I’m begging liberals to either read theory, study actual material conditions, or just use basic common sense instead of relying exclusively on libertarian brainworms and propaganda.
It is historically impossible for a great people even to discuss internal problems of any kind seriously, as long as it lacks national independence.
An international movement of the proletariat is possible only among independent nations.
So long as Poland is partitioned and subjugated, therefore, neither a strong socialist party can develop in the country itself, nor can there arise real international intercourse between the proletarian parties in Germany, etc, with other than émigré Poles. Every Polish peasant or worker who wakes up from the general gloom and participates in the common interest, encounters first the fact of national subjugation. This fact is in his way everywhere as the first barrier. To remove it is the basic condition of every healthy and free development. Polish socialists who do not place the liberation of their country at the head of their programme, appear to me as would German socialists who do not demand first and foremost repeal of the socialist law, freedom of the press, association and assembly. In order to be able to fight one needs first a soil to stand on, air, light and space. Otherwise all is idle chatter.
I’m begging liberals to either read theory, study actual material conditions, or just use basic common sense instead of relying exclusively on libertarian brainworms and propaganda.
That’s totally the language to use when you try to convince people (not to listen to you). What even qualifies as theory? I’m confident I read more books by David Graeber for example. I didn’t read too much JC Scott yet but he wrote a book The Art Of Not Being Governed I heard about where he interviewed and lived with people in the Golden Triangle. You might want to check it out but it might contradict your holy scripture theory. Also, I’m sure you heard of Rojava and I don’t think they would do any better if they formed a state. They even went from an ML national liberation movement to what they are now.
Literally can’t cite any leftist author on anything ever without people jumping down my throat with this “holy scripture” crap.
You should study Marx regardless of your own beliefs and ideology if for no other reason than how much his ideas have shaped history. You can disagree with him all you like, contrary to what you instantly jump to whenever anyone quotes him on anything, I don’t consider Marx or anybody else “holy scripture” and I’m more than happy to listen to critiques, and make them myself. But you should have a basic familiarity with what he believed and the basic outlines of historical arguments regarding the National Question before dropping uninformed takes and declaring everyone else as wrong. Otherwise, you’re doing the political equivalent of someone who never studied physics declaring that they’ve invented a perpetual motion machine.
Why am I not surprised that that’s the only thing you take away from my comment? Must be all the brainworms at work. You use “theory” synonymous with “Marx” and now you’re rationalizing it. That’s what gives the impression of holy scripture. And for what it’s worth: I think of Marx much more positively than about most of his successors.
Why am I not surprised that that’s the only thing you take away from my comment?
Sorry, what else did you say that was worth responding to?
You use “theory” synonymous with “Marx”
No I fucking don’t. I cited Marx because Marx is one theorist. If I cited Lenin, you’d be accusing me of treating “theory” as synonymous with “Lenin,” if I cited someone like Fanon, same shit.
I’m so fucking sick of you libs acting like this. Like citing a source makes me some kind of religious fanatic. You don’t see me accusing you of worshipping David Graeber or saying that you “treat him as synonymous with theory.” What is it about citing Marx that makes it “holy scripture” but citing Graeber isn’t?
But more than that I’m sick of you lot taking pride in your ignorance and anti-intellectualism. No different than a MAGA chud. You’re not hostile to me because I only read Marx, because I don’t only read Marx and even if I did, there’s not a single thing I’ve said that would indicate that. You’re hostile to me for reading Marx at all. You act like it’s some kind of heretical text that corrupts the minds of all that read it. Or at least, you pretend to, because by lobbing accusations like that, you can avoid any sort of informed, intellectual discussion, and conceal the fact that you don’t know shit about ass.
So congrats, you’ve sufficiently derailed the conversation to cover your ignorance, like y’all always do. Tankies are the only people on earth capable of intelligent, educated discussions because we do the fucking homework and no one else does.
You started by accusing me of not reading theory at all, I answered by asking what qualifies as theory. You didn’t answer.
There is a rich intellectual tradition dating back to Marx’s time that’s critical of him (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Bergman, Simon Weil, …). Does that qualify as theory? What are your criteria or prototype of what counts as theory?
If you have criticisms of Marx’s arguments and analysis regarding the national question, then let’s hear them. But if it’s just gonna be, “it’s bad because states are bad,” I could get that from a damn an-cap.
Again, do you get that people are less likely to engage with you when you start the convention by insulting them? Call me a cry baby, I don’t care, but online tankies have to learn about outreach. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy that people you insult will not engage with your arguments.
One basic argument is that structures of power will reproduce themselves. That’s why the state will not wither away but we need to build the movement in the structure we want to see in the end. I can point you to Anark as a content creator who engages with tankies arguments but I’m not motivated to put any more energy into a convention like this one.
Again, do you get that people are less likely to engage with you when you start the convention by insulting them?
Forgive me if I don’t have a lot of patience for opposing Palestinian statehood without a very good reason.
One basic argument is that structures of power will reproduce themselves.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re not engaging with the arguments and you’re not looking at the material conditions, it’s purely this knee-jerk ideological opposition to states in general, with zero analysis beyond that. You don’t see a problem with that?
Palestinians do not need to be the forefront of some anarchist experiment that they have no desire to be a part of. If they were brought to a similar system to what virtually everyone lives under, it would be a massive improvement in their lives.
Furthermore, while a culture is suffering under the boot of colonialism, it is very hard for it to progress or change internally because there is such a powerful external threat, and any proposed changes will be seen as being imposed from the outside. There have been plenty of states where decolonization has produced real material improvements in people’s lives, in spite of your knee-jerk opposition to states. Can you really look at modern Ireland and say that it’s no different than when the English were starving them because they still have a state?
Imagine if someone’s chained up in your basement begging to be released into the world and you’re like, “You don’t wanna go out there, you’d have to get a job and jobs suck, you’d have a boss which would essentially recreate the structures of power that are constraining you right now. Let’s focus on creating an anarchist system first.” They’re not gonna give a shit about that, they’re only going to be thinking of how to get out. It’s the same way with colonized people, the first priority should be ending colonialism and engaging with them on equal footing before considering these demands about how the resulting system has to be ideologically pure.
I’m begging liberals to either read theory, study actual material conditions, or just use basic common sense instead of relying exclusively on libertarian brainworms and propaganda.
That’s totally the language to use when you try to convince people (not to listen to you). What even qualifies as theory? I’m confident I read more books by David Graeber for example. I didn’t read too much JC Scott yet but he wrote a book The Art Of Not Being Governed I heard about where he interviewed and lived with people in the Golden Triangle. You might want to check it out but it might contradict your
holy scripturetheory. Also, I’m sure you heard of Rojava and I don’t think they would do any better if they formed a state. They even went from an ML national liberation movement to what they are now.Literally can’t cite any leftist author on anything ever without people jumping down my throat with this “holy scripture” crap.
You should study Marx regardless of your own beliefs and ideology if for no other reason than how much his ideas have shaped history. You can disagree with him all you like, contrary to what you instantly jump to whenever anyone quotes him on anything, I don’t consider Marx or anybody else “holy scripture” and I’m more than happy to listen to critiques, and make them myself. But you should have a basic familiarity with what he believed and the basic outlines of historical arguments regarding the National Question before dropping uninformed takes and declaring everyone else as wrong. Otherwise, you’re doing the political equivalent of someone who never studied physics declaring that they’ve invented a perpetual motion machine.
Why am I not surprised that that’s the only thing you take away from my comment? Must be all the brainworms at work. You use “theory” synonymous with “Marx” and now you’re rationalizing it. That’s what gives the impression of holy scripture. And for what it’s worth: I think of Marx much more positively than about most of his successors.
Sorry, what else did you say that was worth responding to?
No I fucking don’t. I cited Marx because Marx is one theorist. If I cited Lenin, you’d be accusing me of treating “theory” as synonymous with “Lenin,” if I cited someone like Fanon, same shit.
I’m so fucking sick of you libs acting like this. Like citing a source makes me some kind of religious fanatic. You don’t see me accusing you of worshipping David Graeber or saying that you “treat him as synonymous with theory.” What is it about citing Marx that makes it “holy scripture” but citing Graeber isn’t?
But more than that I’m sick of you lot taking pride in your ignorance and anti-intellectualism. No different than a MAGA chud. You’re not hostile to me because I only read Marx, because I don’t only read Marx and even if I did, there’s not a single thing I’ve said that would indicate that. You’re hostile to me for reading Marx at all. You act like it’s some kind of heretical text that corrupts the minds of all that read it. Or at least, you pretend to, because by lobbing accusations like that, you can avoid any sort of informed, intellectual discussion, and conceal the fact that you don’t know shit about ass.
So congrats, you’ve sufficiently derailed the conversation to cover your ignorance, like y’all always do. Tankies are the only people on earth capable of intelligent, educated discussions because we do the fucking homework and no one else does.
You started by accusing me of not reading theory at all, I answered by asking what qualifies as theory. You didn’t answer.
There is a rich intellectual tradition dating back to Marx’s time that’s critical of him (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Bergman, Simon Weil, …). Does that qualify as theory? What are your criteria or prototype of what counts as theory?
Sure.
If you have criticisms of Marx’s arguments and analysis regarding the national question, then let’s hear them. But if it’s just gonna be, “it’s bad because states are bad,” I could get that from a damn an-cap.
Again, do you get that people are less likely to engage with you when you start the convention by insulting them? Call me a cry baby, I don’t care, but online tankies have to learn about outreach. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy that people you insult will not engage with your arguments.
One basic argument is that structures of power will reproduce themselves. That’s why the state will not wither away but we need to build the movement in the structure we want to see in the end. I can point you to Anark as a content creator who engages with tankies arguments but I’m not motivated to put any more energy into a convention like this one.
Forgive me if I don’t have a lot of patience for opposing Palestinian statehood without a very good reason.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re not engaging with the arguments and you’re not looking at the material conditions, it’s purely this knee-jerk ideological opposition to states in general, with zero analysis beyond that. You don’t see a problem with that?
Palestinians do not need to be the forefront of some anarchist experiment that they have no desire to be a part of. If they were brought to a similar system to what virtually everyone lives under, it would be a massive improvement in their lives.
Furthermore, while a culture is suffering under the boot of colonialism, it is very hard for it to progress or change internally because there is such a powerful external threat, and any proposed changes will be seen as being imposed from the outside. There have been plenty of states where decolonization has produced real material improvements in people’s lives, in spite of your knee-jerk opposition to states. Can you really look at modern Ireland and say that it’s no different than when the English were starving them because they still have a state?
Imagine if someone’s chained up in your basement begging to be released into the world and you’re like, “You don’t wanna go out there, you’d have to get a job and jobs suck, you’d have a boss which would essentially recreate the structures of power that are constraining you right now. Let’s focus on creating an anarchist system first.” They’re not gonna give a shit about that, they’re only going to be thinking of how to get out. It’s the same way with colonized people, the first priority should be ending colonialism and engaging with them on equal footing before considering these demands about how the resulting system has to be ideologically pure.