#libertarian socialist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anarchicarachnid · 11 months

Note

"20% are either just using any mention of Vaush to just shit-talk him as a default without any stated reasons" - Vaush has engaged in forms of Holocaust denial, using common nazi dogwhistles and believes the numbers are inflated as propaganda. Vaush said: “If you are not paying for child pornography there is no argument in favour of morally condeming people who view it. Vaush admits to being an informant when he lived in Santa Monica, California. He admits to revealing activist identities to the FBI. Vaush called the LGBT community ‘cancerous as fuck.’ because there’s a “ton of mental illness” and said they should be “excised from the left.” He also called them “less than human” and “fucking disgusting”. Vaush called trans people ‘bitches’ for taking offence when misgendered." - Vaush deserves to be shit-talked, he's less-than-human scum.

For anyone interested, this is a fantastic example of how many people who view themselves as The Most Progressive will join in on internet hate mobs using the shallow guise of criticizing leftist advocates "from the left", while in actuality they're just hate-mongering based on shit they heard second- or third-hand, and which they don't understand, and which is provably false.

It's just too bad it actually takes way more effort to do the research necessary to disprove a list of lies than it does to parrot a bunch of shit you read and immediately believed, or sometimes just lying on purpose. SO: I went to the trouble of doing the research necessary to settle this stupid shit conclusively.

First of all, I respect that you're the one and only person who didn't respond positively to my message on that post but actually provided even a single argument for why you disagree. Unfortunately your intellectual dishonesty immediately ruins that respect.

So with this person's vague allusions to Holocaust revisionism and nazi dog whistles, my first guess would be the debate against Maupin, which was an extremely frustrating experience involving a dishonest cult leader tankie who actively engaged in his own very obvious genocide denial, and after about 40 minutes of taking him to task for actually being reactionary despite posturing as a leftist, Vaush calls out his attempts to deny the Uyghur genocide by listing common ways in which Nazis will similarly attempt to undermine the narrative of the Holocaust. He did this explicitly and obviously as a way to point out how his debate opponent was engaging in denialism, and to draw parallels. If you had actually seen this play out and still believe Vaush was just unironically listing Holocaust revisionist talking points that he agreed with, actually it's impossible, you're JUST a liar. So I don't believe you actually saw this yourself, you heard somebody else tell you what happened.

Another possible but less likely example of nazi talking points being referenced might be when, during the NonCompete debate, Vaush tried to point out that NC had no actual ethical system, and was instead just repeatedly referencing common leftie terminology such as dialectics and sophistry. And he did so by asking several successive rhetorical questions, which utterly reinforced that NC had no ethical system, once he repeatedly confirmed that he believes it to be impossible to objectively determine whether an action is right or wrong, instead deferring to shifting material conditions. Vaush's point, explicitly, was that whether the justifications the Nazis used for their evil actions, such as Jewish people being over-represented in the banking industry at the time, were true or false, the actions of the Nazis were STILL EVIL AND WRONG. But NC literally couldn't say "the Nazis were wrong in their genocidal actions even if their justifications were factual"

As for the idea that he ever said that CP was okay if it wasn't paid for. First of all: ???? Are you fucking stupid? Second of all, he was clear and re-explained later for the uncharitable or stupid people who misinterpreted his point: he was using CP specifically as a point of ethical comparison to point out how we societally tend to ignore other forms of cruelty and exploitation against children, such as child slavery involved in our economy on a massive scale, though it tends to be in the form of global industries that export products to the US and other places that consider themselves above child slavery. There is a really obvious benefit to using highly contentious examples when debating someone, and it's that some people are willing to bite the bullet on something that is unethical, but if you bring up a contentious example of something directly analogous they will hesitate, even though often the latter example is nearly identical in terms of severity.

Now, when it comes to the claim that he admitted to being an informant, I will admit that while he was joking, it wasn't very obvious. It was easy to misinterpret. But after viewing it again, it's really super clear that his point was specifically about how extremist and other types of radical political groups are what they are, and aren't non-radical simply because they tend to contain dishonest actors such as informants, followed by a his joke that absolutely isn't sincere admission of something that obvious never happened. Cause like.. what group could pre-fame Vaush ever have informed on? He was just a 20 year old in college before blowing up on youtube, he wasn't a major actor in any groups whatsoever.

As to where you get the specific claim that he "revealed activist identities to the FBI" the only thing I could find was a 20 second clip in a tweet specifically claiming that he did so as a way to get out of CP possession charges, the claim for which has zero evidence or further context whatsoever, and is a condensed clip of exactly the same video I already viewed again just to see if there was any possible way you could be misinterpreting this unintentionally. Again, you clearly read this shit out of context, were told what to believe, and immediately believed it because it confirmed what you already wanted to believe. Also that tweet is suuuuuuuuuper obviously dishonest hack shit. You should be embarrassed for this one.

He "called trans people bitches" as an extremely obvious joke in a tweet that he immediately added more context to with subsequent tweets, which specifically was about TYPOS, not actual misgendering. Typos get corrected immediately, misgendering is intentional. An explicitly pro-trans advocate who literally lives with two trans people and whose audience is full of at least tens of thousands of trans people who think he advocates for trans rights as well as anyone in his position is capable of, going on to make obvious trans-centric jokes sometimes, is uhhhh not transphobic probably??

Also in the other part of this, which you lumped together as one event, he called out certain parts of the online lgbt community as being toxic wokescolds who were actually really abusive, but hid behind identity politics to make themselves immune to criticism. And this is just objectively true, and further evidenced by the lgbt people who attempt to abuse him endlessly and dishonestly non-stop every single day and over every new incident of him being a progressive advocate but sometimes disagreeing with a fellow lgbt person, which I really shouldn't need to remind you.. He is. He is in the community. People love to erase that.

Furthermore in this instance he was defending Contrapoints, a trans woman, against abusive wokescolds, correctly. And of course later Contra refused to extend the same charitability to him when he was getting sexually harassed and character assassinated by a fellow trans woman content creator who similarly played up the IdPol angle to avoid criticism, and who also leaked DMs and physically mocked him, which is pretty disgusting behavior for a progressive public figure against another progressive public figure she just personally didn't like. And Contra admitted to not even having looked into the context before picking sides against him.

Furthermore, and I know he says it jokingly a lot because he's edgy and I really don't care about that, but your unironic vitriolic way of referring to him as sub-human scum who essentially deserves to have abusive hate mobs forever, because you saw some people on Twitter or whatever saying that he was an imperfect advocate for progressive values, well it's really telling of the way your extremely vitriolic feelings drive your every thought, utterly incapacitating your critical thinking. No doubt the reason why you straight up parrot such obviously dishonest sources of such obvious disprovable lies. And don't get me wrong, if my research into your claims had yielded any proof contrary to my prior knowledge, I'd have looked further into it. It's a good thing he just straight up isn't the caricature you're envisioning. ☺

This is of course all just to say that if someone is a confident and loud advocate for progressive values but reactionary elements of the supposed online left are *constantly* participating in an abusive hate mob against them, there is a good chance that those people are playing a neverending game of internet telephone in order to create confusion around the actual truth regarding various accusations, to the point that it's difficult to even know if someone saw something firsthand when they confidently throw out condemnations.

115 notes · View notes

spyderslut · 2 years

Text

george orwell was pretty cool, actually.

ive observed that its a fairly common thread in leftist (esspecially the more broad “leftist unity”) spaces to say “hes bad, actually” or just more generally disavow him. Considering his whole body of work and all the things he did throughout his life and the positions he held, i think this is quite far from the right thing to do.

#1984 #george orwell #animal farm #socialism #communism #socialist #communist #anarchism #Anarchist #syndicalism #syndicalist #anarcho syndicalism #anarcho communism #libertarian #libertarian socialism #libertarian communism #libertarian socialist #libertarianism #libertarian communist

74 notes · View notes

a-typical · 2 years

Text

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci advised radicals to maintain “pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will”. What, I asked Chomsky at the close of our conversation, gives him hope?

“A lot of young people; Extinction Rebellion in England, young people dedicated to trying to put an end to the catastrophe. Civil disobedience – it’s not a joke, I’ve been involved with it for much of my life. I’m too old for it now [Chomsky was first arrested in 1967 for protesting against the Vietnam War and shared a cell with Norman Mailer]… It’s not pleasant to be thrown in jail and beaten, but they’re willing to undertake it.

“There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.”

#noam chomsky #anarcho-syndicalist #libertarian socialist #antonio gramsci #marxist #civil disobedience #extinction rebellion #vietnam war #norman mailer #youth

1 note · View note

decolonize-the-left · 9 months

Note

I hate democrats with all my very heart but I can't in good faith advise to vote 3rd party in these hell years when they would see every trans person hang and be off hormones. When the transphobia is not at its height (Eg, like. a few years ago) I would 100% agree with you, but the stakes are too high. If the states falls to transphobia, even more countries will follow it. I think it's harmful to consider not voting D this upcoming election. Once they got off tihs current bend, I could get behind where you are coming from.

"this is helpful and not lacking critical analysis at all"

"if the states fall to transphobia"

Where have you been?

GA & VA are blue states this year btw. It's gotten worse since May and and April, too. The mid terms didn't save anyone.

Also if you, the person reading this, have considered voting 3rd party pls know it's not nearly as unpopular or as unlikely of a win as Democrats want you to think it is.

People would vote for a good 3rd party candidate, actually.

Dems convincing you its a long shot is absolutely a self-preserving psyop hoping to convince you otherwise. Its a half-assed theory that blatantly denies what we learned from 2016 and can still see in polls.

And that's 3rd party candidates stand a shot of they can get in the primaries for the general election. People want progressives. People were pissed and turned to voting for Trump when Sanders fell out- not Clinton.

They need and want another option and it's not a long shot or unlikely. They just need to make it to the primaries.

Enter Cornel West

Cornel West is not running as a Democrat and thus does not need to battle Biden for a spot on the general ballot in November of 2024....

✨ Which gives you and all your friends plenty of time to learn about him ✨

So here are some of his policies and also his campaign site

I'm a decolonial anarchist that hates the state and sees voting as nothing as upholding the state. I make no room for Democrats because Democrats lack the ambition to challenge anything about it.

But unless Cornel West drops out or ends up being some awful closeted abused... Im going to vote for him.

A lot of his politics and campaign goals align with my politics. I wouldn't feel like I was settling if I voted for him.

And a lot of this stuff isn't unreasonable or unrealistic either. Like I just made a post about how the NDAA budget proposal for 2024 is being increased with enough money to solve clean water, homelessness, and implement free college tuition for the whole USA. And Republicans are fighting for more.

And that's just the budget for two years, it'll probably be increased by another hundred billion in a couple years. Nobody blinks when the military budget is swelling like that.

But we should when we can be using that kind of money to solve real problems that real people are having and face and would change lives literally overnight. They just throw that money at the military where most of us never see it again.

But this stuff can be real.

589 notes · View notes

whereserpentswalk · 5 months

Text

Nothing is a better comparison between communism and capitalism then looking at Wikipedia and comparing it to Fandom.com.

#196 #my thougts #leftist #leftism #marx #marxism #anarchism #wikipedia #fandom wiki #fandom.com #libertarian socialism #socialist #socialism #social issues #social media #communist #communism

242 notes · View notes

barely-coherent-anarchist · 2 years

Text

non-disruptive protest doesn't work.

aside from the fact that the point of a protest is to cause enough disruption that the government is forced to concede, there's also another element to this that i personally feel is more prevalent, especially these days with governments across the world cracking down on protest rights.

the way i see it, as do many others on the left, is that if protest is meant to force the hand of the state via disruption, but the state is the one to define what "acceptable" protest is, then there would never be a protest that works, as the state will inevitably only define protests that don't threaten the status quo as acceptable, thus preventing any real change from happening.

490 notes · View notes

la-tache-rouge · 2 years

Text

The fact that a company like Nestlé still exists after everything they've done is outrageous and should be addressed more often.

#anti capitalism #socialism #socialist #government #fuck nestle #nestle #nestlé #politics #libertarian socialism #communism #communist #anarchism #anarchist

361 notes · View notes

apas-95 · 2 years

Note

I’m definitely not as smart as everyone talking about this but I haven’t really seen it mentioned: my issue with individual arming is this. If I’m out with my gf and a homophobe pulls a gun on me, and I pull a gun on them, regardless of who “walks away” in the end, who do you think is 1) going to get the cops called on them and 2) going to be treated fairly by the cops? I might survive an initial encounter, but i may not survive the cop encounter, even if I don’t use the gun

Obviously I’m not saying you should roll over and die, but the idea that having a gun magically makes you survive every dangerous encounter you have, and that the encounter ends with no repercussions after you shoot the “bad guy” is a really flawed one, and one I know well bc my abusive exs dad was a cop. And having the cops called on you for retaliation in self defense is a real eye opener, and I’m still dealing with it today, more than 5 years later

Yeah, that's really the main problem - like, take this meme for example:

What happens after you kill someone on the street? Do you just walk away? What, exactly, happens when a Threatened Minority kills someone on the street? When the cops arrive to the scene of a shooting, with a minority holding a loaded gun, are they going to Approach you with Malicious Intent, too? And what, then? Is your concealed glock going to defeat the systemic oppression of the bourgeois police? And, as with the point I made in my larger post, the people most likely to approach you, as a threatened minority, with malicious intent in the first place, are the police themselves.

You're not going to be able to do anything about that situation, to be clear. Shooting a cop won't somehow reduce the amount of violence you're going to face. If the US cops want to kill you, you're going to die, unless you have an actual organisation that can engage in what amounts to civil war. Fundamentally, revolution is the only actual solution to the problem of violence against oppressed groups.

(This is, again, ignoring the fact that the hypervisibile minority sex worker getting attacked on the street likely cannot afford the monetary and time investment for firearms, equipment, and sufficient training to simply fend for themselves anyway.)

The fundamental point of the use of weapons in a communist sense is for the purposes of, explicitly, waging revolutionary civil war, one necessarily led by a communist vanguard party. The methods by which communist vanguards engage in armament, and by which individual concealed-carriers engage in armament, are completely different, and the latter has never been a part of a communist revolutionary war. The US cultural idea of individual gun owners using their second-amendment rights to Overthrow a Tyrannical Government is completely disconnected from the realities of revolution - we cannot simply get a list of US Political Issues and check off which sides communist theory supports, then go back to holding liberal positions because 'communism supports guns'.

Ignoring everything else, socialist states have enacted strict gun control once military and police power is in the hands of the proletariat as a class - the socialist position is not simply taking one side of the liberal US gun control debate, even if the proposed side is that of the libertarian would-be guerrillas with their recce rifles and floral shirts.

#if anything historically socialist parties have before being in state power *disarmed* the individual people #given the requisitioning of any personal firearms found among the people during revolutionary war #i mean honestly it's no surprise that the majority of people pushing the 'individual gun ownership' position are US anarchists #and other 'libertarian socialists'#given it fits entirely into that conception of revolution - 'living anarchically' as well as the ideal commune settler utopia #gun #guns

407 notes · View notes