• davel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    This meme is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. While 98% of self-described anarchists are LARPers, anarchists do exist.

    • There is a large amount of Anarchist larpers on Lemmy I can’t name them all.

      edit: Guess not, I have them blocked so I have no idea what they’re posting or if they’re an Anarchist. I think they crashed out on my instances music comm

      • PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I don’t understand anarchism at least in the context of reading about half of this web page, which basically just repeats the notion that a true radical can not vote because that reinforces capitalism, “well both sides are bad” and the individual can not rule over the many. Truly, in principal I agree with what this is saying. But to spark a revolution, the government needs to become so much worse than it currently is. I don’t think anarchism has actually happened and been sustained, tell me if I’m wrong. If Anarchism was on the cusp of succeeding and it was all those democrat voters which caused it to fail I would completely understand not voting.

        Rather Anarchism gives permission to the right to continue there slaughter. While in the same way voting in an election gives the magical president that capitalism works, (But still holding a net vote towards a better outcome) not voting in an election has the same president that capitalism doesn’t work.

        Because a non voter is the same as a centrist when the choice to vote or not to vote is actually the “vote” someone should make. Nobody hears you.

        Truly, as an anarchist are you homeschooling your children? Would you go to a public hospital? Sorry to do the “Communism =/ Iphone” but the government has good things, and increasing those good things are, good. Is this kind of Anarchism a kind of Accelerationism where you let the state continue to make living conditions worse on principal that this is the system capitalism created?

        I believe in using every resource available to make everything better, and I won’t hold those further left than me from succeeding because the enemy is the right, but I also want leftists to come together and agree.

      • Nemo's public admirer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I think voting is useful tho

        If there are decent options, votes can show support for it, regardless of a win or loss. The results would signal that there is decent support on it or became a part of awareness on issues or points.

        Not dismissing other parts on direct action and the fact that there is no right to recall in elections(Not USAmerican or EU-ian. Do you have right to recall?)

      • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you’re involved in any kind of direct action.

        The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.

        I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the “reasonable politician”, not the radical that they promised to be.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost

          Once you’re at the point of advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers, you’ve lost the ability to just dismiss things out of hand by invoking the “human cost”.

          Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.

          Citation needed mate. I’m pretty sure you just mean you’ll be more materially comfortable under Labour.

          • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers

            I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.

            If you’re in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.

            If you’re in New Zealand (where I live, so I’m more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won’t be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.

            citation needed

            Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.

            Also, don’t think I’m saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better

          • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that “voting convinces people that they’ve done all they need to” idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can’t fundamentally change things.

            Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that’s something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I’d love to be proven wrong here.

            • 🏴حمید پیام عباسی🏴@crazypeople.onlineOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              It is literally in paragraph 2

              We argue that electoralism ensures that a statist perspective becomes dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention and following the decisions of the leaders, which has always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help – the very keys to creating change in a society.

              • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 days ago

                OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read “electoralism” as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.

                But if the definition of “electoralism” is using voting in addition to direct action, I don’t think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It’s a good statement, but it needs more backing it up

          • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            “Very cheap” in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved

  • Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    2 days ago

    haha, oh not to mention lemmy communists: love to defend imperalism, supports capitalistic explitation of foreign labour (as long as its not US explotation), oh and opposes anyone arming themselves in opposition to said imperialism 🤷

    eh, internet will always be internet; it sucks but I know I’ll get along far better with a commie than a facist afterall. Faces help so much

    • Samsuma@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 days ago

      Provide context and examples of these “lemmy communists” defending imperialism, supporting capitalistic exploitation of foreign labor and opposing anyone arming themselves in opposition to said imperialism (should go without saying but without naming names of course). Which countries doing these things did you have in mind that “lemmy communists” are supporting?

      • jackeroni@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Youre going to get the libs riled up into their Russo/Sino-phobic and anti-DPRK rants, give me a few to get my popcorn at least 😁

      • Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        uh, does the original “meme” provide that context? 😅 the point is to point out the diviseness - not to prove that communists are just as bad

        tldr. leftist infighting bad.

        • No, this isn’t infighting. The people I’m making fun of aren’t leftists. The point of the meme is to make fun of the fact a lot of the people on this service who call themselves Anarchists are not, they are liberals. This is why an Anarchist instance has a “Europe” community for example. I’ve been called a “Tankie” by “Anarchists” because I don’t believe in contracts, voting or nationalist leaders like Zelenskyy. These people don’t know what anarchists are and certainly haven’t read about anarchism.

        • Samsuma@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 days ago

          No it doesn’t provide context for what you specifically pointed out. Which countries are we talking about that cover all these aspects that “lemmy communists” are defending?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      love to defend imperalism

      No?

      supports capitalistic explitation of foreign labour (as long as its not US explotation)

      No? What do you mean by this?

      oh and opposes anyone arming themselves in opposition to said imperialism

      No? Again, what do you mean?

    • jackeroni@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Wowzers, dont forget the massive anti-commie liberals of lemmy! Shocking you could forget them considering it appears you are one! 😁