I completely get this.
I have one friend who agrees with everything I say, but as soon as I say any word that falls into the category of "bad thing" (as determined by his facebook feed), he disagrees.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
473 points (92.9% liked)
Anarchist Memes
1242 readers
4 users here now
This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Could you then reply with screenies or short videos explaining the term? A lot of American democrats are turned to stone at words like “socialism,” and “communism.” Some were in my business at what party I’d be supporting after criticizing my Deep South Democratic Senator, so I just said “probably the past Dr. King supported,” and got nods of approval. I’m sure they thought he was a democrat.
Honestly, I've been there, too. I read Graeber before realizing he was an anarchist. When I realized, it still took a while to embrace the ideology. I wouldn't have read him in the first place if I knew beforehand. Same with internet "celebrities"
Of course he does. Bad thing is bad.
I think people with this mindset are just very resistant to being persuaded by ideas at all, because for them the ultimate determination of what is right is what the people around them approve/disapprove of (or maybe whoever they consider authorities for their chosen ideology). All you can really do for them is be a good example of someone they know who dissents, knowing they will never care why you dissent and will probably make their own assumptions about that.
The "bundle of sticks" analogy has historically been used a lot by fascists. If someone used it to try to convince me, you can be sure it would backfire!
"Well, you see, a single stick can easiky be broken in two, but a bundle of sticks will stand to almost anything!
Now, imagine if you will, that one of those sticks was actually an axe handle..."
"... used to prosecute minorities."
Yeah, the faggot analogy is great but too wrapped up in fascism
I'm not sure it is great, to me it seems to handily encapsulate the bad parts of authoritarian ideologies. It's a demand to follow the will of the group, and to prioritize your group identity in order to accumulate power for that group. Whether that group is race, nationality, or economic class, to think of yourself primarily as an instrumental component of it is an abdication of responsibility to have and apply your own unique perspective and thoughts, and leads naturally to abuses by whoever happens to be doing the thinking for all these people who have chosen loyalty over agency.
Which isn't to say that cooperation isn't important and necessary to accomplishing any goal, but if this sort of group unity is the core idea it seems extremely dangerous and malignant.
I’m not sure it is great, to me it seems to handily encapsulate the bad parts of authoritarian ideologies.
What's authoritarian about strength in numbers?
It’s a demand to follow the will of the group, and to prioritize your group identity in order to accumulate power for that group.
Um... is it?
Whether that group is race, nationality, or economic class, to think of yourself primarily as an instrumental component of it is an abdication of responsibility to have and apply your own unique perspective and thoughts, and leads naturally to abuses by whoever happens to be doing the thinking for all these people who have chosen loyalty over agency.
Yeah, you just made all that up.
Which isn’t to say that cooperation isn’t important and necessary to accomplishing any goal, but if this sort of group unity is the core idea it seems extremely dangerous and malignant.
You are adding "group unity" yourself. "Ape together strong" just means groups are stronger than individuals.
“Ape together strong” just means groups are stronger than individuals.
I'm talking more about the bundle of sticks metaphor than the apes thing
Yes, groups are stronger than individuals
So what? What I'm saying is that it's toxic to make that power itself the core message (I have already explained why), and anyone would be right to deeply distrust someone using that sort of iconography as such in a political context. As a metaphor it is very directly evocative of falling into line for instrumental strength.
No, that's specifically the fascist interpretation, and is a false collectivism. Fascism is individualism dressed up in collectivism.
Fascists say the individual is the core of society, and has its place only to serve the "collective" (the state).
True collectivism says the collective should serve every individual.
The difference may sound subtle, but trust me, it really isn't.
Saying groups are stronger than individuals is a reminder that those in power only have power because we let them, and we can easily remove them if we work together. That is not the message of fascism.
the fascist interpretation
Of the stick metaphor? Please keep in mind that I am talking about the stick metaphor, and not a broader concept like collectivism. I'm not sure you understand that what I am saying is that the stick metaphor is bad.
...yes. Remember what the stick metaphor is a metaphor for!
It's a metaphor for fascism. Not sure why people think it can be removed from that context and be made a positive message. Anyway I think something happened to the comment at the top of the chain here as I can't find the context for this anymore.
The metaphor existed before fascism, dude. It was co-opted. Fascists love to co-opt leftist imagery and rhetoric, like the Nazis calling themselves socialist.
You are, in fact, perpetuating fascist myth by saying it's inextricable from fascism.
Horseshoe theory and such
No.
Yes.
Horseshoe theory completely misunderstands both fascism and communism.
Generally speaking, from a layman's pov(which I am), the theory kinda holds water IMHO.
Both right and left have a common thread. Humans.
It's just tankies complaining about it, for obvious reasons.
That's kind of a given.
A bundle of sticks is conveniently burned after the person wielding them is done getting them where they want them.
That works with all groups. Use scary words and everybody reacts emotionally. That's where new euphemisms are created.
Is there a lemmy community where things can be discussed while using all the scary words?
I mean you do have to be tactical when talking to others. You need to gauge what level they are roughly at before you use certain "buzzwords." For example, you might want to say an industry is "mostly dominated by guys" instead of using phrases like "white cis male patriarchy" with some people because it WILL trigger them. Same thing when talking about racism. We all know what "white supremacy" means but to your average normie they think only of the KKK and stuff like that. Same with terms like "systemic racism" or whatever. I hate to say it, but it's kind of a game of cat and mouse. We always have to be ready to phrase things differently because once we settle on something, the right will figure it out and then run their media on overdrive to let their base know what buzzwords to watch out for.
I mean before I was where I am today just saying Stalin or Mao would have triggered me to think of the "millions that died" or whatever. At some point you do have to be open about your views but that doesn't mean you need to bombard someone immediately with words like "bourgeoisie" or "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "means of production" right from the get go. Even something as banal as "material conditions" requires the other person to kind of already know what you're talking about in the first place.
For example, you might want to say an industry is "mostly dominated by guys" instead of using phrases like "white cis male patriarchy" with some people because it WILL trigger them.
These phrases can become triggering even for people who agree with the overall concepts, because they're overused and often used by people who don't really understand them. Someone hears something like that, thinks it sounds smart, is a contrarian, and starts labelling anything remotely related to any of those words with the full phrase. They're called buzzwords because they generate a buzz (like a bee, not a beer). Unfortunately that buzzing is often akin to a hornet, not a bee.
can we not use the fasces metaphor as presented by someone named "Caesar" please
