You're viewing part of a thread.
Okay we might have a different definition of liberal. (ironically under a post where I'm arguing about the definition of tankie lol). I'm talking about people who think capitalism can work or can be made to work. People who conflate capitalism and the fake meritocracy sold by the American dream with actual freedom.
If liberal just means somebody who believes that freedom is important, then yeah I'm a liberal. But maybe you have a different definition? (genuinely asking, not trying to be standoffish)
You have a misconception about anarchism being about individualism though. Anarchists focus on community and communes. Most anarchist theory I've consumed laments the individualism that capitalism tries to sell because it destroys culture and community.
Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of private property ownership and that's why it always inevitably devolved into fascism in times of crisis.
Therefore, whenever economic liberalism finds itself under threat from “populism”, it quickly jettisons the principles of political liberalism to which it is theoretically tied.
In other words, these “principles” are not principles at all, just convenient postures designed to cloak the unpleasant reality of the economic liberals’ capitalist system.
https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
Anarchists talk a lot about community, but reject actual practical way to organize communally and combat capitalism. And the argument for rejecting practical means is that these approaches restrict individual freedoms. Anarchists place their individual freedom above collective good, and thus align with liberal capitalists in action.
Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of private property ownership and that’s why it always inevitably devolved into fascism in times of crisis.
What does this have to with anarchism, which rejects private property?
Anarchists place their individual freedom above collective good, and thus align with liberal capitalists in action.
Anarchists believe that it is neither a supreme ruler nor the majority that decide what collective good is. I reject your idea that the collective good is something we have to decide on collectively and then force upon those who disagree. Anarchists have been brutally repressed in Western countries, they in no way align with liberal capitalists in action.
Everything anarchists do in tangible terms helps maintain liberal capitalist rule. That's the reality of the situation. Hence why anarchists are just LARPing without any tangible plan of action. Anarchists love moaning about being brutally repressed, but refused to take any action against the repression.
IMO, building support networks and communities is better than meeting in dark rooms and planning revolutions. Or what is your plan of action? (Genuinely asking)
Nobody is talking about any dark rooms, just go look at what PSL is doing very much in the open. If you look at any successful revolution it has always started by building support networks and organizing communities. It's kind of wild that you are not aware of this. The difference with communists is that we understand that an organized dictatorship of capital requires organization and education to fight against. So, along with building out support networks we also focus on political education, organization, and long term goals.
That sounds like we're quite aligned with our methodology actually. So why are you so standoffish?
The whole context for this thread is you claiming that an actually existing socialist state is not really socialist because it doesn't pass your purity test.
Well it was originally me starting a mud fight about the meaning of the word tankie, but then we got sidetracked.
IMO, anarchists and communists have more overlap than we might think we do.
Sure, anarcho-syndicalism seems very compatible with Marxism for example. The main disagreement tends to be around what is actually to be done about the dictatorship of capital that we all live under in the west.