Which instances have the most diverse points of view?

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

and for what belive have you been banned there?

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

lol, china does the same imperialist shit in africa that the west does

[braininabox@lemmy.ml]

For being opposed to western chauvinism.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Not at all correct. China doesn't use debt traps, nor does it focus on exporting Capital in order to produce outside its country lines at lower wages. Rather, it's the opposite, China frequently forgives loans (usually made through State entities and not private corporations and banks) and focuses on commodity exports. To say that China does the "same Imperialism" is factually wrong. There's much that can be correctly criticized about the PRC, but to put it on equal footing with the West with respect to whether it is ultimately playing a predatory or beneficial role is divorced from reality.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

The biggest difference is that Anarchists on Hexbear almost always agree with Lenin's analysis of modern Capitalism in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and further recognize AES states as far better than their Capitalist peers. They often have similar takes as MLs but fundamentally disagree with how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution.

I think it's a bit of an odd take to say that they are isolated from the larger Anarchist movement. Perhaps in the West, I can concede that, but globally? It's the opposite, those Anarchists that support AES over Capitalism and accept Imperialism as a special stage of Monopoly Capitalism are in the majority. I think that your statement is, ironically, a campist one that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of their takes while supporting your own.

For what it's worth, you already know I'm an ML, I can let Anarchists speak for themselves, my being a former Anarchist isn't the same as a current Anarchist giving their POV.

[readmorebooks@lemmy.zip]

Voyager allows blocking of the instance whole while allowing specific communities.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

What is it that you're trying to learn? Like, are you interested in what Communists think? Anarchists? Why? Is the virtue of these POVs being different a fascination of yours, or are you trying to find the correct stance through comparison?

[yogthos@lemmy.ml]

So, what you're actually saying you'd rather live under capitalism because it's not impacting your freedom, and you don't care about others. Meanwhile, claiming that western Germany was economically stronger than the USSR is another example of you being divorced from reality. It's the same sort of logic people applied to modern Russia comparing its GDP to Italy. Now, it turns out Russian industrial production is higher than all of the west combined. This is how capitalism rots people brains, they start thinking imaginary numbers are more important than material reality.

[yogthos@lemmy.ml]

Chinese investment in Africa has had ‘Significant And Persistently Positive’ long-term effects https://www.eurasiareview.com/

[db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

The biggest difference is that Anarchists on Hexbear almost always agree with Lenin's analysis of modern Capitalism in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and further recognize AES states as far better than their Capitalist peers. They often have similar takes as MLs but fundamentally disagree with how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution.

Yes, I am aware that this is what you believe. However I would argue one can't accept "AES" but disagree on "how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution." because what Anarchists want look nothing like those "AES" states, and therefore the paradox.

It's the opposite, those Anarchists that support AES over Capitalism and accept Imperialism as a special stage of Monopoly Capitalism are in the majority.

Utter nonsense. Anarchists which accept Leninist analysis are extraordinarily few.

I think that your statement is, ironically, a campist one that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of their takes while supporting your own.

That's not what campism means.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

I think it's pretty clear that one can accept AES as clear improvements for the conditions of the Working Class as compared to Capitalism, while preferring decentralization and approaches like prefiguration over centralization and public ownership/planning. It isn't a paradox to say "A is bad, B is much better than A, but I ultimately want C."

Further, Lenin's analysis of Imperialism as a special phase in Capitalist development is 100% compatible with Anarchism, as it purely describes Capitalist development and not how to achieve revolution or what a post-revolitionary society should look like. I specifically mentioned analysis of Imperialism and preference of AES over Capitalism, and not Marxist-Leninist analysis of the State, Class, etc, because those aren't compatible with Anarchism. What Lenin outlines in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is a fact that can't be denied. Developed Capitalist countries have seen merging of Banks and Industrialists, resulting in Financial Capital dominating industry, with Monopolies of the few governing the economy and exporting Capital to the Global South in order to super-exploit for super-profits. To deny Imperialism is to deny Colonialism.

We see this alignment of Anarchists globally against Imperialism in societies like the EZLN, which takes much inspiration from Marxism-Leninism with their own characteristics. Those in the Global South are intimately familiar with the mechanisms by which they are exploited and oppressed by the US and Western Europe especially, which is why the Anarchists in the Global South tend to align more with Marxists than Capitalists.

As for Campism, my point is more that you group Anarchists that disagree with you up with Marxists if they recognize the impacts of Western Imperialism and reduce it to Campism. I admit, I could have worded it better, but it's a bad rhetorical trick to deliberately reduce the logical foundations of a position to purely whatever it happens to look like on the outside.

[db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

think it's pretty clear that one can accept AES as clear improvements for the conditions of the Working Class as compared to Capitalism,

That's the thing. Anarchists don't see "aes" as separate from Capitalism. They are capitalism. Just with a red coat off paint. I can accept that their style of state Capitalism may be an improvement in some areas while being a problem in others, much like Nordic social democracies are different from the unrestrained Capitalism of the USA. But none of them is something anarchists truly support. And therefore again, a paradox in your argument.

Further, Lenin's analysis of Imperialism as a special phase in Capitalist development is 100% compatible with Anarchism

Seeing that capitalist nations exploit the poorer ones doesn't require Lenin anyway. This isn't what makes one accept "aes" or the campist mindframre

We see this alignment of Anarchists globally against Imperialism in societies like the EZLN, which takes much inspiration from Marxism-Leninism with their own characteristics. Those in the Global South are intimately familiar with the mechanisms by which they are exploited and oppressed by the US and Western Europe especially, which is why the Anarchists in the Global South tend to align more with Marxists than Capitalists.

Anarchists always fall in the anti capitalistic camp but that's where the alignment is ends. There's no evidence that those in the "global south" are approaching MLs any different than I do.

[pebbles@sh.itjust.works]

Not OP, but personally I think diverse discussion is some of the more important work a person can participate in.

There is too much potential energy in our networks when we don't understand each other, and I support a calm controlled release of that energy. I am scared of how people will leverage that energy at the expense of many.

So I want to exist in a place of diverse thoughts so I can help the world calmy understand itself.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

To claim that publicly owned and planned economies are Capitalist is silly. That either requires believing that states like Cuba and the USSR don't/didn't have public ownership and planning as the dominant factor of political economy, or a belief that Public Ownership and Planning is Capitalist. The former would be a case of historical inaccuracy, the latter is theoretically ridiculous. I believe you are supplanting your own opinions on Socialism onto Anarchists in general, who tend to prefer Anarchism over Marxism due to differences in analysis of the state, not necessarily what is considered Socialist to begin with.

Saying the difference between pubicly owned and planned economies as primary and privately owned and planned economies as primary is simply a "red coat of paint" is a serious analytical failure, you can acknowledge Marxism as Socialist without thinking it better than Anarchism.

Secondly, you're entirely pivoting your point regarding Lenin's Imperialism, I think. Are you acknowledging that you misunderstood what I was talking about, or are you saying Lenin's analysis of Imperialism isn't accurate? Moreover, it isn't just about how more developed Capitalist nations exploit countries in the Global South, it's an analysis that this is the main obstruction of Socialism of any kind, be it Anarchist or Marxist. Further, it's an analysis of Imperialism as the dying stages of Capitalism, as it directly results in inter-Imperialist wars and total folding of every nation under the thumb of Imperialism until nations begin to break free, weakening Imperialism overall.

Finally, I think you need to talk to more Anarchists globally, and not just in the West. The Zapatistas in EZLN openly cite Marxism-Leninism as one of the founding influences of Zapatismo. Historically as well, Marxists such as the Soviets provided material aid to Anarchist revolutionaries. To only claim Anarchists hostile to Marxism as legitimate, and denouncing Anarchists willing to work with Marxists against Capitalism and Imperialism, is a bit chauvanistic.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

That, I think, is only virtuous if misinformation and hateful ideologies like fascism are thoroughly stomped out, rather than platformed. Too many people think themselves knowledgeable enough to speak, yet add to a miasma of misinformation. Moreover, some points of view are friendlier to the ruling class, and therefore get materially boosted via the media and other such mechanisms despite a lack of truth.

[simmy@lemmygrad.ml]

Let's imagine China arming and supporting Mexico's opposition parties that align with China. U.S would go into a fit and invade Mexico instantly. Same has been happening in Ukraine for a decade before the war started. You need to also take in account that Russia has been invaded countless times from western powers. Russia's geography is also mostly flat plains, making it easy to invade Moscow from the west. Historical context need to be taken to account.

[pebbles@sh.itjust.works]

I agree that misinformation gets platformed. And that the information landscape we navigate naturally supports those who own it and have the most powerful megaphones.

I also don't believe that there is a perfect ideology. We would all have to be identical to make a perfect world. Though I do think that by making thoughtful connections we can process the world differently. And that how we see the world is how we navigate it.

Therefore, to be a healthy memeber of society you cannot protect your beliefs from criticism. To navigate a collective world you have to try and see others' maps. Otherwise you'll be baffled by the decisions of others, and you won't be able to communicate about important topics.

So direct, calm and curious conversations with those who disagree are vital to living in harmony. At least in my opinion. I don't think we can guess good enough, I'd rather ask directly.

How do you fight fascism without understanding why it's supporters do what they do?

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

I don't think many people would oppose the virtues of good criticism. That's a core tenant of Marxism-Leninism, in fact (at least, among comrades). I, however, don't really think internet debate is the proper stage for such criticism. Just my 2 cents.

[crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz]

Bored of the truth?

[xavienth@lemmygrad.ml]

The truth? on .world? lmfao