hogposting

hogposting wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by spezlovesslavery6969 in Real socialism! by ziq

If you find someone who earnestly says the USSR or China is some kind of utopian ideal, yeah, that's ridiculous, and it's fundamentally different from what anarchists want. But almost no one makes that argument.

The arguments you hear are more along the lines of:

  1. No, [fill-in-the-blank socialist state] did not march 4,093 jabillion people into death camps; here's what the reality was.
  2. Whatever its flaws, [fill-in-the-blank socialist state] did accomplish a lot of material progress in terms of education, healthcare, technology, standards of living, etc.
  3. It wasn't very realistic for [fill-in-the-blank socialist state] to accomplish [end-state utopian project] when they were getting invaded or threatened by powerful capitalist opponents; what's the best they realistically could have done in that situation?
  4. You want an example of how it's possible to do [important social program] better than it's done under capitalism? Here's a real-world example from [fill-in-the-blank socialist state].

None of that is inconsistent with ultimately wanting a classless, moneyless, stateless society. You can argue that we can get there pretty directly from here, or you can argue that we need some form of (at least temporary) state protection if we hope to get there and hold off the inevitable reactionary pushback, but the ultimate goal is the same.

−2

hogposting wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Real socialism! by ziq

Come on, you're pulling the "you're not even a real anarchist, are you" card in this very thread:

Either you haven't spent much time around tankies or you're not an anarchist and are doing some entryism.

Why would it matter whether someone (who never claimed to be an anarchist) is an anarchist unless you're trying to make this an anarchist-only space?

0

hogposting wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Real socialism! by ziq

see I was carefully poking holes in your argument

jk actually I was just pretending to be dumb

It's a forum about a broadly leftist (and broadly in favor of a socialist state) podcast and you're insisting it's for anarchists only.

0

hogposting wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Real socialism! by ziq

You think this lib is gonna get their hands dirty growing carrots when they can just buy a bigmac?

Real detailed critique right there.

−1

hogposting wrote

The medium of communication is a factor, too. If interactions are adversarial, relatively short, and dominated by bigoted insults, it's pretty difficult to communicate an effective counterargument. And even if you can communicate that counterargument, it takes a decent amount of knowledge to come up with it in the first place.

2

hogposting wrote

This is a great counter to Obama apologia in the form of: "sure he didn't do everything you might have hoped/it was Republicans who kept him from doing more/at least he said the right things and showed genuine leadership."

No, Obama failed to clear even that extremely low bar on many occasions. Criticizing a guy for a peaceful protest that he cleared with a veteran is literally the right-wing take on the issue.

2

hogposting wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in Real socialism! by ziq

About two hours before this comment you flipped out at a good-faith suggestion that destruction of stuff like police stations should be followed up with a plan to improve society. Glass houses and all.

−1

hogposting wrote

"Gamer culture" took a major turn when peer-to-peer communication became common. It produced an environment where calling people horrible, bigoted insults with no real pushback was normalized. And there's an old, well-worn path from that to "ironic" bigoted memes, to "I'm just asking questions" bigotry apologia, and eventually to open bigotry.

14

hogposting wrote

I don’t think the image is claiming all destruction is good

The image by itself isn't bad; my point is more about the title, which has a pretty different tone.

It doesn’t benefit the capitalist class to burn a bank even if you have no plan afterwards. There’s a reason that’s illegal.

Terrorist attacks are illegal, too -- would you say the capitalist class saw a net loss or a net gain from 9/11?

The premise here is that capitalists are pretty good at turning a crisis into an opportunity. If something bad is burnt down -- and nothing better takes its place -- capitalists can push reactionary sentiments that appeal to law and order, and ordinary people will buy it because they don't see any material improvement as a result of the fire. They have the money to rebuild, and will, and will often rebuild in a way that's more favorable to them.

We should have a significant focus on what to do after something gets burnt down, because (a) capitalists sure do and (b) while burning down a police station is good, it's far from enough and can even make things more difficult in the short term.

−1

hogposting wrote

Should I work with Marxist-Leninists?

If you're organising at work or around housing issues, the people you work with are not going to all have the same politics at you, and your opinions on the July 1918 uprising of Left Socialist Revolutionaries after their expulsion from the Bolshevik government are not relevant to that situation. Yes, really, no-one gives a shit. You're relating to each other as workers in that situation, not as representatives of a political niche, at least we hope not.

It's pretty important not to start pointless pissing matches with people who are largely moving in the direction you prefer. And if you absolutely must do secretarianism, try to at least start off in good faith.

−2

hogposting wrote

It was gross! Like imagine an oily TVP that smelled like dog food.

This could easily describe a lot of fast food burgers, and people eat tons of those. That's where I see this iteration of impossible burger making the most difference -- in situations where taste isn't the top priority, or for people who aren't all that picky in the first place.

3

hogposting wrote

You are being reactionary!

Burning down a police station is good, not reactionary. But if you don't fill that space with something better, it ultimately invites reaction.

Ordinary people can pretty easily come around to the idea that society as it exists is fucked -- burning down that police station had something like 80% approval. If that's your primary focus, though, and you don't produce a better version of society, those ordinary people will turn to someone who says they can at least "restore order." Starting the process of major change is hard enough, but continuing that process to the end goal of actually realizing that change is still harder and thus deserves significant attention.

−3

hogposting wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in The urge to destroy is peak creativity by ziq

  1. Lol you didn't even quote him right; "also a creative urge" is a far cry from "peak creativity"
  2. Cool, you have a nice quote, now tell me how that in any way responds to "destruction without a plan for improvement just fucks over ordinary people and benefits the capitalist class"
−1

hogposting wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in The urge to destroy is peak creativity by ziq

I responded to you defending cops, corporations and banks with mockery

Lol I didn't do anything close to that.

The image is pretty clear

And it's clearly undercut by the title.

She's holding fresh veggies grown across the street with mutual aid. Anarchy is the plan

You're describing an end state, not a plan. Burning a cop car doesn't create shit -- in enables creation, it removes impediments to creation, but it's edgy teenager nonsense to call it "peak creativity." No garden has magically sprung into existence in the police precinct burnt down in Minneapolis, for example.

You want to get to the right side of the image? I'm right there with you. But burning shit down is the first of many steps, not a plan unto itself.

−1