Marxists for sure, modern anarchism should recognize the importance of original communism, learning from abomination like stalinism and rejecting violence to embrace pacifism.
Nonviolence only works if the perpetrator cares about their reputation. If we ever became a threat to power there is nothing stopping the ruling class from just using fascists to destroy us. And yes, something like this happened before.
We all want a nonviolent revolution. But it is just not realistic. https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/wayne-price-why-i-am-not-a-pacifist
That’s the old mentality I would try to dismantle in modern anarchism/communism, yes to marxists, no to tanks. Gladio was about propaganda, a counter-propaganda is the best weapon: informing the people, not violence. Violence always damaged far-left, you want to be different from fascists (who embrace violence by nature). There are a lot of misconception about pacifism: it is not against a form of violence if it’s for self-defense and you don’t have other (better) choices.
Also you have to consider we are in times where you literally cannot fight against the power of the state using violence as main weapon, even if you think is the best way to bring the progress.
One cannot really build an alliance with an ideology. Alliances are between people. I would be open to allying with people variously influenced by or holding to any ideology that does not itself ally with fascism.
Agreed. In many ways the idea of ideology is a reductive concept. All ideologies hold some amount of merit and problems. If you try hard enough, there is even a decent argument to be made for kings (no, I’m not arguing for kings, I am simply using it as a talking point). I really don’t subscribe to any one ideology, and I don’t think most people here do either. I like aspects of anarchism, socialism, communism and georgism, all have merits, all have problems. I suspect most people here are the same, we all come to different conclusions from different life stories. We recognize the problem, but our plan for the future by no means has to look the same. Honestly, the “leftist infighting” is our greatest strength, not a weakness.
Obviously not a real leftist. Read theory shitlib.
☝🤓
How mature of you 🙄
They willfully misinterpreted your question for an opportunity to be pedantic
I fight the battles of today while planning for the battles of tomorrow. Today, I’m willing to alliance all the way over to the Dems, because today’s MAGA conservatives pose an existential threat.
Once that threat is contained, my alliances shift left to the SocDems.
Once that battle is done, my alliances shift left to the DemSocs.
And so on, one battle at a time.
And once DemSocs are gone we can finally see DemFeet
The real reason DSA needs to be declared a terror group: the satisfaction of my foot fetish.
This reminds me, Especifist anarchist use the concept of tendency groups to manage such relationships / alliences.
Personally, I am pretty happy to work together with people and groups that are very similar / identical in 2 of 3 of these points:
- we have pretty much the same goal
- we organize similarly
- we want to do similar / same praxis
The Judean People’s Front
Splitters.
I’ve never seen myself as communist; but i always loved the idea of a clean future with sustainable energy that a lot of communist groups and countries seem to share. So i often side with them on this principle and the idea that capitalism is very harmful to the people, the culture, the environment and it needs to be scaled back.
I’m not an Anarchist – gotta state that up front for the spooks. That said, anarchists often overlap with democratic populists.
![[Discussion] Would you be willing to build an alliance with another ideology with similiar goals? If so, what ideology?](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/5365028d-58ae-4dd0-b445-6f042a6561d9.webp){kind=link}