was specifically against.

0

Grace OP wrote

That's a really poor conclusion you came to. A revolution is only possible with the people.

1

Ellepix wrote

If the people are the source of the revolution, then there is no need for a vanguard. The very idea of a vanguard party is very Blanquist, and counter-revolutionary to boot.

4

Grace OP wrote

A vanguard is an organized necessity to stomp out counter revolutionaries, like the bourgeois or liberalism. It's a protector of socialism, and that right is given by the people.

0

Ellepix wrote

There's no such thing as rights, but even then, the idea that the proletariat cannot organize themselves to accomplish such goes against the very foundations of socialist thought.

3

Grace OP wrote

Read State and Revolution, Lenin will describe the need for all that I've mentioned better.

I have an audiobook link, if you'd like to read ML theory.

1

kinshavo wrote (edited )

How is your assessment about left communism and the communization current as proposed by Gilles Dauvé? Thanks for your time and courage to be so honest

8

Grace OP wrote

I am not educated on leftcommunism. I need to be however, but iirc they strive for ideological perfection. No socialist party can be perfect, and becaues of that they do not support it. I'm thinking of the right ideology, right?

5

suma wrote

I understand you gave up control of the genzanarchism discord due to pushback from the users. Was this because you told them you were no longer an anarchist?

7

Grace OP wrote

Of course not. I left / got kicked out because I was too 'authoritarian'. I thought that my way of running the server was the best idea, and the mental strain of constant pressure did not help. I discarded anarchism after being kicked out, having a grudge against anarchists, the only Marxist i knew IRL recommended me state and revolution. After a grudge and theory, I no longer identify with anarcho-communism. I call myself a ML / Communist now.

4

CircleA wrote

What did you do that they decided was authoritarian?

4

Grace OP wrote

Idk, they wanted 'democracy'. Which was just a popularity contest obviously. I resigned and gave it to someone who I thought would do a better job than me. Now they do have that 'democracy', and in the process lost 200 members.

4

ziq wrote (edited )

Yeah I get this. Democracy is just a tool for narcissists to force their will on others and prevent them from resisting because "it's democratic".

I wrote about the problems with democracy here if you're interested:

w/democracy

A lot of anarchists fetishize it, but it's not really compatible with anarchy.

4

BlackFlagged wrote

Oh, cool. I've never actually had a conversation with a former anarchists after they go tankie.

You said you were an anarchist before you came out as trans and that you were "dumb" then? Can you explain what the correlation is between being trans and being an ML?

7

Grace OP wrote

Of course. The only reason I found out I was trans was because of the Discord server I created. I talked with other trans anarchists and they realized I was an egg at the time. Being transgender in ML communities (well, not ML but left unity. But left unity communities go one of three ways. Anarchist-based, ML-based, or Socdem.) is interesting. It's generally the same as Anarchism, all MLs I know love our trans comrades and a lot are trans themselves.

Places like China and Vietnam, their trans laws arent that progressive of course, but they're getting there. Pretty sure they're better than America's, but idk. That's why I critically support every country that is socialist.

3

Pop wrote

Have you read baedan?

6

Grace OP wrote

No, I'll have to read that. I havent read theory in a good week or two. I've been reading too much manga.

4

Pop wrote

It's worth a read

the parallels between anarchy and queerness worth teasing out

6

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

What do you think anarchists are and do you think you were ever really an anarchist?

6

Grace OP wrote (edited )

Anarchists are people who want to immediately abolish the state after the revolution and do not want a replacement state. That's the simplest terms. I was definitely an anarchist. A lot of MLs used to be anarchists.

−1

train wrote

Idk if that's entirely accurate. I would describe anarchists as people who seek to replace hierarchical relationships and dependencies managed by the capitalist economy and state with sustainable mutual support networks through the process of insurection. I don't think anarchism is programatic or sequencial and thus doesn't really make sense if you try to think about it in that context. Of course I'm not an anarchist so I could be wrong.

5

Grace OP wrote

Is it? It's been a while since I cared about anarchy. Being against any type of unjust hierarchy and the immediate abolition of state is what I thought anarchists were.

1

train wrote

Replace immediate with continual and I think you would be closer to the mark.

6

Grace OP wrote

how strange, because when I used to own the GenZanarchist discord i saw almost everyone wanted immediate state abolition

2

train wrote

I can't speak for those anarchists but I can speak to the ones I've talked to. For them it seems like anarchism is a process not really an exact state of affairs. Ie anarchy (as you might imagine being equivalent to communism) doesn't really exist. Thus if you hear an anarchist advocating for anarchy now, they don't mean they expect utopia simply from the abolition of the capitalist state.

Rather the aim of anarchism is to continually unmake hierarchy and in that process the state is abolished. I also don't think anarchists believe the state is the be all end all of exploitive relationships. Nor do I think they are ignorant of the reactionary forces that will attempt to counter insurrectionary tactics.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

People who think in absolutes are misguided. But you do the same thing when you say "when the revolution comes". Revolution is a constant process to unmake the authoritarian institutions that control us, it's not something that will just happen one day and everything will be fixed.

4

ziq wrote

The "unjust hierarchy" brand of anarchist isn't really an anarchist, they're just mild socdems.

w/expertise_vs_authority

Anarchy isn't a goal, it's simply the ongoing rejection of authority. I'd argue the reason those baby anarchists become MLs is because they never actually understood anarchy to begin with, and that's a failing of the anarchist movement: for allowing gross people like Vaush to represent anarchy and proselytize for anarchy when they have zero understanding of it.

4

suma wrote

What are your thoughts on the theory that gen z leftists are being brainwashed by left unity policies? When you were an anarchist were you ever shamed or peer pressured into adopting third positionist politics? Were you radicalized by tankies or did you come to ML on your own?

5

Grace OP wrote

Brainwashed? That's poor. I think that Gen Z leftists just realize that working together is much better. Division helps no one, but friendly debates is fine and often encouraged in left-unity spaces. Like in the Chapo discord there's #anarchism or #marxism-leninism, and people ask questions or debate there. The general chats also have constant shitshows about China. Left unity is a complicated thing, and not necessary in most international revolutions. But anarchists in America are more common than the rest of the world.

“Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!"

  • Otto Von Bismarck
4

Pop wrote

Did Stalin do more than 0 things wrong

5

Grace OP wrote

Stalin recriminalized homosexuality

5

Lilith1312 wrote

how's your transition going? (since this is a very personal question, please don't feel forced to answer!)

4

Grace OP wrote

Finally, a question not about politics so I'd love to share.

not well. mom knows im trans, and even offered to call me Grace. I refused, I refuse to let anyone irl call me Grace before I transition. Which will be a while. And im friendless anyway, so that just means my family.

I havent worn any feminine clothes in a long time. I havent shaved in a long time. All I know is I'm a woman, but besides that, I have done nothing. As soon as I move out, everything will change. When will that be? Who knows.

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

What do you do for a living?

2

Grace OP wrote

I do nothing. I have no future goals. However, I'd love to join a socialist militia or move to China one of these days. Mom doesnt want me to join a militia though hahaha. Helping a revolution, that's the dream. Every good ML dreams of being a revolutionary like Lenin.

2

polpotisevil2 wrote (edited )

You do nothing? What does that mean? You don't have a job? How do you get food into you? Dumpster dive? Sleep on the streets?

Edit: Forgot that it is creator of GenZanarchist I am talking to. Nevermind. You live with your parents and probably plan to for five years after your eighteenth birthday and yet think you can talk about how we should work ourselves to death for your sacred communist religion of from each according to ability to each according to need.

2

[deleted] wrote

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

I wouldn't call it luck, but I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately lots do though. And considering they are worried about their mom not letting them join a militia I'd say this one falls into the category.

1

bloodrose wrote

And considering they are worried about their mom not letting them join a militia

They said their mother didn't want them to, not that their mother wouldn't let them. They are being a considerate child. It's kindness and consideration. I hope my child considers me as much when she grows up, too.

4

[deleted] wrote

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

Grace OP wrote

Yes. oh well, i'll delete my account then.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

ziq admin wrote

deleting your account wipes out everything you've ever posted with the exception of wiki entries.

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

Ah, so I see you have no real grasp on life yet and your political positions rest on the imaginary world of the internet. Experience life before trying to force others to live what you think life should be.

−9

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

ziq wrote

It's deleted, what did I miss?

2

Lilith1312 wrote

how do you think it's okay to force people to do things?

2

ziq admin wrote

I banned her for being under 16, which is against the terms of service.

2