[YorkshireSeason]

I have commented not on the CCC but on user: 46886532558's original claim that being "reeeally left wing" is somehow a plausible reason for being anti-surveillance. This association is misleading, and I feel a responsibility to correct this historical mistake.

This correction is especially apt since Germany is still full of Stasi victims.

[pyjammas]

> The historical record of the left is extremely pro-state, pro surveillance

I think the problem with your comment is that you're flat-out misrepresenting the 'reeeally left wing'. There are plenty of 'leftist' movements that are just as opposed to 'the state' as they are to our corporate overlords. Arguing otherwise is either plain stupidity or intentional misrepresentation.

[YorkshireSeason]

Railing against "the state" or "our corporate overlords" is not a mature political position, but merely unfocussed, reflection-free rage that gets tooled / channeled by political organisers and activists on the left and right, not to mention commercially exploited by the Facebooks of this world, whence Zuckerberg's "Dumb Fucks".

[pyjammas]

> Railing against "the state" or "our corporate overlords" is not a mature political position

Why not? Historically anarchists played a mentionable role in this whole leftist thing.

EDIT: Also, could you elaborate on what you mean with 'a mature position'? I've found that kind of statement to be an effective but dishonest way to dismiss things.

[YorkshireSeason]

The anarchists, qua bombings, played a potent role in 19th, and early 20th century politics, but not a good one.

Politically, anarchists are really quite different from the socialist/communist tradition:

- Anarchists: reject the state

- Socialists/communists: reject capitalism

Naturally there could be overlap, and indeed there is a well-known tradition of anarcho-communism [1] which was especially potent in the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (note that there were bitter fights between anarchists and the Stalinists), but at the same time, it's difficult to reconcile the philo-capitalism of the libertarian wing of anarchism with the socialist tradition. Likewise, it's difficult to reconcile the philo-stateism of the socialist tradition with anarchism.

As to "mature": as a first approximation, I'd say, having a written, elaborate and communicable theory behind one's political actions, one that has survived multiple round of (friendly) critique. A mature political position includes reflection on the nature of political power, the shape of politial organisation, and political activism, and clear end goals with reasons why the desired end-goals are likely to come about. A mature political position also contains an understanding of other political positions, including those of one's political adversaries. An prime example of a mature political position is Marx. As an example of political immaturity, I'd point to myself when I was 19. I was nothing but an angry, raging young person, who railed against "the system", wanted to "stick it to The Man" and save the world. But I would not have been able to explain why, in way that I would have found plausible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

[pyjammas]

Thank you for elaborating. Truly.

Is there any way I could continue this conversation via email or some other form of communication? I very much would like to pick your brain on some of this in a more personal form.

EDIT: my email is my username at gmail.com

[IAmEveryone]

Yeah–the comment didn't use talk about "reeally left-wing". It was "reeeally left wing anticapitalist idealists and antiauthoritarians".

The description uses "left wing" to help you conjure up the right mental image. Because "anticapitalist idealists and antiauthoritarians" would also describe buddhists and anarchists.