Which instances have the most diverse points of view?

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Can you elaborate?

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Blahaj takes an openly anti-Marxist stance, at minimum.

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

I don't like the state and like the idea of a vanguard party even less and I belive that user to be vanguardist

[yogthos@lemmy.ml]

thank you for providing an example of dialogue that's detached from reality

[dawnglider@lemmy.ml]

Perhaps surprisingly when it comes to breaking the echo chamber and having diverse political points of view and approaches (on subjects like identity politics, intersectionality, geo politics, organization building, strategy...etc) I'd say even ML circles have a lot more of that than just vaguely leftist safe liberal stances (at the very least they might have novel ideas and no orange man bad meme).

If you want more diversity of opinions you can expand in different directions, but I hardly see what good would be a place that has both fascists and anti-fascists for example and most of us are tired of picking internet fights. I suppose as long as you're aware of which kind of discussion you've more tolerance for you're good, but whether it's tolerance for the occasional black crime rate statistic or an esoteric graph of the falling rate of profit, you're not likely to find a space that has both.

In general I'd go with Cowbee's recommendations though (for something that's still obviously fairly leftwing)

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

I don't disagree that the us is imperialist, I'm just saying that it's also imperialist to invade your neighbors to restore the russian empires western border and increase your sphere of influence

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

don't really think so, I've seen pretty much any form of leftists over there, tho they will disagree with you regarding genocide acusations in china

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

What do you think the "State" is? Marxists and Anarchists generally disagree on what constitutes the state, Marxists see it as a tool of class oppression and Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy. Neither Marxists nor Anarchists seek to perpetuate the State.

As for a Vanguard, all that means is the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. Since political knowledge is unequal, there will always be more and less advanced among a class, whether you formalize it into a party or not. The consequences of refusing to formalize this difference means you can't democratize it or protect against bad actors, a problem elaborated on in The Tyranny of Structurelessness.

Furthermore, there is historical proof of the effectiveness of Vanguard parties in establishing Socialism and improving the lives of the Working classes, from the peasantry to the proletariat. Calling such a strategy "detached from reality" is wrong, there is clear theoretical and historical evidence for the practicality and effectiveness of Vanguard parties.

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

so you are not a vanguardist?

or am I wrong about vanguardism being bad?

please elaborate

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Usually blahaj has liberals and US Empire-friendly Anarchists. There aren't really any Marxists I've seen in any significant numbers, and 196 maintains anti-Marxist rules.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

You're describing different phenomena under the same title, which only adds confusion and not clarity. You should read Lenin, Imperialism isn't that long and it describes the modern form of Capitalism very accurately.

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

I actually belive the state in its current form to be a tool of economical, personal and class opression

and I belive no state can exist without at least 2 of the above, but I want none of the above

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

What's your proposed solution?

[yogthos@lemmy.ml]

You are wrong about vanguarism being bad because history clear shows that it is the most reliable method for actually combating capitalism. Anarchists refuse to accept this basic reality and continue advocating approaches that have failed time and again for over a century now. It's quite telling that this ideology exists primarily in the western imperial core.

[felixcress@lemmy.world]

i started a free speech community

Which one is it?

[chadmctruth@lemmy.world]

not telling

[communism@lemmy.ml]

Imagine your issue with .world being that it's too left-wing

[communism@lemmy.ml]

It's detached from reality because you're just randomly chucking in some political terms you learned on reddit under an unrelated comment thinking it's some kind of slam-dunk.

[electric_nan@lemmy.ml]

There's communities I like on .world, so I just ban the most insufferable users and comms.

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

no, I just think that freedom is more important than defeating capitalism

I'd rather take my hrt, guns and free speech over a vanguard, sorry

also see how it has worked in russia, how the soviet union has defeated capitalism and how capitalist western germany was almost economically stronger than the entire ussr (including eastern germany)