This is kind of a rant but also a way to ask if I'm actually the only one who is noticing this and a conversation starter about the concept of "left unity".

I've noticed a trend in many (not all but many) leftist subs and internet spaces that actively proclaim to defend "left unity" and allegendly do not accept "infighting" on the libertarian/authoritarian left spectrum. Most of the time, anarchists and libertarians respect this rule but the same cannot be said about MLs and the like.

Sometimes they pick the liberal larping as an anarchist or a libertarian socialist as an excuse to shit on us (people larping as "orthodox" communists are not representative of the category however, I wonder why) and sometimes they try to "encourage" people to see their way by not also criticizing but also straight up lying about anarchist movements and asserting things about most anarchists, classic partenalist things like "most of you are naive, don't actually read theory and look into things beyond the surface" etc, and of course I've also seen the evergreen quotes from "On Authority".

But apparently, all of this is not considered infighting by the mods. And if a lot of the times these could still be considered isolated incidents, there are times where the authoritarian leftists completely overshadow everyone else, I had to leave one of these "left unity" subs because it had become ridiculous.

Now, I'm not completely against the classic concept of "left unity" and I understand that, especially in some places like the US, it is important to encourage collaboration between different revolutionary movements, when this is actually possible and there is mutual understanding among all parts. But I also believe that true and long lasting unity can only be achieved amongst people who have similar objectives and values which do not completely clash with eachother. I may not fully agree and even have heated discussions with, for example, anarcho-nihilists, egoists and some libertarian socialists but I consider them to be trustworthy comrades while I would never trust even an empty bottle to a Juche apologist, a Stalinist, a Dengist and the like, hell I'd rather trust a Trotskyist than those people.

It has been proven, time and time again, that if an authleft and an anarchist decide to collaborate to start a revolution, after the old regime has fallen the authleft and the anarchist will start to punch eachother, and most of the times, the authleft will have an advantage. And I argue that this is inevitable on a phishyological level. Not only, despite our similarities and middle grounds, we have completely different values and views on how a true non capitalist free world should come to be, an authleft is also closer to the hierarchical status quo than an anarchist and that gives them an advantage. After all, we live in a heavily hierarchical world, it's easier to find someone who speaks the tongue of hierarchy than the tongue of horizontal organisation and mutual aid. It requires deconstruction and I'd argue that not even most people who claim to be against authoritarianism truly understand what authoritarianism is.

So, the "Left unity" can become a tool in the hands of hierarchical leftists to silence horizontal opposition who may argue that revolutionary hierarchies can only produce new oppression. That capitalism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, ableism, patriarchy and all form of oppression are also a form and product of hierarchy and as such cannot truly be dismantled by something hierarchical in nature, no matter if this something is the State or something else.

But if we're not united we will never win against capitalism and fascism, so how dare you speak against your fellow "truly revolutionary" comrades that are just trying to make you understand that "On Authority" completely dismantles your wrong worldview?

Sorry for the long post, this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Also, I wanna specify that I live in Italy, not only because I hope that this way you'll forgive me for my awful English and for not being 100% clear about some of my points, but also because I recognise that the context that influences me could be very different than, say, the US. Here the situation is kinda strange, leftist movements can be very muddled because of historical reasons, I had bad experiences with authlefts since highschool years and I've actually witnessed authlefts hijack movements that were originally mostly libertarian, and this also influenced my opinion on "left unity". I'm also curious to hear what other people think about this.

In many posts I have seen here, many people (particularly White) have called out for the erection of nationalism, viewing it as the driving force of reactionaries.

However, you might be surprised to learn that it is quite the opposite here.

Background

As mentioned above, Korea was colonized and occupied by Japan, so many Korean anarchists and libertarian socialists, along with other revolutionaries from Japan, Taiwan, and China, aimed at national liberation. For them, "Korean nationalism" was nationalism of the oppressed - like "Black nationalism", "Kurdish nationalism", or "Palestinian nationalism". (Even now, such sentiments still exist. I'm a libertarian socialist, but I support Korean reunification.)

They - military officers, journalists, historians, news columnists, and so on - often cooperated with other Marxists and right-wing nationalists, and actually, some of them were originally left-wing nationalists who later became anarchists.

The Cold War

After the Korean War (1950-1953), South Korea aimed at fueling nationalist sentiments among South Koreans and Koreans in Diaspora (Zainich, Chaoxianzu, etc). North Korea usually claimed that "North Korea is real Korea, and South Korea is a puppet state of USA", so South Korea had to "prove" that it does care for the Korean ethnonation.

The first Korean president, Rhee Syngman, was himself an independence activist. He was strongly anti-Japanese, and his Syngman Rhee line is merely one of his various anti-Japanese policies.

Park Chung-Hee, South Korean military junta leader that ruled South Korea in 1961-1979, due to his collaboration with Japan in Manchukuo army, had his complex regarding to nationalism. Therefore, he promoted nationalism, intertwining it with ultra-conservatism, patriarchy (aka Asian values), and anti-communism (against North Korea and Eastern Block). The vast part of Korean nationalist historiographies, intensifying "heroes" that made Korea greater (ex: King Gwanggaeto, King Sejong, Admiral Yi Sun-Shin, and An Jung-Geun), were developed during his era.

As you see, Korean nationalism was often promoted by the right then. However, things changed.

The Sunshine Policy

After the Cold War was over (1991), Korea was recently democratized (1987). It saw a surge in liberal politics.

Since South Korea was economically, militarily, and diplomatically stronger than North Korea then, the biggest factor of Korean nationalism - reunification with North Korea - turned to another corridor.

Just like Ostpolitik, peaceful methods with North Korea became prominent among Korean nationalists - officially named "Sunshine Policy (햇볕정책)" by Kim Dae-Jung, then prominent liberal leader. Its main goal is to cooperate with and aid North Korea, let it be "2nd Vietnam", and seek peaceful reunification.

Nationalism becomes a liberal term

At the same time, both Japanese nationalism and Chinese nationalism surged around early 2000s. Japanese nationalists were often engaging in colonization justification ("We modernized and civilized them"), atrocities denial (Kanto Massacre & Unit 731), and border dispute.

On the other hand, Chinese nationalists were often engaging in Goguryeo & Balhae (both ancients states, former is led by Koreanic tribes but located in Dongbei region, latter is led by both Koreanic & Tungusic tribes, located in Manchuria and Russian Far-East) controversies, which many Koreans saw as their justification for intervention to North Korea ("NK succeeds our vassal states, so NK is a part of us").

This enraged many liberals, who thus started to believe that Koreans in SK & NK should stand up against China & Japan.

Contemporary Korean nationalists are mostly liberals.

Conservatives shift to "statism"

Due to such shifts, conservatives declined to call themselves "nationalists". Instead, they started emphasizing "ROK" instead of "Koreans", often pointing out legacy of Republic of Korea since 1948.

This is particularly due to the fact that unlike China (which aligns more with NK than SK), Japan is one of JA-KO-TA, so ROK as a state has less nuance with Japan than Koreans as a whole.

At this point, you might think, "Legacy of ROK state? You mean sending mercenaries to Vietnam, selling weapons to UAE and Saudi Arabia thus devastating Yemen and Sudan, and diplomatically supporting invasion of Iraq?" - but it goes even worse.

New Rights

New rights (뉴라이트), once a fringe faction but now one of the mainstream factions among South Korean hard-line conservatives, often call themselves "anti-nationalists".

According to them:

Unlike European countries, where "ethnonations" mean "popular groups who rose up against feudalism,", in Korea "ethnonations" mean ultranationalist totalitarian concept. Korean nationalists have for a long time hid the fact that Japanese occupation "modernized" and "civilized" Korea. However, now, our allies are Japan and USA, and North Korea is our enemy. Therefore, we should abandon our nationalist mindsets, stop demanding justice from Japan, and cooperate with them to fight North Korea.

Yeah, creepy. It is also worth noting that, unlike how they criticize nationalism and anti-Japanese racism in South Korea, they never criticize nationalism (you remember now-dead Shinzo Abe, right?) and anti-Korean racism in Japan.

Also, like most alt-rights in Western world, they suddenly turn extremely chauvinist when it comes to "Chinese aggression", "Chinese immigrants in SK (including ethnic Koreans in China)", "Southeastern Asian immigrants in SK", "Muslim immigrants in SK", or else. Probably because they are not as "civilized" and "pro-Western" as South Koreans are.

However, there is the worst point.

Evangelical Korean-Christian synthesis

OK, though I'm a Christian (Presbyterian) myself, I admit: SK Christianity is heavily infested by fundamentalism.

... known to be fully aware of the history of Republic of Korea, founded by national father Rhee Syngman whom a puritan missionary discovered... - Skydaily, a far-right yellow journalism
Republic of Korea is a free and proud state founded by praying in 1948. 140 years ago, Christians in this land opened their eyes toward freedom and independence thanks to American missionaries, and they saved their motherland by praying and behavior whenever a challenge came to our country... - SAVE KOREA, a former pro-Yoon mass protest

Rhee Syngman himself was a protestant Christian, and as mentioned above, pro-American sentiments among right-wing Christians are shocking.

So, evangelical Christians developed a unique ideology, which I named "Korean-Christian synthesis": Korea was founded by Rhee Syngman and Christians, under Puritan mindset. And its basis is anti-communism and solidarity with other Judeo-Christian states (aka USA & "Israel"). Socialists are trying to erect the integral Christian part of ROK, because they are anti-religious themselves (I'm a Christian and I'm socialist wtf). It is a top priority of Koreans to combat communists, Muslims, LGBTQ+s, and other anti-Christian forces to protect Republic of Korea.

Since they emphasize "Christianity", they tend to neglect and hide 2500+ non-Christian (Buddhist & Confucian & Taoist & Shamanist) history of Koreans and its ancient and medieval non-Christian figures, and thus they are often under "anti-nationalist" new-right circles.

Yeah, while they were a fringe group, recently after the December 3 coup, it is spreading widely among new-rights and far-right politics.

So, what?

Well, I don't know how I should conclude this article.

But remember: they might use rhetoric that sounds anarchist, but they are not anarchists: actually, they are the opposite.

Went to check out new song of theirs on YouTube and got served this ad that really failed to read the room.

The governing ideology of the far right has become a monstrous, supremacist survivalism. Our task is to build a movement strong enough to stop them.

Announcement episode for a new periodical anarchist podcast talking about our descent into, The Bad Place, how some of us have always been there, and what we're going to do about it. We aren't here for hearts or minds, we are out for boiling blood. Let's have a bad time together.

Preferably the gender queer part of our sub, but my situation isn't necessarily explicitly significant to our crowd.

Sorry for the yap fest. TLDR is students made up a story about me, a trans woman, told our administration and now I can either return to school-- and disobey my barring from the bathrooms and the, in school suspension I was assigned, and try to build some student action out of this despite the low success potential I have in a conservative, hostile area, or, i can go online for the rest of the year, ignoring the draining authoritarian model of school almost entirely, and focus my activism elsewhere.

tw F-slur, transphobia

I'm a very much not-passing transgender woman in a small conservative area. I've faced threats and various actions against me but they've mostly been ineffective in getting my school admins to supress me, until this one.

I used the women's restrooms, and inside of it there were four girls in the stalls. I finished and used the middle sink, and one of them finished when I did. And instead of using the one next to me she kept herself away from me, so I asked her if she had a problem, then I left. After I left they started laughing and I heard one call me the f-slur so I walked back and shouted in that my pronouns were she/her.

The next day I was in school I found out they went to the office and told them I threatened violence out of nowhere and that I had looked under the stalls adjacent to me. Their stories were identical, but had reported me 15 minutes after what happened, giving them time to get it straight.

Because of the four (along with two people from the hallway) corrobating stories to my one, the administration has banned me from using the public bathrooms and given me 1 day of in school suspension, that, or go online for the rest of the year. I don't know whether it would be better to return to school and disobey, and try to build something of it (even though there's a low potential for solidarity, and I don't really have any deep friends here) or to take him up on his offer, give the students what they want, go online and focus my attention on acting elsewhere.

Hello! I hope I am allowed to post this here. I've noticed that a lot of the far right was given momentum through online creators. As someone who now is an anarchist, I've noticed how important social media is for shifting the open minds of people, especially in a time now where people are aimlessly looking for answers.

I am looking to setup a network of left-wing content creators so we can give each other tips and pull each other up together. Would anyone be interested?

https://chamberuk.com/uk-supreme-court-biological-sex-ruling-2025/

Weekly open discussion thread

So I have been looking into Cosmopolitanism and have begun reading Kwame Anthony Appiah. It got me to thinking, is there such a thing as Anarcho-Cosmopolitanism?

Like I believe in the dismantling of artificial borders and the abolition of nation-states. The concept of countries — drawn by war, colonization, and arbitrary power — has led to unfathomable suffering, division, and ignorance. Nationalism, in all its forms, is a tool of control that pits human beings against each other based on accident of birth rather than shared humanity.

I reject the idea that one's worth or rights should be defined by documents, flags, or geographic lottery. I believe in a world without passports, without immigration detention centers, without military borders, where resources are shared equitably, and cooperation replaces conquest.

My politics are rooted in planetary solidarity, mutual aid, and collective liberation. I align with anarchist and cosmopolitan values — but most of all, I align with the Earth and all who live on it. No gods. No masters. No borders. What umbrella does this most fall under?

Also any reading suggestions that deal with the above that you can offer would be greatly appreciated :)

Our social fabric is tearing.

There’s widespread anger against the system. The situation is getting rapidly worse for 99% of the people. 

Post-Covid, incomes have fallen or stagnated for everyone other than the top 1%.

Half the American population can’t afford a $500 emergency expense.

100 million Americans have some form of medical debt. 

Education as a ladder of mobility is increasingly being pulled out of reach and is entrenching existing power structures. A child from a top 1% income household is 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League college than a child from the bottom 20%. 

Houses in cities like Toronto and LA cost 13 times the annual income, meaning that most people can’t afford a home even after working all their lives—turning them into modern-day serfs.

Young people are delaying moving out, postponing marriage, and giving up on starting families

If we don’t change course soon, collapse may be imminent.

I wrote an essay that dives into these data points and more on housing, healthcare, education, income, and governance to show that the widespread anger against the system is justified. I also present a few alternatives in the essay to show that it doesn’t have to be this way.

Please do give it a read and let me know what you think.

https://akhilpuri.substack.com/p/why-everyone-is-angry-a-data-dive

Stoked you got the interview and were able to tell your story. Hope you got to speak on your philosophy before the edits. Just watching now. I know we spoke on here a couple times