Submitted by ergdj5 in meta

I'm actually a Mutualist but I think everyone should have a basic understanding of communism and anarchism before they butt into political conversations.

The way it would be implemented is new accounts wouldn't be able to post until they answer a questionnaire and get every question right. Maybe 40 questions would be enough? I can already think of dozens that most of you wouldn't get right. I'd be willing to write all the questions.



You must log in or register to comment.

DaisyDisaster wrote

Can't support that. It is gatekeepery, in a bad way. People learn by interacting with people and making mistakes. We shouldn't bar people from expressing themselves because they don't meet your arbitrary standard of knowledge. Besides, anyone can Google shit.


GrimWillow wrote (edited )

As much as I like Anarchist echo chambers, because they are a refuge while living in a society that is a patriarchal, white-supremacist, hetero-normative echo chamber; I think u/Tequila_Wolf put it best in this comment from another thread when they suggest that the site is best to at least just be kept a safe space for Anarchists. They make a strong argument for not gatekeeping access to the site in such a way.

But having said that, I have enough conversations, discussions, debates, and arguments with statists and authoritarians irl on a daily basis, that I'm too tired to continue that burden when I'm just trying to chill out online. I like being able to come to a space and speak with others that actually "get it" for once, so we can discuss the nuances of our philosophy.

I'm also not against gatekeeping when it comes to defining Anarchism, and whether or not people fit in that description. I think that it's necessary to draw that line hard, and hold people accountable to it, when you've got "libertarians" (another word stolen from Anarchists) muddying the definition of Anarchism when they claim the existence of something called "anarcho-capitalism". Just mentioning that to Anarchists irl who haven't heard of them, they laugh, because it sounds ridiculous. But "anarcho-capitalism" is being established by a large enough number, that I'm afraid we'll end up with "anarcho-fascists" and "anarcho-monarchists" while still having to defend that Anarchism does not mean chaos to the general public.


shanc wrote

But "anarcho-capitalism" is being established by a large enough number, that I'm afraid we'll end up with "anarcho-fascists" and "anarcho-monarchists"

9 months later, Reddit has exactly that :/


indi wrote

I joined to learn more about these things precisely because I'm very aware that my understanding of them has been tainted by poor representation by most sources.

I would probably have failed such a questionnaire. And probably still would.

The end result would have been that it would have kept out someone genuinely interested in these ideas (and still actively learning about them, drinking in all the discussions here about them - and as a fair exchange, offering my own knowledge and expertise on the things I know well, like programming). Meanwhile someone whose goal was to troll would probably manage to answer them all - possibly with the help of a cheat sheet posted by trolls elsewhere.

In summary: A good tool to help trolls... not so much the community. But maybe that's the goal?


Pop wrote

Did you mean to post this in f/meta_? I can only imagine you are a new user?



ergdj5 OP wrote

Ignorance isn't a virtue. Gatekeeping implies that any ignorant joker can talk about things they know nothing about and we shouldn't try to correct them?


Pop wrote

Correcting people is different from preventing them from speaking in the first place

this isn't a communist or anarchist or whatever site

go be the king standing at the drawbridge of some other castle, we don't like kings or castles around here

they're boring


ergdj5 OP wrote

I just want my comrades to be educated and not join in debate about radical politics without understanding the subject first. I don't think that makes me a king of a castle or a gatekeeper.

Education is our greatest weapon.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to encourage intellectualism over the laughable meme-politics you see around here.


ziq wrote

There's literally no community on the internet as politically astute as this one. And I'm more critical of raddlers than anyone.


ergdj5 OP wrote

You only think that because you pushed everyone you disagreed with off of the site.


Pop wrote

I dunno, half of the regular posters around here are dauntingly well-educated

Not sure why you think this site's about meme politics, have you really looked around? You appear to have trouble recognising all of the relevant points of context


ergdj5 OP wrote

There's a lot of unironic smashy-smashy anarchism and other ignorant ass things. Like everyone attacking Elon Musk for daring to promote our politics. Don't you people realize what a huge platform his twitter feed is? The fact that the most famous businessman in the world today is promoting anarchism should make us all thankful. Instead, everyone mocks him for trying...


ergdj5 OP wrote

This is what I mean by lifestylism.


Cheeks wrote

So how exactly our we to broaden the scope of far left politics and philosophy if you want to cage it up, lock it behind doors, and make it exclusionary?

If this is meant to be a legitimate proposal, then I have to say, 'Ah, Hell NAW!'


ergdj5 OP wrote

They would still be able to read the site, but they would have to get to a level of understanding where they can successfully answer my questions before participating in the conversation.


An_Old_Big_Tree moderator wrote

Hi there!

You seem like an interesting person and I have found some enjoyment trying to understand your perspective. Unfortunately, some of your actions are indistinguishable from troll behaviour, which I and others on this site have become quite deft at recognising. I'm just here to ask if you would please move off of a f/SharedLogins account onto another (it's welcome to be a throwaway), because as drama unfolds it will become a pain if we have to close f/SharedLogins.

I don't really have the time or energy to explain why I think what I think; perhaps others will.

Your cooperation would be appreciated!


ergdj5 OP wrote

Fine, I changed the password back and won't use this account again.

I'm not a troll and my voluntary relinquishing of this account should demonstrate that.


Bigfluffytail wrote

That makes no sense. A mutualist and a council communist would have vastly different answers for example. Also reminds me of the way the SPGB has questions for its membership. It'd basically impose a line of thought, which I don't think is the goal with this site.


ziq wrote

Were you aiming for f/meta_?


ergdj5 OP wrote

Serious responses only please. Your 'talents' are much better suited to memer.


ziq wrote

I honestly thought you were making a (pretty good) joke.


Yunlunuae wrote

gatekeeping to close what should be open information and greater capacities of broadening interaction sounds like the polar opposite of Mutualism to me.


succtales_backup wrote

The last thing the left should be is exclusive. If someone's just gotten off the train from Ancapistan and is in need of some clarification, then instead of excluding them, we should give them the information required for further understanding.


celebratedrecluse wrote

You know, you're right. If you can't pass a standardized test, you're not really anarchist yet