Programmer, writer, mediocre artist. Average Linux enjoyer.

  • 1 Post
  • 109 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlā€¢Listen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    China doesnā€™t pretend that their media is unbiased, though. Thereā€™s no aura of unbiased media in China.

    What they ā€œpretendā€ to be doesnā€™t matter, what matters is the thoughts they want to put on the people who read it, why they want to, and how many of them do read it. Any and all state media or state collaborative media tries to paint the state it comes from in a good light. This is not somehow more benevolent or less manipulative when itā€™s done by China, even if ā€œitā€™s easy to circumventā€ or ā€œpeople know itā€™s biasedā€.

    Meanwhile, Facebookā€™s head of global threat intelligence, is literally a US intelligence plant

    According to its CEO and founder Ren, Huaweiā€™s corporate culture is the same as the culture of the CCP, ā€œand to serve the people wholeheartedly means to be customer-centric and responsible to society.ā€ Ren frequently states that Huaweiā€™s management philosophy and strategy are commercial applications of Maoism.

    Ren states that in the event of a conflict between Huaweiā€™s business interests and the CCPā€™s interests, he would ā€œchoose the CCP whose interest is to serve the people and all human beingsā€. Qiao and Marquis observe that company founder Ren is a dedicated communist who seeks to ingrain communist values at Huawei.

    I wonder if WeChat and TikTok are any different, too.

    Bing has 100 million DAUs worldwide. Reddit has about 55 million DAUs worldwide. LinkedIn has about 22 million DAUs in the US. Twitter has about 54 million MAUs in the US. Threads has about 8 million DAUs worldwide (though probably less now, lol). 1-5% penetration of total users in terms of usage is indicative of very high awareness.

    Last October, China clamped down on some VPNs

    So basically, itā€™s easy to do, but illegal, but itā€™s rarely persecuted? Thatā€™s a really weird policy.


  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlā€¢Listen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    No itā€™s not. Much like you arenā€™t a CPC shill/russian bot/whatever, no one commenting on a lemmy post is a psyop agent with a secret agenda to manipulate everyone. Those guys have the entire media, they donā€™t need to hire people to pretend to be redditors. Just because you believe it really really hardly doesnā€™t make it true.


  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.worldā€¢*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    That was also the day we realized how much nicer C was to C++

    Absolutely. I went through a whole process of using less and less C++isms that everyone was recommending me as they just made everything so much harder, longer to compile, produce more unreadable errors, harder to organizeā€¦ Until I eventually was just writing C but structs have functions.

    Then I moved to Rust and I have not looked back.



  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlā€¢Listen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    I get what you mean, but the other guy brought up democracy as if it was the be-all end-all solution.

    Yes. No democracy, no support from me. ā€œBut the US isnā€™t democratic!ā€ Which is why I donā€™t support it either. Not sure if the other guy is the same.

    Countries that disprove OPā€™s point about democracy being the solution

    No country disproves that democracy is needed. ā€œBenevolent dictatorsā€ (all dictators think theyā€™re benevolent) die. If you think a dictatorship is doing well just give it a few years.

    most urban people either know how to flip the firewall or know someone who can - itā€™s really not that hard.

    ā€œYes they censor everything, but itā€™s easy to circumvent!ā€ is not an excuse. How accurate is this really though? Do you have any sources to prove this is the case? Genuinely interested.

    As if the large media organizations in the US donā€™t all cite reports from ā€œindependent think tanksā€ that are conspicuously all funded by the same billionaires and manned by ā€œexā€-US intelligence.

    Chinese news cite chinese think tanks, both entities funded by the chinese government. How is it any different? Doesnā€™t China have more billionaires than the US too?


  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlā€¢Listen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    followed by USA/capitalism works best and is only system that works (does not)

    Neither me not the person you were responding to said this. They criticised China on something - you made up the ā€œhence the US is good/only thing that worksā€ line. You just assumed if anyone thinks anything slightly remotely bad about China itā€™s because theyā€™re an evil idiot liberul!!!. It really is just a reflex for you people no?


  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlā€¢Listen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    Itā€™s not about brains, itā€™s about the flow of conversation. Everytime someone calls out China on anything thereā€™s always a bunch of people that immediately say ā€œAh yes because the USā€“ā€ No one is talking about the US. No one is saying itā€™s any better. It being a shithole too doesnā€™t magically make China not one. If that is the only thing you have to say then you donā€™t actually have an argument, just the vibe that itā€™s le based epic AES wholesome chungus country and if they do anything wrong it must be propaganda or not actually done by them.


  • mimichuu_@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlā€¢Listen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This not an argument. You canā€™t respond to ā€œX is doing something wrongā€ with ā€œOH AS IF Y IS ANY BETTERā€ when literally no one was talking about Y. Youā€™re just trying to derail the conversation. If youā€™re going to defend China stick to your guts and defend China, donā€™t attack completely unrelated countries implying I must think theyā€™re any better, theyā€™re not.

    At least most people in Russia and China can distinguish between the truth and the party line.

    I am sure that most people in the country with the largest censorship firewall in existence know the truth any better. And before you say B-B-B-BUT AMERICAā€” Yeah they censor shit too. I hate both of them.






  • Iā€™ve seen countless times of things we need being completely ignored by the system. When itā€™s inconvenient enough it will simply never get passed. We can fight for it, and win, but if the same system remains in place, once again, what we won was a concession that can and will be taken away at the nearest chance. You showing me an example of a rich youtuber followed by millions of people being able to do it doesnā€™t change what the situation is like for regular people like you and me. You can do both if you want to, just donā€™t think emailing a bunch of rich aristocrats is going to ever have a reasonable chance of being meaningful. Seriously, if you want to make real change, join an org.

    Also, ā€œextremismā€ just means things that go against the status quo. Itā€™s not a synonym for ā€œbadā€.



  • 2/2

    The October Revolution was the Bolshevik revolution, so I must assume you mean the February Revolution

    No. The October Revolution was much more than the bolsheviks taking power. I donā€™t really think itā€™s relevant to this discussion so if youā€™re interested in the perspective we generally hold about it I will once again point to Anark:

    https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=uwU3STgBknQ

    Not true! My accusation against Makhno was 100% what he admitted to while he was defending himself when he lived in exile in France.

    Iā€™ve looked this up and youā€™re right, my apologies.

    Perhaps in some respects he did learn from his failures, though it seems he mostly doubled down from what Iā€™ve read.

    Reading post-exile Makhno is kinda depressing so I havenā€™t dug very deep into it. As far as I know, he deeply regretted a lot of things he did.

    Again with the ā€œusā€ business. Neither of us were in Korea, comrade. You were not personally aggrieved by this, your identifying with it is a matter of your personal psychology.

    I can see what you mean? I donā€™t really see how it makes my point any different though. Once again all Iā€™m saying is that there is a big history of ML betrayal of anarchists and I donā€™t think it should serve as an excuse to not work together but I also donā€™t think it should be discarded or itā€™s okay to believe it was all always purely and 100% the anarchistā€™s fault and everything that happened was justified, much less that anarchists should accept that narrative from yā€™all.

    but I struggle to imagine that in Cuba or Korea it was all that different from the people crying for Makhno, just more counterrevolutionaries and maniacs causing problems and probably also some good anarchists and honest rubes getting caught in the crossfire.

    In Cuba and Korea, the anarchists were there before the marxists came. If anything, your narrative is backwards, you just donā€™t see it as counterrevolution because the usurpation succeeded, and thus became the revolution instead.

    I donā€™t think itā€™s productive to engage with this, because weā€™re just gonna keep pointing the finger at each other and refusing to budge. If you want to listen to an anarchist perspective on these events there are plenty of places to, if youā€™re not interested and just want to keep believing in the same nothing I say will change your mind.

    Ideology is not religion, you donā€™t get to just put up a flag and make demands, your input is fundamentally the same as that of any other person in a proletarian democracy.

    Thatā€™s the thing, often anarchist input isnā€™t ā€œfundamentally the sameā€. Itā€™s not fundamentally the same if we are never listened to, much less if our input is met with bullets or jail cells. Itā€™s not fundamentally the same if there isnā€™t even a discussion and everything we say is just discarded. Working together is actually working together, reaching a consensus and a compromise between each other. Anarchists who support left unity try to do this, but obviously, in exchange, they expect the MLs do the same. Otherwise, theyā€™re just being useful idiots.

    If you stick 100% to your guts, then objectively speaking there is absolutely no benefit in working together. Demanding that we ally but refusing to listen to our input on things is basically just wanting to use us. Thatā€™s what most anarchists are afraid of when talking about left unity.

    Do you want ā€œWins for anarchismā€ or better conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake?

    Youā€™re talking like if itā€™s an exclusively binary choice of completely separate things. Anarchists want anarchy because they believe it is what will bring the best conditions for the actual human beings whose lives are at stake. I am sure that most, even despite what they write online, would be willing to sacrifice their anarchism to an extent if they see that conditions are being genuinely improved, but they have to see that, and itā€™s obvious that if what happens is a fully by-the-book ML model, they wont see that. Because theyā€™re anarchists.

    I mean, MLs are the same too. No one can escape bias. So the only reasonable thing that can happen is a compromise. If MLs are not willing to compromise, why should anarchists work with them if theyā€™re so different? This goes both ways. Everyone needs to be held to the same standard, the complaint is that most of the time itā€™s the anarchist that has to sacrifice and the ML sticks to their guts. Either both sacrifice and compromise, or both donā€™t and work separately. This in-between MLs want where anarchists work with them but they also donā€™t have to listen to them in any way is just not going to happen.

    encouraging people to, for example, hate the PRC is a perfect example. Look at any of the threads on this shitty network of websites where the liberals are louder and you will see in their discussions of any AES project the ā€œanarchistsā€ and neoliberals arguing side by side without even batting an eye at this fact.

    This is exactly what I said. The problem is not the critique but when itā€™s completely stripped of context. When anti-PRC statements are just parroted with no real alternative proposed or philosophy behind them. Itā€™s not a problem with anarchist critique per se. By your logic literally any anti-PRC statement is helping the US, even ones made by marxists. Rather than ā€œjust stop talking bad about socialist states!ā€ I think itā€™s better to make sure youā€™re doing it in proper context and making sure youā€™re not going to be misinterpreted. Shutting down critiques alltogether is not useful. We should always have conversations about these things, to learn and improve and change.

    Do you know how many smug liberals Iā€™ve seen quote Bakuninā€™s ā€œThe Peopleā€™s Stickā€ line? It doesnā€™t fucking matter that heā€™s an anarchist and believed himself to be speaking from a certain ideologically coherent position

    Sure, but give those liberals just the essay where that line was written and they will despise Bakunin. This is what I mean, what matters is the context, thatā€™s not just the ideology behind the person who said the thing.

    Even if you quite understandably donā€™t like me on a personal level and disagree with a lot of what I have to say, I hope thereā€™s something here that you find informative in the way that I intended it to be.

    As I said before youā€™ve given me no reasons to dislike you. But this illustrates what Iā€™ve been talking about all this time. The fact that you view me as someone you need/want to ā€œinformā€, and not someone youā€™re having an honest exchange with. Most MLs do this, they see us as misguided, silly weirdos, and simply assume thereā€™s nothing they can learn from us. They do not view us as equals even when we try to reach out. This creates a power imbalance in the ā€œunityā€ that a lot of anarchists just donā€™t want to deal with.


  • Our posts are getting longer and longer, and more and more unrelated to this thread. Would you be interested in having this conversation in DMs maybe?

    1/2

    There was a prick in this thread doing just that

    I assume you mean the person who posted ā€œMarx against the stateā€? I assume what they were trying to do is to say that he wouldnā€™t have been in favour of the methods of the bolsheviks, not that he simply would have fully agreed with anarchists. I donā€™t know, I havenā€™t read that essay, Iā€™m not very interested in it. I genuinely think anarchism and marxism are very separate. I concede this person is wrong and shouldnā€™t be trying to do that.

    Iā€™m not an especially nice guy in these discussions, at best Iā€™m just the type of stubborn where Iā€™ll be damned if I give you something you can use against me beyond ā€œheā€™s rudeā€. I can see how youā€™d get dogpiled because maybe 10% of the things you have said here are astronomically dumb, but if you get better at recognizing this and try to have a personable conversation on c/askchapo or whatever, I think youā€™d have an alright time.

    Youā€™re genuinely one of the calmest and most reasonable people Iā€™ve argued with on this site. At least despite everything it seems like we are having a fruitful conversation and even reaching agreements on some parts. The worst thing youā€™ve said is ā€œget a gripā€ which is really nothing. I have to remark that I appreciate it because every other time I try to reach out and show my perspective to online ML places I just get viciously mocked, belittled and talked down to in an extremely smug way. Honestly I think the reason Iā€™m not getting dogpiled is that weā€™re very deep into the reply thread and people donā€™t bother reading it.

    Itā€™s very rare that anarchists and MLs treat each other as equals in an online conversation, I do agree that sometimes anarchists are the ones at fault in this, but it sucks that itā€™s hard for me to reach out and have like, you know, an actual exchange where Iā€™m not being belittled every two sentences. And donā€™t let me even get started on Discord, oh my god itā€™s a million times worse.

    When I say someone isnā€™t in a minority by virtue of calling themselves an anarchist online and ā€œbelievingā€ anarchist things, but many people play at it, what I mean is that you are not, by virtue of those traits, a social minority.

    I mean minority in the objective sense, as in, weā€™re a lot less than you all in virtually all spaces that arenā€™t anarchist focused or anarchist exclusive. And that does lead to us being considered less, treated as less important and disregarded. I illustrated this with an example, even in this instance which makes a point about unity and anti-sectarianism, an anarchist felt the need to make a post basically begging to not be disregarded and demeaned because everyone was doing it anyway.

    I agree that this is nowhere near the things that historically happened, itā€™s an online forum, and in my experience with real life MLs theyā€™re a lot better. I mean, I did make a point that using these events to refuse working with other leftists is very dumb. I just donā€™t think we should go to the other extreme and completely disregard them either. Once again itā€™s important to understand why it happened and reach an agreement. If you stick to your guts and just keep believing that the anarchists weā€™re talking about were all maniacs and bandits and didnā€™t do anything good and none of their actions were justified and the crushing was a 100% the right thing to do, then of course anarchists arenā€™t going to listen to you. We definitely are guilty of idealizing Makhnovshchina and excusing or ignoring the very awful things and grave mistakes they did, but itā€™s not like MLs are any better. Itā€™s more of a general problem of worshipping the past instead of focusing on the present, in my opinion.

    Iā€™m not saying you should want to be there [in lemmygrad], but itā€™s not like they are frothing at the mouth for ā€œanarkiddyā€ blood. Mainly I think they are just sick of red scare shit and really spurious accusations.

    I havenā€™t dug as deep into lemmygrad as I have into hexbear, but every time Iā€™ve visited and read on what its members think about anarchism itā€™s been something extremely hostile and insulting, and everytime an anarchist has decided to come reply to them, I see them get dogpiled and replied to in the usual leninist extreme smug by two, three, sometimes four people. I donā€™t think it matters if you think theyā€™re wrong or said something ā€œastronomically dumbā€, the bullying is something I just donā€™t support. Bully liberals, if you really want to bully people online.

    Anyway my point is that despite hexbear being ā€œstrictly left unityā€ they have zero issues federating, supporting and endorsing lemmygrad which is very hostile to anarchists. There is no anarchist Lemmy instance, but I can only hope that if it forms, the same accomodations are given to them - seeing what they think of and post about Raddle, I doubt it though.


  • Iā€™m not being defeatist at all. Quite on the contrary, Iā€™m telling you to fight.

    My point is that fighting within the system never works. Everything we achieve that way eventually gets taken away from us. As long as the ruling class is still in power, they simply benefit the most from granting us as little as possible, and so they will always search for ways to do just that, and to take away things they previously granted us if they think we wont be threatening enough to take them back.

    Thatā€™s why I am saying, do not hire lobbyists or email politicians or something. Or if you do, make sure itā€™s not the only thing you do. Join an org. Join an union, a party, a syndicate, organize. That is what has brought, brings and will bring real change. Fight against the system.


  • Kropotkin is a nice start, though if you want an introduction I think Errico Malatestaā€™s work is a lot better for that. The essay ā€œAnarchyā€ is short for leftist standards and is very good. Also ā€œAt the cafeā€ is honestly an amazing introduction piece and itā€™s written in a regular language as socratic dialogues, so itā€™s perfect for starting. It even adresses a lot of counter arguments from many perspectives.

    Otherwise Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloo is also amazing.


  • Youā€™re antagonistic as Iā€™m used to when talking in here but youā€™ve at least been more respectful to me than most MLs Iā€™ve talked to here so I wanted to say I appreciate that.

    NC is weird because he calls himself an anarchist but is invested in Lunaā€™s projects with Ho-Chi-Minh thought. I think he discusses this in some videos but I just canā€™t be arsed to be interested. V**sh is just a repugnant neoliberal who belongs in a reeducation program or a pit.

    People calling themselves anarchists and then advocating for archism is very common. We just donā€™t have that big of a theory culture, and when weā€™re believing in something so against almost all of the hegemonic thoughts implanted in our heads for all of our lives, itā€™s very common to see people who want anarchy but fail to see how some anarchism things could work and propose alternatives that have heirarchy or a state. NonCompete is one of them. Iā€™ve taken to calling them ā€œsomearchistsā€ just because that is really funny, Iā€™m not sure if thereā€™s a better term.

    If youā€™re interested in an anarchist youtuber, Anark is honestly one of the best, he even has a series directly synthesizing a modern view of anarchism that explains both the collectivist and individualist ideologies, I genuinely believe his videos are worth watching even for MLs because theyā€™re very well thought out.

    https://piped.kavin.rocks/channel/UC1CjJYTUeor8EUFsbgwu5TQ

    I fully agree that Vaush is a moron, itā€™s nice that we can agree on that.

    You can see how so many of them are reared as radlibs because they are are so ready to use their ā€œaffiliationā€ to act like a persecuted minority when all they ever did was post on Reddit and have never even met someone who faced this violence.

    It is true that we are a minority, and it is true that in most leftist spaces that arenā€™t made up of mostly or exclusively us, we arenā€™t very well tolerated. Even in this left unity instance, most of the members and mods are MLs, the anarchist communities are extremely inactive compared to the rest of the site, almost all of the posts are pro-USSR and pro-China, itā€™s very friendly with an explicitly anti-anarchist lemmygrad, Iā€™ve even found posts of anarchists having to beg to not be disregarded:

    https://hexbear.net/post/48138

    etc.

    Now, I do genuinely believe that no matter how often itā€™s happened and no matter how disregarding online ML communities are of us, to use these events to decide to never ever work with a marxist or even just an ML for any reason is very stupid. We are literally dying right now thanks to climate change, we have likeā€¦ a few decades left. If we have a shot it will probably be our only one and if we ruin it because we donā€™t work together itā€™s going to be one hell of an end story.

    It doesnā€™t change that these things have happened though, and treating them as taboo is just something I donā€™t agree with.

    a huge portion of those anarchists were objectively counterrevolutionaries trying to overturn the October Revolution and generally instigate chaos and violence [ā€¦] There were good anarchists in Russia ā€“ some of whom did get caught in the crossfire ā€“ but there were many ā€œanarchistsā€ who regarded the gains of the bolsheviks as being incidental to tyranny and treated them as fascists to be fought militarily.

    Anarchists in general donā€™t have a big problem with the october revolution, but rather with what was done to it by the bolsheviks. That we do see as tyranny and usurpation. Definitely not fascism, thatā€™s a very specific term that I believe we shouldnā€™t use liberally.

    As for the Makhnovists, a lot of the very awful things are disputed since the only accounts of them happening were written by bolsheviks. In general, I donā€™t really look up to them that much. They were very flawed and committed a lot of mistakes. Particularly, their movement had no theorists at all, so Iā€™ve often heard people say that, more than an anarchist revolution, it was a peasant revolt inspired by anarchist ideals. Hereā€™s a nice and pretty short text about the subject that summarizes my views on them:

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kolbj-rn-markusson-to-what-extent-was-makhno-able-to-implement-anarchist-ideals-during-the-russ

    Hereā€™s a reply of some of the most common ML talking points about them:

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarcho-on-the-bolshevik-myth

    But this is still an excellent display of the very useful idiocy I mean, this politics of being aggrieved because some maniac with a black flag was wounded by the most besieged country on the planet in the latterā€™s efforts to protect the revolution.

    Itā€™s not just them though. Catalonia was just as bad if not worse, Cubaā€™s anarchists, Korean anarchists, Iā€™ve even pointed to a relatively recent example in Greece. You really canā€™t ignore the history we have between each other, it shouldnā€™t be dismissed, it shouldnā€™t be hidden or ignored. If you truly want us to work together we both have to learn from it. We have to try to understand why it happened and make sure it doesnā€™t end up in the same way.

    Are you an ally of attempts to establish a DotP? Cool, I donā€™t care what your boutique sect is. Are you not? Then stop trying to claim Marx or pretending that the antagonism is not at all coming from you.

    No anarchist is claiming Marx. Anarchism is very separate from marxism. Some ā€œanarchistsā€, mostly vaushites, try to pretend that Marx was on his side, but most of us know he wasnā€™t. Sometimes people try to bring up that Marx would have probably been against the methods and the results of the bolsheviks, I am not sure to what extent this is true. But thatā€™s not the same as saying ā€œMarx supported anarchismā€.

    Also again, I mostly agree that we should ally, but an alliance is more than just ā€œwe will help youā€. If you donā€™t plan to consider us when we work together, then we simply have no reason to just do the work for you and gain nothing in exchange. I think thatā€™s just common sense.

    Because, in addition to polcomp shit, itā€™s a label taken up by useful idiots (including nominal Marxists!) to distinguish themselves from ā€œauthoritarianā€ socialists who are a red scare boogeyman that only exists in the formerā€™s mind. Itā€™s also taken up by even more detrimental morons like Chomsky. Anarchists can just call themselves anarchists, Zapatistas, Zapatistas (no, they are not anarchists), and Chomsky can take a long nap because heā€™s old and done quite enough talking

    Okay, fine, I donā€™t really see a problem with this. I will say, I donā€™t view the Zapatistas as anarchists, and I think doing so is disrespectful to them. But I think they do serve to see that some of the things we anarchists are talking about can work and are totally possible.

    Also, Chomsky is the worst.

    ā€œStatistā€ pisses me off significantly more because, aside from putting words in my mouth and being used to misrepresent Marx like someone tried to at first in this chain, there are people who actually do support the indefinite existence of a state and those are not the Marxists.

    I think weā€™re just having pointless definition wars with this. When I say statism, I mean a belief in the strategy of a transitional state, not a support of its indefinite existence. Thatā€™s what Iā€™ve always used the term for. I donā€™t think itā€™s useful to use ā€œstatistā€ to represent indefinite support of a state becauseā€¦ thatā€™s just everyone else. Thatā€™s just every single ideology except radical leftism. But if thatā€™s the way you view the word, I canā€™t really argue against you, itā€™s just another definition.

    Because there is no anarchist threat to the US. Marxist states have consistently represented an ideological and geopolitical problem for the US for more than a century. The whole purpose of the red scare was to avert solidarity with these states and recognition of their successes, as well as to galvanize support for aggressive measures against them.

    Me not trusting in the methods MLs used a hundred years ago does not mean I endorse the US in any way. I think the main problem is when context is deprived of the critiques. When you say things about socialist states that an american senator can parrot word for word (sighā€¦ like Vaush). A critique from an anarchist perspective, one that wants the destruction of capitalism and the liberation of the working class, is definitely not something any ruling class, much less the american one, can agree with or spread.

    I would say internally there is no ideological, organized anarchist threat to the US (there is no marxist one either), but the group of people who get shit done, who protest the most and organize the most, are always anarchists or organizations mostly consisting of anarchists.

    This is kind of the crux of the anarcho-bidenist thing, that scoundrels like V**sh claim a mantle of radical progressivism while parroting State Department talking points against enemies of the US, the biggest one being a Marxist state with substantial (and more conventionally) Marxist allies!

    I fully agree with you, the co-opting of anarchism by people who want radical aesthetics but refuse to do any introspection about their imperial core beliefs is a huge problem. It really stems from us not having as big of a theory culture as MLs do. It genuinely sucks (especially because theanarchistlibrary is sooo much easier to navigate than marxists.org lmao) and Vaush has done a lot of harm.