By Cake Boy

So, I read this article on the website of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the DSA. I took sentences out of it to reply to it. I said I would react to their stuff, so this is my first reaction to their articles.

https://dsa-lsc.org/2024/07/13/anarchy-transfemmes-and-the-state-oh-my/

I can see that the left anarchist movement will not really change, will not really cross boundaries, and will not attract the masses when I read texts like this. This text is an example of subculturalism/niche politics, which is problematic for a movement that claims to speak for the masses (the red in their flags is a symbol of the masses). In the future, socialism and communism will likely grow, I think, while left anarchism will stay as niche as possible. The biggest obstacle for anarchists to succeed is the presence of other anarchists. I forgot who said this.

I react to the sentences, which I make bigger. I analyse it.

Transfeminism occupies an increasingly prominent position within socialist and queer spaces.

This is already such a strange sentence. Typical of the current left-wing radical scene. What is ‘transfeminism’. I can assure you that most people don’t know what ‘transfeminism’ is. It’s already hard to say what feminism is, let alone ‘transfeminism’. How can you speak to the masses, as socialists, if you alienate the masses? 0,0001 percent of the people in society have opinions on ‘transfeminsm.’

Does ‘transfeminism occupy a position in socialism’? The socialist party in my country is pretty big, and none of these people are ‘transfeminists’…And i also don’t think a lot of the Bernie supporters are ‘transfeminist’ although i could be wrong.

You make stuff up. You want to see connections that do not exist. The world is more complex than how you present it. Some socialists are conservative, and some capitalists are progressive. Some feminists are pro Queer, others feminists are critical of it. Some anarchists are straight, some are gay. Some are religious, while others are not, and so on.

You act as if there are clear political tribes on the one hand, progressive socialists, and on the other hand, conservative capitalists. The world is not this black/white. There are many grey areas. For example, in the Middle East, the socialists are often nationalistic/patriotic and conservative when it comes to cultural matters. On the other hand, a lot of the billionaire libertarians/neoliberals are progressive when it comes to all the Queer subjects.

So this is a problem with the modern libertarian left. They simplify subjects. And it’s all bout the surface for them. I once read that to stupid people, the appearance is more important than the content. The current anarchist space is full of stupid people who only care about nonsense subjects like ‘queer’ or ‘cis’ or what kind of style you have. These subjects pertain to appearance, but not the actual political content.

And what are ‘queer spaces’? I can’t think of any ‘queer spaces’ in this country. Is a gay bar a ‘queer space’? What is a ‘queer space’? Where do ‘queers’ come from? But what is a ‘queer’ that already isn’t clear to me? You can’t see if a person is ‘queer’. You have to guess about the ‘queerness’ of the person. I once saw a ‘queer activist’ and I couldn’t see what made them ‘queer’. I also didn’t understand what ‘queer’ meant to them. I couldn’t ask, because these people don’t allow any questions, and they don’t have humor. You can’t reason with them; they are beyond reasoning.

Patriarchy is reinforced passively on multiple levels within our culture, taking hold in various arenas, including architecture and spoken language.

Is architecture patriarchal? What? Is this serious? While 60% of people live paycheck to paycheck, you talk about ‘patriarchal architecture’?

Working-class people ask the anarchists what they can do for them. The anarchists: We will change patriarchal architecture. For example, this building looks too much like an erect penis, which is a sign of male domination.

Of how to liberate gender non-conforming folks is ever-important amid a generational spike in transphobia. As socialists, we must consider the relation of these questions to the class struggle as well.

There is no connection between Queer things and the class struggle. Besides, if you are pro or anti Queer, pro or anti transgender activism, it has nothing to do with class interests, financial/material/geopolitical issues.

For example, there is a neoliberal party here that is very much in favor of Queer politics, but they are on the side of big financial institutions/capital. They hate the socialists, but their politics are ‘queer’ and ‘inclusive’. They privatise the healthcare, but also wave rainbows. They send weapons to Israel, but also have transgender politicians within their ranks.

The party here that does the most for poor people and working people never talks about subjects around sexual identity, trans, or queer. To them, these issues are off-topic and a personal matter.

Trans spaces are a seed of a new world waiting to be born.

Yes, so this is the idea of these kinds of groups/cults. I have read this before. They believe that a new world will emerge from their queer spaces. It’s a bit like how Christian cults believe that a new world will start within their ranks. They are the core of the historical developments. Cults do this very often (i studied cults a lot) (if you study cults, you start to recognize them). Cults make themselves essential in their theory. As a member, you should be happy to have the privilege of being part of it, they tell you.

Queer spaces and gay bars will continue to exist, and there is nothing wrong with this. However, it won’t change the world, and it’s certainly not a threat to financial/political power.

Why are so many trans folks drawn to alternatives to capitalism? What is transphobia’s relationship to capital and the state?

This is also a silly assumption. In my country, a lot of trans people join neoliberal parties. They joined the party, which is very close to the American Democrats. The ‘progressive/woke’ neoliberals/zionists (this party is ok with the killings in Gaza, but they also propagate more inclusive language)

The underclass, in the present form of our state, is anyone who isn’t a cis-allohet white capitalist.

No, class has to do with the way you relate to the means of production and land. If you don’t have land or means of production, you are the working class. Whether you are black, white, gay, trans, whatever, has nothing to do with it. Your definition of class is a neoliberal version of it. If you had ever read some basic Marxist or anarchist literature, you could have known this.

We recognize that the state, as it exists, is inherently tied to patriarchy and, by extension, transphobia.

This is also more complex. For example, a tribal/anarchist community could be very patriarchal. At the same time, a state can be feminist. The Scandinavian states are pretty progressive, while some African decentralized tribes are patriarchal. The state is an institution with a monopoly on violence within a particular domain. This state can propagate different cultures. This state can be religious, secular, conservative, or woke/Queer. Our current state is neoliberal when it comes to economics, and ‘inclusive/rainbow’ when it comes to cultural matters.

Anarchism is historically associated with decentralization. Anarchism addresses the issues of centralization and class suppression.

Cultural issues are another matter. Feminism, veganism, and gay issues might all be interesting, but are not necessarily anarchist. Also, liberals, neoliberals, and socialists are interested in these cultural issues.

It’s important to recognize that when talking about any of these forms of patriarchy, we do our best not to mark one as the origin point of the other, or view one form of oppression as more horrible than the other. Comparing different forms of oppression is good insofar as it helps us understand how oppression operates and

The strange thing is, I have experienced the current left anarchist milieu as very oppressive. The most opressive spaces i have ever seen. A place where you can’t say what you think, be who you are, etc.  When a small elite of trans activists can silence and intimidate people (which is the case within most left anarchist spaces), then this is very oppressive. This milieu is oppressive for free thinkers, intellectuals, or people who are open to debate. The ‘libertarian’ left isn’t as ‘libertarian’ as they pretend to be. They are often more authoritarian than any other kind of movement.

Comparing forms of oppression can be pretty meaningful these days. Oppression is when a man sits with his legs crossed, according to the current leftist anarchists. They call this ‘men spreading’. This is as horrible as children who have to work in mines. It’s all the same. A trans person gets misgendered, is as horrific as genocide. The fact that 60 percent of people live paycheck to paycheck is as horrific as ‘masculine architecture.’

Trans spaces are fundamentally important to trans people, not just as a means to escape the persecution to which we’re so often accustomed, but also as a means to organize and discuss our existence

The neoliberal establishment talks very positively about trans people, and there are a lot of subsidies for trans/queer projects, and all of that, where I live. Trans is a bit like a holy cow in this country. A lot of neoliberal women, who are in positions of power, like to organize all kinds of Queer/trans/inclusive events….Nothing ‘socialist’ or ‘rebellious’ about this culture.

People have no money to feed themselves, but the government organizes events about ‘Queer power’ and all kinds of bureaucrats earn immense amounts of tax money, in this ‘inclusive’ sector.

Trans people recognize keenly how important it is for us to work together, to cooperate separate from state control, because that state and the majority of people are against us.

This is not the case in this country. I don’t think that the majority of Americans are ‘against’ you. The majority doesn’t care. People in America need to work hard to survive; they don’t care about your trans/queer identity, your trans space community workshop, or whatever. It’s arrogant to think that people are invested in you that much. Americans have three jobs to survive; they don’t have an opinion on your silly identity.

From a certain perspective, perhaps this sounds silly. “What, political revolution comes from me and my friends just working to help each other out?

Nothing comes out of you and your friends, politically speaking. Nothing. You might organize a Queer DIY event/disco evening for the local gay community. That’s it.

People instead join socialist parties, trade unions, and other organizations if they want to fight for their lives. Some working-class people gravitate towards the criminal milieu.

The Libertarian Socialist Caucus will respond by calling me ‘a fascist’ because I wrote on this site. I could also write it on leftist/woke sites, but these sites don’t accept critique. They won’t post any critical text. People come to this site because there is free speech here. Which doesn’t mean we agree with each other.

In the end, there is nothing wrong with studying things like feminism, LGBTQ, setting up Queer events, and all of that. But you could do this just as well in the Democratic Party. There is nothing anarchist about this. You act as if this is in a way a radical deed. You think that painting your hair and being bisexual,  somehow, is a threat to power. How can you be this naive?

When you study classical social anarchism, you see it’s a hundred times more radical than what you people are doing.

When I read the social anarchist texts, I realised that a lot of their stuff is too radical for me. But I’m not the one waving black/red banners, I’m not the one calling myself a revolutionary.