I have noticed that largely most anarchists online are from the first world and that anarchism is very popular than communism in western countries, i.e. its become overtly a first world white people ideology.
While marxism leninism is popular in the third world, with large marxist leninist parties and non existing anarchist forces. What do you think about this?
Anarchism is the refuge of Westerners who know that capitalism must be overthrown, but still believe everything that capitalists have told them about communism.
this is my conclusion too.
Prefacing this with #NotAllAnarchists - I know there are plenty of actual anarchists out there who are actively involved in their communities. I’m not talking about you here.
There are a lot of self-ascribed ‘anarchists’ (those jokingly referred to as ‘anarkiddies’) in the west who have no connection to any kind of theory or real practice, who are rightfully jaded about capitalism but identify as anarchists because it is the most accessible anti-capitalist label. Others who call themselves ‘socalists’ but reject AES states are in the same boat. The CIA has spent many years and a lot of money cultivating the ‘compatible left’ - a dead-end ideology that serves to innoculate against revolution. As they control funding for western academia, they have largely cut off actual Marxist thought from acceptable discourse. Despite the protestations of conservatives, you will rarely encounter actual Marxists in a US university.
This is why the support of AES states is an easy litmus test. The compatible left can promote whatever it likes, as long as it is essentially idealist and not materialist. It is always opposed to revolution, usually decrying it as pointless or pointing to an imagined human cost. It considers human beings inherently selfish and greedy, and uses this as a reason why socialism is impossible, and therefore we should just have more welfare programs under capitalism. As individualism is already heavily promoted in the west and people are increasingly atomized, anarchism is more accessible as an idea than socialism. Anarchism also has more cultural cache in the west; anarchists are depicted as cool and socialists are depicted as stodgy Russians if they’re depicted at all.
In the third world, the lived experience of imperialism and US repression of socialist movements is less likely to be successfully memory-holed. Marxism is more accessible in places where the CIA has less immediate influence, and more communal life makes socialism seem more possible than it does to atomized westerners.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to come to Marxist-Leninist thought as a westerner, but it’s a lot less likely if you never encounter it in your daily life or online. This is why big corporate platforms are so hostile to actual communists - any exposure to ideas outside the compatible left increase the odds one will come around to them. This is why a project like Lemmy is so important for us.
That one prioritizes unifying against an actively violent existential threat while the other wants the freedoms they were promised. One is fighting the right to even breathe, the other has the luxury to think about the specifics. Both fight for the same general ideals and it’s not really a rule, there are plenty of anarchist movements outside of western countries, and vice versa.
Most anarchists are not online, or at least not active online. There’s an inherent defiance in anarchist circles against imperial / extractive technologies like computers, which is less common in leninist circles where cybernetics has been assimilated (eg. under Allende, or in science fiction like Asimov). To be fair, i have met quite a few leninists who were profoundly techno-critical and did not wander on online forums.
So there’s already this biased sample explaining things a little. But “non existing anarchist forces” in the 3rd world is a stretch due to your information bubbles. Can’t say they’re exactly thriving and on the verge of destroying the State, but there’s strong anarchist communities in Sudan, Chile, Syria, Chiapas, Indonesia…
Sudan, Chile, Syria, Chiapas, Indonesia
One thing common among most of these examples is that right wing forces carried mass genocide of communists in these countries.
As QinShiHuangsSchlong pointed out, the Zapatistas explicitly reject anarchist labeling. You can point to them for their horizontalism (at the same time, they have hierarchy and centralization), but they are primarily an indigenous led movement with their own, original ideology. They see labeling them as “anarchists” as the imposition of western framing on their distinctly indigenous movement.
Chiapas
Didn’t the Zapatistas disavow anarchism or otherwise deny they were anarchists or was that just hearsay?
Zapatismo has influences from Marxism-Leninism, but is primarily an original indigenous movement that rejects the labels of Marxism-Leninism and anarchism. They’ve stated that they cannot be constrained to foreign ideas, essentially.
And everyone likes to ignore that in favor of using them for their argument’s ><
Yep, it’s unfortunate.
I never once seen ML’s claiming Zapatistas for Marxism-Leninism, but anarchists are doing this constantly.
I have seen both. In fact I’ve seen a anarchists and a ML arguing which one they were with each other.
I think I know what is going on. I’ve been thinking of posting about this.
I consider myself a anarchist, but mostly in the sense of a philosophy then a mode of government per sey. (Mostly like most things in my life I have a hard time finding a label I like that I feel like fits me, so I just gravitate to something that feels right and will just further explain if I need to)
I see a lot of MLs on here who consider anarchists here spoiled petite bousgouie (no way I’m spelling it right on the new phone. Please excuse my dyslexic ass)
However something I’ve noticed is a lack of mental heal and psychological analysis when dealing with material conditions.
Most anarchists I know who are more traditional are usually one or more of the following.
Autistic Disabled Queer Racial minority
These people have spent their entire lives at the boot. Being told what to do and to break themselves to be of use of the empire.
Suck it up. Do what’s better for the greater good (capitalism). Don’t ask questions. Do what your better tells you to do. You are faking it. Your pain doesn’t matter.
Now I will say that a lot of the gut reaction to MLs and the theory is reactionary. But its not because they are simping for the ruling class. There is some level of selfishness but not because they don’t want to work. Most that I know would love to work and actually work themselves to hard because of a misplaced idea that to be loved they must be useful.
They are scared to change one boot for another and therefore get stuck in a traumatic cycle of not doing anything. Because of the fear, the idea of not only things staying the same or even getting worse, but also becoming the boot themselves.
There is also a very real and understandable fear of betrayal and everyone who is not of the groups mentioned will get out and shut the door behind them. Something that happens to us a lot.
This is inherently reactionary. But its not coming from the same place as the ruling class. Because these people have nothing else to loose really. Or they have very little to loose.
The truth that is very hard to swollow is that you have to have a manner of trust. A trust that people won’t turn around as soon as its convient to them.
Its why its so important to the west to have this Red Scare against China. If you know that it works. It’s a lot harder to argue against. Because I will say, on it’s surface there are elements of ML theory that sounds way to good to be true. People are going to weild power in a way that isn’t going to fuck the most vulnerable? Yeah right. Get real.
I’ve have both been and seen many self proclaimed anarchists who are this way. Dealing with internalized issues that you don’t even realize you have.
The problem comes when confronted with actual data that they stay their ground. This is when one changes from having reactionary issues to being a reactionary.
This is me not making excuses per say, but trying to give a explanation as someone who has had to confront this themselves literally weeks ago.
Existing as a marginalized person under capitalism is it’s own kind of trauma, and I do think that MLs need to be able to meet people where they are. While we need to study political theory, we should take care not to neglect personal development. Self-knowledge is critical in understanding how and when to set one’s ego aside, and we’re likely to butt heads rather than change minds if we haven’t done the work on ourselves.
We still won’t be able to reach everyone, but we should take care not to push people away unnecessarily. Even if someone is not receptive now, we may leave them with something that they can consider in the future. Most of us weren’t born MLs, after all, and can probably remember people who planted ideas in us which we did not come to accept until later.
