Which instances have the most diverse points of view?

[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

[db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Sorry mate but I'm under no illusions on what those "public" economies truly are. There's a nothing "public" about it anymore than state owned services in capitalisti nations are "public". When it's all based on the capitalist mode of production, they're not socialist. They're at best social democracies which is why they are all just continuing the same capitalist degeneration.

About Lenin, I am saying that his analysis of capitalist exploitation between nations isn't anything noteworthy for anti-capitalist criticism. For certain it doesn't prove that "aes" states don't engage in exactly the same imperialism just because they call themselves by a different name. Hierarchies are always going to fight other hierarchies to come out on top. It's ultimately why even ml "aes" states couldn't truly work together without friction.

Spare me the chauvinism accusations. I'm not the trying to co-opt movements with my ideology from afar here.

And yes, me and most anarchists think there's something wrong with anarchists who accept ml talking points and collaborate with them after all the historical lessons to the fonttwry. It's no wonder that most such anarchists eventually reject anarchism and become MLs as well.

I'm don't really care to keep belaboring this point though. I wasn't even talking to you. I just wanted to point out that most anarchists outside of hexbear don't see much anarchist potential there. What we see is people who surround themselves in authoritarian rhetoric due to all the other benefits the space has and eventually get converted to pure authleft, or campism. I personally haven't witnessed even a single self-assigned anarchist there, except the one person who incidentally was the most toxic of all I encountered.

[pebbles@sh.itjust.works]

Yeah at the end of the day I can agree. You need to be in a pretty remote alcove to not get trolled. It can end up as a big waste of time.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

I'm going to need you to elaborate on what you mean by, say, Cuba not having public ownership. Who do you think owns industry? This is a very silly argument to be having, we can see in Capitalist economies like the US that the Public Sector is used to subsidize and support the interests of the Private Sector, whereas in Cuba, the USSR, etc industry was run and planned publicly. There is a world of difference and pretending there isn't is a fringe position among Anarchists as well as Marxists. Do you have a genuine case to make, or is this a case of "I declared it therefore it's true" things you've been doing?

As for Lenin, his analysis of Imperialism doesn't mean AES states cannot practice Imperialism, but at the same time that statement itself is a nothingburger, you aren't backing up any of your assertions.

As for claims of chauvanism, I was speaking of your attitude with respect to Anarchists in the Global South. The Zapatistas, the largest and biggest example of working Anarchism, openly state that Zapatismo was influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Anarchists in Spain were materially backed by the Soviets. Anti-Marxist Anarchists have gotten into conflict with Marxists, but this is not a rule about Anarchism nor Marxism.

You're allowed to have your opinion on the Anarchists of Hexbear, but I think you have a bad habit of asserting your opinion as a Western Anarchist as the Anarchist opinion, and I believe this clouds your judgement greatly.

[db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Cuba, Soviet union, China they all have wage slavery. Ergo they're not socialist. They're just state capitalist, where the state apparatus is the capitalist and the party is the bourgeoisie. Which is why all these nations just keep doing capitalist shit. I assure you, the concept of state Capitalism is not fringe among anarchists so I would suggest you talk to some anarchists who don't accept "aes" now and then.

Also, I'm not here to have a debate with you. You just jumped into my replies. I'm under no obligation to argue with you rigorously. Hell I'm just typing on my phone here.

Also I never argued that anarchists can't be influenced by ml theory. That is however much different than wholly accepting talking points about "aes" which is anathema to anarchists. However I would argue that every time anarchists collaborated with MLs under the banner of" left unity", they got betrayed. That's a lesson that most of us don't forget.

Finally, I speak only for myself and from my experience with a lot of anarchists, and MLs, and trots, and hardcore stalinists. The idea that anarchists collaborate with ml irl, is fucking laughable and would get you laughed out of any anarchist squat or communist party meeting in Greece. Hexbear is the first time I've seen this and it only "works" because anarchists who are consistent with the larger anarchist theory are labeled "liberals" and "wreckers" and summarily banned.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Can you elaborate on "wage slavery" and how such a term applies to AES states? Getting paid for labor is not anti-Socialist. Further, pretending government is a Capitalist and that the parties are distinct from the working class, and moreover are the actual owners of the economy, is ridiculous. Using the USSR as an example, wealth disparity shrank massively, the top of society earned around 10 times as much as the bottom, as opposed to well into the hundreds as was standard before and after Socialism. If they constituted an owning class, they sure sucked at it.

The real political economy was not based on an M-C-M' circuit founded for the profits of party officials, but a Socialist economy based on public ownership and planning, which resulted in working class victories like free healthcare and education, large scale infrastructure, and early retirement ages. Saying any Mode of Production with wages has "wage slavery" isn't accurate, it's fringe.

You aren't under an obligation to debate me, sure. I'm not demanding you debate me, you're under no obligation to continue. I replied to your original comment as I am free to in order to offer perspective as someone that spends time on Hexbear.

Saying every time Anarchists worked with Marxists they get betrayed is not historically accurate either, there are many cases of alliances that achieve good results. Usually conflict arises if one faction millitantly opposes the other, which was frequently done by the Anarchists as the Marxists usually had more support among the public.

I'm not Greek, nor do I think Greece is the sole authority on the merits of leftist collaboration. I know for a fact that they have historically worked together and do continue to, not all the time of course, but frequently.

[olpatchy2eyes@slrpnk.net]

I think Lemmy is at an all-time low for patience towards non-conformist opinions due to recent events being... upsetting. Give it some time and folks will be more willing to consider other ideas i think

[grammarpolice@sh.itjust.works]

The two juggernauts going head to head

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Lmao, I think considering me a "juggernaut" is very funny, I'm just a dude online that happens to take Marxism seriously