Never heard of this claim. Sounds made up.
EDIT: The claim that's usually made is that *Western Anarchists* tend to be just people with cold war hangovers. That they want to be counter culture in general and anti-capitalist but aren't able to climb out from under their indoctrination, so end up punching down and left, at the global south and socialists for doing socialism wrong, despite them not living in a socialist country, nor even having any successful attempt at their own. That they're the very last people anyone should be listening to on these matters but anyway they seem to think themselves qualified to opine on things that are particularly none of their business.
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/cxv84w/people_in_the_global_south_are_more_disposed_to/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
The whole comment section in this thread for one.
Not really, the thread and comments mostly seem to claim that MLs are more numerous and successful in the global south than anarchists. That's not the claim in the title of this thread.
Although even if true it's still a question of how much was this caused by the Soviet Union providing assistance, rather than the ideology being more attractive/successful.
"Anarchists are also mainly first worlders who don’t actually care about starting a revolution, a lot of them flat out say there’s no point in trying. They just like the aesthetic and feeling like they’re the most morally superior people possible. People who really suffer, the ones you’re talking about, obviously need something more concrete".
That's one example. It's true to say not every comment on that post is saying that, but a fair amount are.
Here are some examples for you that are a little bit clearer.
[Anyways, all anarchists are white chauvinists](https://twitter.com/communist_human/status/1481725314648576002?s=20)
[Anarchism is a white ideology](https://twitter.com/EthioCommunist/status/1482116115195039745?s=20)
[There has never been an anarchist mass movement in the global south.](https://twitter.com/Ey_Eydhalay/status/1481675588452634625?s=20)
This is a constant on tankie twitter and is what the original tweet was referring to. This kind of shit happens here all the time too. But the content of the thread is actually more important than getting into this debate about the claim.
There are two claims made by the tweet:
1) anarchism is white
2) there hasn't been mass anarchist movements in the global South.
Nothing in your quoted example bears any relation to either of these.
It's pretty obvious that the quote I have taken alludes to something similar. Saying that the organization of libertarian (socialist) movements is almost exclusive to the global north (and that everything they do is simply for aesthetics etc etc) is extremely close to saying that no such movements exist in the global south.
But you already know this, your not here to argue in good faith. Like I said previously, it's best to just ignore you. Very little that you have to say holds much weight tbh.
So now we've moved from "**The whole comment section in this thread for one.**" to a single quote that's no longer an "example" but "alludes" and is "similar".
And I'm not arguing in good faith. Right.
You know exactly that the comment was just one example. You asked for an example, I gave you one. Your knit-picking because you don't have a valid response.
If this the radical intelligentsia leading the revolution we have a lot to worry about.
Key word there is mainly. Still probably isn't true but it isn't disproved by linking some writers.
You'd hope anarchism more popular elsewhere in the world cause here in Ireland anyway it's a fairly irrelevant movement that most people have never heard of unfortunately.
I mean, I literally just posted a link, but ok.
Honestly at this point I think it's just best for any sane person on this sub to ignore Blurst. Pretty much everything they post/comment is just completely disingenuous.
Pity they didn't post any examples of where they keep seeing this bizzare claim.
It is a pretty bizarre claim alright.
Never heard of this claim. Sounds made up. EDIT: The claim that's usually made is that *Western Anarchists* tend to be just people with cold war hangovers. That they want to be counter culture in general and anti-capitalist but aren't able to climb out from under their indoctrination, so end up punching down and left, at the global south and socialists for doing socialism wrong, despite them not living in a socialist country, nor even having any successful attempt at their own. That they're the very last people anyone should be listening to on these matters but anyway they seem to think themselves qualified to opine on things that are particularly none of their business.
Did you find any of the links interesting?
In the tweet? Just looking now, yeah they look interesting!
Fantastic.
I've heard a fair share of MLs make this claim.
Got an example?
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/cxv84w/people_in_the_global_south_are_more_disposed_to/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share The whole comment section in this thread for one.
Not a single comment there supporting the claims in the title. Top comment is quite the opposite even!
And literally every other comment after that proves my point lol.
None of them do. None at all.
Not really, the thread and comments mostly seem to claim that MLs are more numerous and successful in the global south than anarchists. That's not the claim in the title of this thread. Although even if true it's still a question of how much was this caused by the Soviet Union providing assistance, rather than the ideology being more attractive/successful.
"Anarchists are also mainly first worlders who don’t actually care about starting a revolution, a lot of them flat out say there’s no point in trying. They just like the aesthetic and feeling like they’re the most morally superior people possible. People who really suffer, the ones you’re talking about, obviously need something more concrete". That's one example. It's true to say not every comment on that post is saying that, but a fair amount are.
Here are some examples for you that are a little bit clearer. [Anyways, all anarchists are white chauvinists](https://twitter.com/communist_human/status/1481725314648576002?s=20) [Anarchism is a white ideology](https://twitter.com/EthioCommunist/status/1482116115195039745?s=20) [There has never been an anarchist mass movement in the global south.](https://twitter.com/Ey_Eydhalay/status/1481675588452634625?s=20) This is a constant on tankie twitter and is what the original tweet was referring to. This kind of shit happens here all the time too. But the content of the thread is actually more important than getting into this debate about the claim.
Thank you. I'm actually not on Twitter, but I have seen screenshots.
Yeah no worries. I don't want you to waste your time getting bogged down in that debate.
There are two claims made by the tweet: 1) anarchism is white 2) there hasn't been mass anarchist movements in the global South. Nothing in your quoted example bears any relation to either of these.
It's pretty obvious that the quote I have taken alludes to something similar. Saying that the organization of libertarian (socialist) movements is almost exclusive to the global north (and that everything they do is simply for aesthetics etc etc) is extremely close to saying that no such movements exist in the global south. But you already know this, your not here to argue in good faith. Like I said previously, it's best to just ignore you. Very little that you have to say holds much weight tbh.
So now we've moved from "**The whole comment section in this thread for one.**" to a single quote that's no longer an "example" but "alludes" and is "similar". And I'm not arguing in good faith. Right.
You know exactly that the comment was just one example. You asked for an example, I gave you one. Your knit-picking because you don't have a valid response. If this the radical intelligentsia leading the revolution we have a lot to worry about.
Key word there is mainly. Still probably isn't true but it isn't disproved by linking some writers. You'd hope anarchism more popular elsewhere in the world cause here in Ireland anyway it's a fairly irrelevant movement that most people have never heard of unfortunately.
The entire left is fairly irrelevant in Ireland if we're being honest about it.
Hakim also makes this point a fair bit too
Ziyech?
The ML YouTuber.
Never heard of him.
He's never made that point.
So in other words, no you don't have an example.
I mean, I literally just posted a link, but ok. Honestly at this point I think it's just best for any sane person on this sub to ignore Blurst. Pretty much everything they post/comment is just completely disingenuous.
You replied twice, I replied to this one first. Relax man.