#now i respect anarchists points of view still but it's not something i follow myself and i can't see that changing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

enderspawn · 3 years

Note

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

#dream smp #mcyt #techno #syndicate analysis #YEAH IM MAINTAGGING WHAT OF IT #also i-- idk if it should be crit tagged? i tried to be as fair and open as possible #lemme know what yall think #ANYWAY ANON IM SO FUCKING SORRY THIS THING ENDED UP 2.3K WORDS LONG #I JUST RLLY WNATED TO BE THOUROUGH AND AS FUCKING CENTRIST /HJ AS POSSIBLE FJDKSLFJ #its very nuanced and theres no right answer but you sure as hell know mine now #answered #anon #im at work rn im gonna get fucking fired for this FJDKSFJKL #/HJ HOPEFULLY IN THAT I AM AT WORK BUT I WONT GET FIRED #og post #(jeb bush voice) please clap

32 notes · View notes

wxlfbites · 3 years

Text

The Church of Satan

I can only imagine the amount of criticism and hate I'm going to get for this, so I just want to preface this post by saying that in 2015 I considered myself a LaVeyan Satanist for a while. I was a teenager and felt like what I was reading was exactly how I felt, it gave me a sense of justification for the views I had. I am not just some random, misinformed individual who only read anti-satanism propaganda. In fact, I've still actually never read anti-satanism propaganda. My opinions have been formed based exclusively on what I've read on the Church of Satan's own website. These are of course, my own opinions and people are allowed to disagree... I just think it might be something to think about if you're considering becoming a satanist.

THIS WILL BE AN EXTREMELY LONG POST

Firstly, I'm addressing the membership the Church of Satan is now implementing. ~ While the Church of Satan says that you do not need to become a member in order to consider yourself a satanist, it is clear that they encourage you to do so. It has registration and payment based memberships that allow you access to confidential information, rituals, and online chat groups you are otherwise not entitled to. Their website claims these memberships have always been in place, but I do not remember any such kind in 2015. ~ It is their policy that affiliated members are discouraged from exchanging member-exclusive information with non-members. They also express that if you are a non-member of the church, you should not expect members to keep up extended exchanges or promotion of your wares. Further, your membership is subject to rejection and retraction at their discretion and they openly state that when you apply for a membership, they gather information on you to ensure you are someone safe and trustworthy to allow in. ~ Whether or not it is intentional, they use guilt tactics in order to persuade people into becoming members. To quote some of these phrases on their own website: "Those who proudly carry our red cards identifying themselves as members have the strength and dedication to implement the tools traditionally associated with Satan". "Look to your other possessions and expenses (most people spend far more than this on general entertainment) and we’re certain you can do this if it means something to you to become a member." "We’ve discovered that most individuals can muster these funds if membership is something they truly desire." ~ They describe your membership card as a key that you must show and scan to other members to prove your affiliation. They make a few references to the underground secrecy that members may or may not choose to maintain, and so to protect their identities as members, these... calling cards if you will.. are used to discretely confirm ones membership in the Church. ~ They do not tell you where the money for your registration fee goes. In fact, they say: "That is up to the administration. It will be applied to whatever is most required at the time it is received. If you feel the need to know in more detail, then don’t join." Implying you don't have the right to know exactly where your money goes? ~ Their membership application includes inappropriate questions that no organization, religious or otherwise, should ever ask. These include: " Are you satisfied with your sex life? Describe your ideal of a physically attractive sex partner." "How many years would you like to live?" "In what organizations do you hold membership?" "Are you a smoker? If so, to what extent." "Do you drink alcoholic beverages? If so, to what extent? State preferences." " Secondly, how does satanism compare themselves to other religions and philosophies? ~ The Church of Satan declares themselves to be "a formidable threat to those who would halt progress in the name of spirituality and theism of any sort." "We are a group of dynamic individuals who stand forth as the ultimate underground alternative, the “Alien Elite.” ~ They state things like "Our members and officials will not serve as teachers nor as entertainers—we have neither the time nor the inclination.", "It is our policy not to spoon-feed information to students who are too lazy to do research." and "Your schedule is of no importance to us." so it's no surprise that the satanic texts they do not provide in full on their website, including the Satanic Bible, - which is there main text and one they highly encourage you to read - cost money. ~ They believe themselves to be the only form of satanism, stating: "People who believe in some Devilish supernatural being and worship him are Devil-worshippers, not Satanists.", "Anton LaVey was the first to define Satanism as a philosophy, and it is an atheist perspective." and “Theistic Satanism” is an oxymoronic term and thus absurd." ~ Statements like: "we stand in opposition to theist religions and their

inherent hypocrisy.", [regarding the word Shemhamforash] - "So, Satanists use it for traditional blasphemy’s sake.", [regarding someones question about their experiences with demons] - "Satanists do not believe in demons or other supernatural beings, nor do we believe in spells. Seek help from local mental health professionals to assist you to get over these delusions.", "We Satanists are all anthropologists to some degree and can find that not upsetting people who think in such simplistic and erroneous terms of “belief equals goodness and truthfulness” might be worthwhile to smooth the proceedings in which one is involved. Trying to teach them that they are mistaken in such a belief may not be worth one’s efforts." are pretty much self explanatory as to the lack of consideration satanism has for other religions as being true for others.

~ This statement: "Knowing this, if you choose to affiliate with any pseudo-Satanic or anti-Satanic groups, you may well find yourself disaffiliated from the Church of Satan. Forewarned is forearmed." might sound harmless at first glance, but this kind of reminds me of an isolation tactic where cults discourage their followers to read or engage with opposing or differing opinions because it might open their eyes to the truth of things?

Finally, here are some statements that I personally don't find are morally or ethically okay?

~ In terms of kids worrying about their parents approval the Church says: "Satanism teaches that, so long as you live with your parents, you are in “their lair” and must show them respect". Which... is literally the same shit abuse victims hear all the time..... (example "you live in their house, they're your parents and you should love and respect them no matter what")...

~ "There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong." is a statement I just .... wish I were making up at this point.

~"The emotional drive to “change the world” is a common stage of early adult development typically beginning around age 16 and lasting until around age 24. Usually, individuals who become aware as to how the world actually functions—rather than being lost in a fantasy wherein they will be some sort of savior figure—come to realize that idealism (such as changing the world) is less important than the principle of getting what you want for yourself.",

Also! Um.. they are fully aware and okay with people who uphold discriminatory political views....

To quote their website regarding politics: "Our members span an amazing political spectrum, which includes but is not limited to: Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Independents, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Zionists, Monarchists, Fascists, Anarchists, and just about anything else you could possibly imagine."

And to justify this, they say: "Members who demand conformity from other members to their particular political fetish are welcomed to depart.”, "For a Satanist to expect, much less demand, consensus on any given issue, beyond basic advocacy of individual liberty within local laws, is an enterprise which is probably as masochistic as it is insane.", "Some naïve idealists seem to think that the Church of Satan as an organization risks irrelevancy if it does not become an advocate of certain political positions—usually their own pet issues which are assumed “must” be shared by other Satanists. This fear is based upon the assumption that the Church of Satan needs to change the world or risk “fading into obscurity.”

Again, all of this information comes directly from the Church of Satan website itself. It it not "propaganda". It comes from their own mouths. You're free to disagree with my interpretation and views of the above. But if you do agree, I'd love to know.

The things above make me uneasy. They give me huge cult vibes and are actually disappointing to read as someone who once considered themselves a satanist. As an omnistic pagan now, I do believe that all religions hold truths within them and can say that there are certain things within satanism I do agree with. But overall, I feel like calling satanism a religion is a stretch and should be joined with caution if it's something you are really interested in. I am only one person, I can't tell anyone what to do. But if you were considering becoming a satanist but hold values and views that the things in this post opposed or were opposite to, then maybe satanism isn't right for you. It's definitely not right for me.

I hope this post was educational at the very least. I hope that it might help people make a decision either way if they were interested in joining the Church.

#the polymorph chronicles #satanism #the church of satan #religion #satan #satanic #spirituality #philosophy #satanist #paganism #pagan #eclectic pagan #omnism #omnist

25 notes · View notes

appalachiananarchist · 5 years

Note

Hi Kaitlyn! Your post on matching popped up on my dash, congrats! I was poking around your blog, and I realized I'm not super educated on anarchy. Would you be willing to sum up the aim and the vision, in your point of view? I know you're probably busy getting ready for your move, so I understand if you can't! I've just been feeling ultra frustrated with some of the "realities" of medicine in America lately, so I'm intrigued!

I am going to begin with a Lucy Parsons quote that I love: “The philosophy of anarchism is included in the word “Liberty”; yet it is comprehensive enough to include all things else that are conducive to progress. No barriers whatever to human progression, to thought, or investigation are placed by anarchism; nothing is considered so true or so certain, that future discoveries may not prove it false; therefore, it has but one infallible, unchangeable motto, “Freedom.” Freedom to discover any truth, freedom to develop, to live naturally and fully.”

In a literal sense, anarchism means a system with “no rulers.” It places at its core respect for the absolute autonomy of all people—that is, the ability to live as you please without domination by another. It fights against rulers, authorities, bosses, and any others who restrict the autonomy or will of another person by forcing, coercing, dominating, or hurting them. Not only do anarchists oppose power/authority/rulers based on our ideals, but we oppose them practically: we have seen, as evidenced by history, that power is inevitably and always abused to cause more harm than good, no matter how “good” the initial intentions were. In summary, anarchists oppose all manifestations of power in society for both practical and ideological reasons, the two most well-known manifestations of this being the state and capitalism.

We oppose capitalism and the state because the offending parties dominate, or control and inhibit the full autonomy of others, within a territory they claim to own. Some will excuse their domination by saying that if they have a rightful ownership claim to the land, they have the right to control what happens on it, who enters is, and how the people inside it may conduct themselves. Anarchists do not agree that they have any sort of rightful ownership over these properties, so say their (often violent and brutal) control is in direct opposition to freedom. Even the most lenient anarchists, such as myself, stick with a strict occupancy-and-use vision of ownership, which would still disqualify the claims of capitalists and states as legitimate (if you dig deeper into what that idea means, which is outside the scope of your question). Some anarchists deny land ownership entirely. There are lots of flavors of us, but all of us agree that both the state and capitalists have no exclusive right to what they claim, so should not have exclusive control over it or the other people interacting with it.

It is also worth noting that anarchists are aware and consider the ways in which states and capitalists obtained and maintain their power over these properties, and how they are also in opposition to freedom. For example, capitalists and the state are infamous for taking over land and resources from populations that were already using it using state military/police powers and then selling its use back to the original inhabitants in the form of rented properties or wage labor. Capitalists will employ state police and military power to harm workers who attempt to unionize or strike or gain better conditions. For example, during the coal wars in central Appalachia where I’m from, the US government got involved and even dropped a bomb on strikers. Capitalists also use their wealth to influence the state, which enabled them to more easily abuse workers and damage the environment. To quote Parsons yet again, “Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth.” States start wars in the name of resources and power, killing innocents globally. These are just a very, very few examples of the sort of nonsense state and capitalist agents get away with—all of it in opposition to freedom.

So that’s what we fight AGAINST—now I’ll talk about what we fight FOR. Let me start by saying not one of us believes in utopia. We recognize our ideal world will still be imperfect, as all visions will be—attempting to legislate away those imperfections will always fail and replace old problems with new ones. Anarchism is a set of guiding principles, a process more than a result: the process of always striving for liberation. There is no set, perfect anarchist society we all envision in unison. Communities could take many unique forms and still be anarchist.

I have explained that we oppose domination of one person over another—what we promote is cooperation and free association. Anarchists promote replacing hierarchical structures in society (governments and businesses) with horizontal ones; ones where people are meeting the needs of their community by cooperating and working together freely as equals, not as boss-bossed, ruler-ruled, or owner-owned. And there’s always the option to go live on your own somewhere, but humans are social and most would not choose that. Without a state, you are likely looking at smaller communities of people self-governing, utilizing democratic decision-making among all in the community who wished to be involved in any large-scale decision that affects multiple people. Decisions or projects that affected only you would be made entirely by you, or done entirely by you.

One thing some anarchists have often proposed is a committee system, which is comprised of all who wish to be involved in a community-wide decision, with democratically elected delegated to perform certain tasks. Delegates are instantly abolished if they act beyond what their initial task was. If communities are associating with each other, they too would need to operate democratically using a similar system on a larger scale. If you want a more specific idea of what something like this could potentially look like, you can read here. I’ll quote something from that source:

“The key difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for example, people give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for them for a fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power lies at the top and those at the base are expected to obey. Similarly, in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an unelected minority of bosses and managers at the top and the workers are expected to obey.”

Just know that this is ONE vision of how anarchism would work, and likely not all communities would operate this way. Many anarchists aren’t too fond of this system—and that’s expected. We are not looking for a single top-down approach, and there are actually multiple different flavors of anarchism that approach these things a little differently. But we are all unified in a desire for freedom, and opposition to domination.

Anyway, I am trying to give the sparknotes on an ideology with a massive and rich history, described and even practiced in depth by people much smarter than me. For that reason, I am going to leave some links for reading that might flesh out some of what I’ve said, and if there are specific questions, please feel free to ask them. And my other anarchist followers, please clarify any unclear things I said, add your input, or give recommendations for reading! It benefits us all.

This page is nice because its lists LOTS of anarchist texts sorted by author

An Anarchist FAQ - MUCH more detailed than anything I could write

A Lifelong Anarchist by Lucy Parsons, since I quoted it

Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman, because I like her stuff

#i think i just rambled for two pages #thanks benadryl #anarchism #anarchy #my ramblings

92 notes · View notes

acommunistraptor · 5 years

Text

A word or two about Vanguardism.

It is the source of confusion often times, when a socialist, communist or otherwise leftist, talks about vanguards. Vanguard is a word that has sadly also been used by the Nazis, to describe a group of people who rule over the general populace, and decide the direction society is headed in all matters, under the guise of doing everything for the common good. And due to the misconception, that Nazis somehow fall in the same ideological group as socialism, it creates some mistrust when brought up by one of us. In reality what a ‘’radical leftist’’ (to use colloquial terms) means when they refer to vanguards and Vanguardism is something else entirely. And what I mainly want to talk about, that even communists are often confused when they hear the term Vanguardism, being used to describe a separate movement amongst the sects of communism.

The term vanguard in socialist thought was popularised and greatly expanded by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, otherwise known as Lenin, in a multitude of his works, dating back to 1902, first appearing in Lenin’s pamphlet ‘’What is to be done?’’. However it has appeared further back, detailed by Marxist philosopher Karl Kautsky a big influencer in Lenin’s initial work and thought due to his prowess amongst the German socialist party (whose principles Lenin greatly aspised), and later a staunch anti-Bolshevik, in clash with Lenin. As one might expect however, he was directly influenced too by none other than Karl Marx himself, who referenced the concept of Vanguardism in it’s more basic state, in the communist manifesto. So in order to understand what ‘’leftist’’ Vanguardism exactly is, let’s start from the beginning.

In the communist manifesto it is detailed that the communists and the proletariat, though having the same goal, are not one and the same necessarily. While members of the proletariat may be communists not all proletarians are. Why is that ? Well Marx describes the communists as a small facet of society, made up of revolutionaries that are not just class-concious, but understand socialist and communist theory to such a degree, and have the will and the determination to make it a reality, that they become distinguished amongst the masses and lead the revolution to succeed in not just liberation of the working class, but instillation of socialism as well. The communists are not necessarily proletarians, (Marx himself was a high-class individual), but do still understand the most basic principle, that mankind’s collective interest lies with the proletariat. What is this group of communists but a Vanguard ? Intellectuals whose personality boons allow for such individuals to lead all others in the path to liberation. Determined, skilled, knowledgeable, selfless leaders, who truly have the collective’s interest in mind, and have the foresight to recognise and secure it. This is a Vanguard, in it’s most basic form. Figures such as Lenin himself may come to mind following this description. Let’s jump a bit forward in time however.

Kautsky is and was regarded as a controversial yet respected figure within the Bolshevik party, and more so respected by Lenin himself, despite their disagreements. After all, Lenin even highly regarded and respected figures such as Kropotkin, in whose case while we are on the subject, Lenin not only allowed Anarchist demonstrations following his funeral, but sent a cache of supplies and medical personnel to aid in his recovery during his last days suffering to pneumonia. Lenin’s aid did not reach Kropotkin in time, however clearly Lenin was a gentler soul, and more dialectical and a humanist than people give him credit for. In any case, when it comes to Kautsky, Lenin was just as accepting of the disagreement between them, and was not shy to adopt a lot of his contributions to socialist thought, namely the concept of Vanguardism he proposed into his own theories, despite Kautsky’s staunch anti-Bolshevik rhetoric. Which leads us well into Lenin’s Vanguardism.

Lenin’s advancement of the concept of Vanguardism, into such an extend that it became a critical part of communist theory is clearly exhibited in his aforementioned pamphlet ‘’What is to be done?’’ which I highly suggest you look into.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/preface.htm

I will attempt to summarise the principle as best as I can;

Due to the autocracy present in the Russian system of the time, and the fact that society in Russia had never experienced western capitalism in order to transition into socialism fluidly as is necessary (in Marxism it is a basic principle that society must transition from feudalism to capitalism and then to socialism naturally, in order for the necessary conditions for a successful worker’s revolution to be possible), it was of at most importance to Lenin, to work around the federalist system of Russia, and to create the conditions necessary for revolution manually. A by-product of that attempt, was the advanced ‘’political strategy’’ of Vanguardism. Because the serfs who made up the vast population of Russia, had a distinct lack of class conciousness due to the fact that they had never experienced the urban capitalism present in countries such as England at the time, something needed to be done to work around that restriction. The only thing the serfs really knew was the serfdom enforced by the Tsardom and their feudal lords, and so the responsibility of arming the working class with that essential knowledge had to fall upon the Vanguard party. What is the Vanguard party ? Well that’s a slightly confusing question. The Vanguard party as theorised by Lenin, would be a transparent political entity, accepting all communists *for the kind of communists I’m referring to see paragraph 3*, and working towards radicalising, communising and instilling class-conciousness, into the working class pre-revolution. Post revolution, that party would take an active role, as the effective government of the respective nation, following the directives of the worker’s councils at every turn in most if not all matters, and building towards communism, slowly shrinking as the need of a government diminishes in a world of socialist nations, as they proliferate. What Lenin instilled however was different. Though Vanguardism in Russia was a far cry from what Lenin wanted (something which he recognised himself), the way it was implemented by Lenin mirrors the system it was replacing, working around the restrictions the old order had set as best as was possible. Lenin did not want to implement this system, Lenin HAD to implement this system. The kind of Vanguard party that became the first soviet government was much more authoritarian in nature than it was originally supposed to, in order to iron out the kinks the old system had set, namely a non class-concious proletariat, a serf economy, a previously massively authoritarian power structure and lack of infrastructure and industrialisation. Moreover, the Vanguard party, in order to protect itself in a climate of extreme hostility in outside relations and a very divided nation due to civil war, became quite closed and reserved to itself, almost as if it became another class entirely, a ruling class at that point. And so it was that Lenin’s Vanguard became Russia’s iron fist government. Arguably it was necessary for the Vanguard to take that approach in order to ensure that all went as it should, yet others would object, asking what that costed. Though it is necessary to note, that Lenin never intended that system to be permanent.

Personally I aspise the theory as it was first written by Lenin, now that the whole world has experienced late stage capitalism I staunchly believe that Lenin’s Vanguardism is more relevant, than it has ever been. I also believe perhaps controversially among communists, that Stalin expanded on the system Lenin had intended to phase out, finalising it’s structure in Russia, and creating not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship, period. As benevolent as his intentions might have been, that is mainly why I refuse to align myself with the ‘’Marxism-Leninism’’ that Stalin shaped, and choose to identify as a Vanguardist.

Vanguardism now, has taken on a new meaning for me. More akin to what most refer to as ‘’Classical Leninism’’ or simply Leninism. Another sect of communist thought and theory, that chooses to stick to Leninism, rejecting the direction which the Bolshevik party took, during Stalin’s reign. It is perhaps out of this defiance and rejection, that I chose to refer to myself as Vanguardist, clinging on to Lenin’s basis to his theory. Many of our kin call me and others like me revisionist, but in our eyes that seems quite ironic and hypocritical to say. In any case, to say that Stalin was an evil dictator would be a gross overstatement. In my eyes Stalin was simply mislead. A man of good intentions, with a twisted idea for the theories he supported and the world he wanted to build. His contributions cannot be underestimated, but so can’t his mistakes be forgotten. If there is anything that Maoism taught us, as much as some of us may disagree with it, it is self-criticism. I am happy to see that more and more communists and communist parties around the world, have started to take that Maoist principle in, viewing things more objectively, removing Stalin from his pedestal and recognising his bad side as well. Learning from the mistakes of the past, to build the future was always what we believed in and preached, and that past should extend to our movement’s past as well.

I know many will disagree with me, however in the end of the day we are all comrades, and our disagreements are fundamentally petty in comparison. I urge you however as the Romans and the Greeks said, to water down your wine. Be a bit more dialectical and critical, and not afraid to remove people from the pedestal they have been placed in, it does us more good that you may think.

#communism #socialism #marxism #classical leninism #leninism #marxism-leninism #left communism #leftism #left #Anarcho-communism #anarcho syndicalism #maoism #vanguardism #vanguard #vanguardist

20 notes · View notes

osberend · 6 years

Note

You do realise the OP is a gay dude? Who’s warning other gay dudes about date rape??

I realized that OP was warning gay dudes about date rape, which was part of why I added that it was “especially fucked up to say [that men are trash] when you’re addressing men that you purportedly care about and are trying to protect.” I wasn’t specifically aware that OP was a gay man, but I figured it was likely from context. It doesn’t really matter to my point; men can be misandrist, just as women can be misogynist. And even people who aren’t trying to be bigoted can easily lapse into bigoted rhetoric from time to time, because it supplies ready-made expressions that require little thought to use.

[Direct answer to question ends here; extended tangent follows.]

Incidentally, the same is actually true of rhetoric generally, not just bigoted rhetoric. I used to consider myself feminist, but no longer do, principally because of a change in what I’ve come to view that word as meaning, rather than in my object-level beliefs about gender, sexuality, equality, etc. So it was curious when I was thinking about a folk song ( Crow and Pie, cw: rape, victim-blaming in the third-to-last verse), and how I would discuss my thoughts on it with someone. And I found myself thinking about how the last two verses (which form one ending, and the third-to-last another, in a weird order that makes me suspect they’re originally two different versions that got stuck together) are “surprisingly feminist” for the period and context, and how that contrasts weirdly with the third-to-last verse.

And then I thought “Wait. I no longer think of “feminist” as meaning roughly ‘good, in ways that relate somehow to sex, gender, gendered social issues, etc.’, so what did that thought actually mean?“ And what I realized was that putting it into words without that linguistic crutch was actually really difficult. It was a little about not being victim-blamey (in contest to the previous verse), a little about giving a rape victim an individual voice that doesn’t fit into the standard cultural pattern of how a victim should react, a little about rejection of aspects of toxic purity culture that say that being raped means your life (at least as anything other than maybe a nun) is effectively over, etc.

It was complicated, and not really something that could easily be expressed in a few words … and when you find that happening repeatedly, it becomes really tempting to identify a word or two with "good, as relates to that vague cluster of stuff over there *waves have in general direction of a big old region of concept-space*” and just use that for whatever you see as good that is in that general area.

And this is bad. It contributes to an illusion of clarity, because two people may have very different views on what is good in a particular area, but share a word for “good, in that area.” It contributes to the “all issues are really the same issue” mindset that makes it impossible to form coalitions with people who are with you on a particular issue, because they disagree with you on another.

And it contributes massively to polarization and demonization of people from different political tribes, because their rejection of the ideology they associate with the word you use to mean "good, in this area” now sounds to you like “I am for evil. Evil is great!

The best example I can see of this is the tumblr meme of calling people who self-identify as anti-SJ “literal Batman villains” and the like, because who but a literal Batman villain could declare themselves opposed to justice and compassion!? When in reality, the issue is precisely that we don’t think that “Social Justice” is actually just or (consistently and/or correctly) compassionate. But that view sounds patently absurd if you’ve internalized the idea that “Socially Just” means “good, in relation to big social issues.”

I'm reminded of George Orwell’s remark, in the appendix to 1984(so fiction, but fiction making a real point): “From the foregoing account it will be seen that in Newspeak the expression of unorthodox opinions, above a very low level, was well-nigh impossible. It was of course possible to utter heresies of a very crude kind, a species of blasphemy. It would have been possible, for example, to say Big Brother is ungood. But this statement, which to an orthodox ear merely conveyed a self-evident absurdity, could not have been sustained by reasoned argument, because the necessary words were not available.”

And let me be clear: This bad tendency is a very human one! As noted above, I caught myself falling prey to it myself, and regarding an ideology that I no longer identify with at that! One certainly shouldn’t be too hard on oneself over it. But it is still bad, and one should still seek to recognize when it’s happening and to avoid falling prey to it.

From Orwell again, this time from Politics and the English Language: “Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin where it belongs.”

31 notes · View notes

raevanmun · 7 years

Note

why were you drawn to each one of your characters?

Apparently you and @symmarilshatterunwra are both sadists.I have to preface this response with a little literarydrivel. I am a huge, HUGE fan of transgressive fiction. In my writing I have done my best to adhere tothe basic elements of the genre, though my writing style is often more floridthan is typical. So, all of my characters tend to have deviant pasts, secretsand proclivities that are both a source of relief from lives that are eitherbanal and meaningless or are broken by trauma and sometimes a mixture of thetwo.Usually, a narrative emerges either from some music, a pieceof art, or just musing in general and sometimes through the combined creativeeffort of myself and a writing partner. A few of these characters have beenconceived of with and for partners I have or have had.Raerys (Rosewood) Songbrook - Raerys’ isa compilation of feelings and narratives that I spliced together from writingdone with @symmarilshatterunwra and a deep interest in actual cults that I have. I havespent several hundred hours watching various documentaries about religiouscults. Raerys family were involved in a very fringe cult of Sun WorshipingQuel’dorei. In it there is love of power for power’s sake, the corruption thatcomes from that and the fanatical drive to create a “pure” blood line thatwould create the greatest minds in the pursuit of the Arcane. That pursuit of apure bloodline and the use of both religious doctrine and sexual coercion aremain themes in her life, start to finish.Her journey is one of cleansing and redemption, a move towardwholeness and healing after a life of privileged trauma.The next I have to take in Tandem - because their stories areintertwined.Kaereah andPhaedrei Bitterdawn - The Bitterdawn sisters are opposite ends of theemotional and social spectrum. This is due to some really shitty stuff thathappened when they were growing up. They are in truth, half sisters. Phaedreiis the elder of them. Kaereah is the baby of the family and the result ofan “Oooops” their mother had after having been widowed. Phaedrei is responsible to a fault, is taciturn, cruel and fairly ACE. Headcannon says she's never been with anyone, romantically or otherwise. She's toofocused on her work, on her magic, on herself and the compartments of her life.She is deeply sad, a dank sort of depression eats at her and keeps her at arm'slength from anyone. Kaereah is the opposite side of the same coin. She is gregarious, friendly, andgenerally "open" to people she meets, but then, she's also aprostitute and has been for many years. She is not really open, any more sothan her sister, though she has been in love once. Was hurt terribly, and sincehas walled off her emotions and used sex as a way of life and a weapon since. They are in equal parts the unfortunate reaction to a childhood in which theironly role model found validation in relationships, not in herself or herchildren. Determined not to follow in their mother's footsteps they respondedvery differently, only to arrive at essentially the same emotional place. Theyhate one another, because both judge the other as maladjusted, without seeingthe irony of their situations and having any empathy for the other and all thatthey have suffered.Nolah Blackfyre - Nolah is a amalgamof rogue tropes, which are usually played out by men. I was drawn to her as acharacter because she is a SHE. She is devil may care, full of swagger andpomp, but she's also wears that like a mask, hiding behind it is a ruthlesskiller who no one would ever imagine is capable of the things she is. She isalso, an incurable romantic, seeking for that perfect lover who to quote TheEagles, "won't blow my cover, but they're so hard to find." As I posted ages ago on her tumblr, she is made of cigarettes and song lyrics.She is a poet, a ponderous creature who writes secret poetry and who is tragicin all the ways that rogues usually are.

Kordelaine Sunbriar - Kordelaine ismy idea of a "millennial belf." She likes techno, house and trancemusic. She is into her gadgets, thinks the world is all fucked up but feelspretty powerless to fix it. It sounds strange I know, but she's in no smallpart inspired by both of my sons, one who has had some issues with drugaddiction and depression and the other who is a quiet and very nerdy kid. I was drawn to her as a way to sort of tap into what I enjoy most about millennials.What makes them interesting to me as a GenX'r. Their music, their sardonic viewof the world, their desire for community and connection in a world that isincreasingly small and yet isolated by technology.

Tzilli Bloodsky - I am drawn toTzilli because who doesn't want to play a comic book villain? She's a completeasshole. She's a narcissistic, overly intellectual anarchist who is really justa nihilist. She is in her mind, "Self Made" in the same way that mostAyn Rand female characters are... whichis also fun to mock and play with. She's really just Ra's al Ghul with tits anda cute face.Selkara Blackvale - Selkarah and herTwin Selakiir are Castor and Pollux. Or were... until something terriblehappened. She was always the darker half, the dangerous one, the thinker ofdeep and dark thoughts. He was the kind one, the sweet one, the good one... andthen the Void. I am drawn to Selkara because she has been utterly undone withher brother's corruption. Thrust from the role of the corruptor into the role of the caretaker has lefther unbalanced, freewheeling and frightened. She now struggles with theknowledge of her brother's slowly creeping madness, to feel him mentally,spiritually and emotionally within her, but unable to affect what is theeventual outcome of his state. The struggle to change horses midstream and become a hero in her own life iswhat is interesting about Selkara, that and her adoration and love for Rey. Reyhas helped to soften her, to support her transformation from shadowy bitch intosomething deeper, more and closer to wholeness. Rila Greenleaf - Rila is the Fool ofthe Tarot, but in female form. She is the child in William Blake's Songs of Innocenceand Songs of Experience. She is moving from utter ignorance through temptation,corruption and with luck, out the other side. I am drawn to Rila's arc in thesame way that anyone who's read De Sade's "Justine" is drawn to thecharacter and the conclusion of her story. How does the madness of absolutelibertinism end if it is born by one of a completely pure soul?

Jonadori Winterborne - Jona has beenbashed around in some pretty unfortunate rp arcs. She's not broken but she'sbeen reworked a bunch and at present I am not sure I am utterly in touch withher. So, I am not sure what to say about her in this respect.

Aembrose/Ambrose Longroad - Aembrose is a side character inRaerys' larger story. I originally made him just to play a part in herprogression, but there has been some interest in maintaining him as acharacter. I just haven't found found his voice yet. I am working on it.

Joaquin Brightquiver - He is a new character, very wetbehind the ears yet, but I am drawn to him because of his romantic and artisticsensibilities. He's a loner, been kicked around a good deal by life, but heloves to pain, he's consumed by his art, wine and women. He could be great, agreat and well-respected painter, but his addictions to alcohol and women whoare trouble keep him from being able to really move forward as an artist. I amdrawn to him, for the voice he offers.I don't usually play men, but when I write him, or plot for him, I feel such astrength of narrative that I feel sort of compelled to see the guy out. We'llsee if I really get under him and into his pov, it is still emerging, but whatI have done with him, I have really enjoyed.

Bryonny Larkspur - Bryonny is not yet entirelyfleshed out, that said... I find that character creation requires interaction,at least to firm up details. However, she's interesting to me from a conceptualpoint of view. Unlike Nolah who is despite her vocation a pretty easy to getalong with lady, Bryonny is far more "muy macho" and I have nicknamedher "The Shootist," in order to make the connection between her andold school male western tropes. She's a female in a man's world, she's mean andruthless. I haven't written a characterlike her in a long time, and perhaps it is the opportunity to write one again,re-working the idea and refining it that makes her interesting to me.Violet Dal'vir - Violet is theoldest character I have here. She's an Apostate Blood Knight who for manyreasons rejects "current" Sin'dorei culture and wallows in her angstand resentment. She has little use for others, little use for friends orcompanions. The only people she's known for some time who care for her or caredfor her, eventually left her behind because she could not and would not bebudged from her bigotry and her dogmatic and uncompromising dedication to aregime and a world that no longer exists.I like her, because she's kind of my "Uncle Rukus" character. She issocial commentary turned inside out and upside down. If I bring Violet aroundto interact with your characters, you can expect it is because either I thinkyour character is too fluffy, or too edgy. She likes to shave the plumes offone and knock the corners off the other. This is why, in many ways, I equateher with trolling. Greneda Brightmorn - Greneda is thenewest of my characters and I won't lie, I've pretty much fallen in love withher. She is a taste of all my favorite old time movie vixens, mashed up with agood dose of Lucile Ball and Carol Burnett. She feminine exaggerated, she's gota dirty mind, a warm laugh and she loves people, all sorts of people. She likesto use politeness like a weapon, relies heavily on her "Blanche" likemanner when social situations get difficult or taxing, and when she'scomfortable with people or her context, she's a delightful companion. I am deeply drawn to her, because I lovepeople like her in real life.

Thank you @ouroandarGreat if somewhat difficult question to answer.

8 notes · View notes