dil [he/him, comrade/them]

Deep sea: “Comrades, we need your help”

:doomjak:

I think a bit more scientific method would be great in economics, and I think we’ve seen that with the CPC, e.g. in having local experiments before rolling out broader changes, and in accepting when something doesn’t work.

Contrast with trickle down economics with tons of experiments and evidence that it doesn’t work (Kentucky), and economists still push for it. Obviously in the US the goal isn’t that things work better, so naturally the conclusion will be that we need more concentration of wealth.

But approaching government policies scientifically, based on gathering data, hypothesis, experiment design, peer review, etc all sounds pretty reasonable.

Where things gets yucky is when STEM brains decide that they know better than other folks, and hopefully that’s kept in check.

Totally agree - the work we need to do now is the same for both anarchists and communists. We also have the same end goal in mind.

There are interesting ideas to pull from each ideology, and I just wanted to push back on a blanket dismissal of anarchism.

Thanks for the discussion, I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

they’re converging on similar types of power structures to the ones communists consider to be necessary

Yes, and anarchists consider them necessary too. We have the same end goal in mind.

Anarchists talk about “prefiguration”, building the new power structures in the shell of the old, and that’s what we’re seeing with the Zapatistas. They have post-revolutionary power structures now, without first dismantling capitalism.

That’s what I find appealing about anarchism - focusing on organizing people and building the new world now, in your community, in whatever ways you can.

Communism ultimately aims for an eventual withering away of the state, and anarchism aims to move there more directly.

unionizing helps build worker discipline, and teaches people to work together producing militant labor that has potential to be organized by a vanguard and liberate itself.

I brought up unionizing just to discuss organizing in general - most people don’t join a union because they want to go on strike, they join because they have needs. They stay engaged if they see the union make progress in addressing their needs.

Similarly, most people don’t want communism because they want to form a vanguard party, they want communism because they’re suffering under capitalism. They stay engaged if they can see communism make progress in lessening their suffering.

We’re not at a point where we need a vanguard party to organize unions for their own liberation, since the unions don’t have enough power (in the US).

We’re at a point where we need to get people organized at all, and the best way to do that is to start making their lives tangibly better.

Agree that retrenching isn’t a sign of things going well, but surely you also agree that there are material conditions outside of the control of the Zapatistas that influence things not going well? E.g. drug cartels a problem in many parts of Mexico.

The new Zapatista structure is more decentralized, pushing more power to local centers: https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/

The organization of those local centers into larger federations is where communism and anarchism start structurally looking the same. The primary difference is that anarchists promote bottom up organizations, and communists tend to advocate for more centralized power.

The methods that have been used by Marxists to successfully organized movements that overthrew capitalism. They differ from what anarchists do in having a unified vision and a professional vanguard.

Yes, anarchists don’t organize around a vanguard party taking control of the existing state. Honestly, I think that’s a bad thing to organize around.

Going on strike has historically been the best way to get concessions in the workplace, but union organizers don’t organize around going on strike. Workplace organizing is listening to people’s needs, giving support and reassurance, and empowering folks to apply the existing power they have to get concessions (even if they start small). Ideally, a workplace never actually goes on strike, and management realizes the workers hold all the power and concedes.

To me, that parallels broader political organization in two ways:

1. Most folks are unlikely to actually engage in a movement based on a high-risk action that requires a not-yet-reached critical mass
2. With collective pressure applied effectively, concessions can be won without violence (though there are obviously limits to what porky will give up without a fight)

Regular folks want their own specific needs met, and do not care about a professional vanguard. You can try to convince them that they should care, or you can just work on meeting their needs (even if you start small). And that means not having a unified vision beyond “organize people and empower them to make their lives better.” That may involve a vanguard party at some point, but only when it becomes a practical tool for improving people’s lives.

… Anyway. I’m sure you’re not convinced, and that’s fine. I hope we can agree that both approaches have merit as ways of improving people’s lives, even if we disagree on which is more effective in doing so.

The narratives in the media fetishize lone rebels “fighting the system” through symbolic acts such as heists or sabotage that never threaten the core machinery of the system.

This isn’t a portrayal of anarchism. Anarchism is not a bunch of lone wolves, and it is not a system with no rules or organization.

I haven’t seen all the shows you mentioned - are the characters explicitly called anarchists? Tbh it seems like you don’t understand anarchism and are incorrectly attributing things to it.

I agree that media fetishizes individualism, but a much more plausible explanation is that doing so promotes Great Man theory, which is used as justification for capitalists hoarding wealth.

Meanwhile, Zapatistas are very much not doing great in Mexico

Changing the organizational structure to try solving problems their people are facing seems like a feature, not a bug.

start focusing on proven and effective methods of organizing instead

What methods are those, and how do they differ from the organizing that anarchists do?

1. Anarchism as portrayed by the media is a bad source for anarchist’s actual beliefs. Animal Farm shouldn’t be used to decide what communists believe. Capitalism twists both ideologies.
2. Communism and anarchism both believe in building collective power outside of the existing state. They’ll disagree on verbage, but they also generally agree on the structure of a post-revolutionary society. Disagreement is primarily limited to “what is the best path from here to there?”
3. The action needed now for both is getting people organized, and I think we should start by doing that under the banner of anti-capitalism. Once we have enough collective power, we can talk about where we throw our weight.

Personally, I like that anarchism starts by instilling post-revolution values in people (collective agency), and I think that will necessarily lead to a better world. On the other hand, I’ve found it’s easier to sell someone on the vision of communism, since it’s a smaller step from the existing structure of society.

Ultimately, there are strengths and weaknesses of each, and I think we should view every project as an experiment to learn from, and not just shit on each other.

China is doing great, but I think there are valid criticisms to be made about allowing seeds of capitalist power.

The Zapatistas are doing great in Mexico, but don’t have the power of a centralized state to direct resources.

What do you hope to gain by saying “anarchism bad”? To me, it seems like it’s distracting from the real work of getting people organized.

They’re also great to bust open when scared, to make a quick getaway. Making zoidberg noises as you scuttle away is optional, but recommended.

Google says solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago, but I’m gonna say 4.7 billion bc that would mean the planet would need to travel one light year every 100 million years.

And it would not need to go fast to do that - about running speed according to wolfram alpha

So there’s definitely a chance! Which I wouldn’t have expected.

Per reddit, our probes take about 16,000 years to go one light year.

It’s unlikely that a random system would orchestrate a gravity assist as well as we can, but even at 1,000x slower than us, that’d put the planet leaving the solar system <1 billion years ago (~750 million years ago).

You may have already looked into it, but I’ve been pretty happy with stremio. There are guides on getting it hooked up with real debrid + torrentio, and the end result is reliably search for what you want -> click play.