yogthos

Sure, anarcho-syndicalism seems very compatible with Marxism for example. The main disagreement tends to be around what is actually to be done about the dictatorship of capital that we all live under in the west.

The whole context for this thread is you claiming that an actually existing socialist state is not really socialist because it doesn't pass your purity test.

Nobody is talking about any dark rooms, just go look at what PSL is doing very much in the open. If you look at any successful revolution it has always started by building support networks and organizing communities. It's kind of wild that you are not aware of this. The difference with communists is that we understand that an organized dictatorship of capital requires organization and education to fight against. So, along with building out support networks we also focus on political education, organization, and long term goals.

Everything anarchists do in tangible terms helps maintain liberal capitalist rule. That's the reality of the situation. Hence why anarchists are just LARPing without any tangible plan of action. Anarchists love moaning about being brutally repressed, but refused to take any action against the repression.

Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of private property ownership and that's why it always inevitably devolved into fascism in times of crisis.

Therefore, whenever economic liberalism finds itself under threat from “populism”, it quickly jettisons the principles of political liberalism to which it is theoretically tied.

In other words, these “principles” are not principles at all, just convenient postures designed to cloak the unpleasant reality of the economic liberals’ capitalist system.

https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/

Anarchists talk a lot about community, but reject actual practical way to organize communally and combat capitalism. And the argument for rejecting practical means is that these approaches restrict individual freedoms. Anarchists place their individual freedom above collective good, and thus align with liberal capitalists in action.

Anarchists are liberals who like LARPing as leftists. You share the same ideology and focus on individualism above all else.

It's always hilarious to see how the most ignorant libs are always the most confident. You might as well believe you're a donkey with a laser dick as it makes as much sense as everything else you believe.

Weird way to say has at least modicum of understanding of geopolitics and doesn't support the genocidal western empire.

The biggest irony of our times is blood thirsty liberals who are cheering for as much war as possible running around calling people tankies.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here to be honest. You claimed that the US has no intellectuals and no people who have deep political understanding. I listed a bunch just off top of my head, now you're moving your goal posts.

PSL as a party isn't focused on electoralism. It's a worker movement, and De la Cruz is an excellent leader for this movement. If you still think that elections in a rigged system matter then you are in dire need of reading theory you deride here.

And in your opinion the demographic that is going to drive change are unpopular people who are subjects of news discussed on this site and this site only.

No, and if you actually bothered reading what I wrote then you'd know that the demographic I identified are people feeling the exploitation. People like Chris Smalls who are starting to organize on the ground. The fact that you think bread and circuses is somehow a unique phenomenon in the US that's never happened in history is absolutely incredible.

Good luck with your magical unions organically forming out of thin air bud. I'm sure it'll happen any day now.

sure

Sometimes they mean that someone knows theory, sometimes they mean that someone has talked to someone else about how the boss is annohying, sometimes they mean you’re planning a violent wildcat labor action.

It's like you're unable to comprehend the concept of degrees. All of these things work together in practice. People who know theory help educate others, and people talk to each other at the level they are able. Trying to see this as black and white is absurd.

The whole point is that when you’re cornered you rely entirely on quoting and throwing theory at people without explaining how that theory practically applies to the modern day.

Another weird straw man. What theory means practically in modern day has been explained by me and many other people on this very site. I even explained that in this very thread earlier, and you promptly ignored that.

Name one. Literally name one.

Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Chris Smalls, Michael Hudson, Claudia De la Cruz, just off top of my head

Hmm… It’s almost like uhh they’d rather watch Mr Beast on YouTube which is quite literally my point.

And my point is that these people don't matter. They're not the demographic that's going to drive any change.