Which instances have the most diverse points of view?

[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

[db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Getting exploited is certainly not socialistic. The fact that things improved compared to feudalism doesn't mean it was socialist, every capitalist state improved over feudalism. They were just worse than others because they were red fascists who ruled with an iron first until they fucked it up so much it collapsed under its own internal contradictions. Like fascists tend to do.

Saying that most people were working for a wage isn't "fringe" it's the goddamn truth. The whip doesn't disappear because it's the people's whip. It's in fact why "aes" is laughable as a goal. "sure let's just do a revolution so I can work for a boss again, because this time it's the peoples boss" said no one ever.

Anarchists have always been betrayed by MLs in revolutionary periods. Always. Cooperating by doing some anarchist direct action in modern capitalist societies isn't changing that.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Not all labor is exploitation, nor is getting paid for labor exploitation. Labor as a commodity purchased for below its value for the purpose of profit is exploitation, but such a system wasn't descriptive of the Soviet or Cuban economies past the NEP. Rather than flowing into the pockets of an owning class like in Feudalism or Capitalism, the social production was channeled into public services, infrastructure, and more. What caused the overall collapse of the economy in the Soviet Union was trying to keep pace with the US millitarily, which required spending a far greater percentage of GDP on Millitary R&D and development.

Further, the absolutely wild jump to fascism is completely divorced from reality. Read Blackshirts and Reds, fascism has served the Bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat and is thoroughly anti-communist. You went from "Anarchism is the only form of Socialism" to an even more absurd "Marxism is fascist."

Moreover, I did not say that AES states don't have wages, I said wage slavery is not the same as getting paid for labor. This is either dishonesty or a genuine misunderstanding on your part.

Anarchists have not always been betrayed, again, the only supporters of the Spanish Anarchists were the Soviets.

[grammarpolice@sh.itjust.works]

Nah bro you definitely also should give yourself some props. You're probably the most ardent Marxist on the fediverse. Even though your contributions may not have reached the heights of db0's you're still quite influential in your sphere iykwim.

You're the father of fediverse Marxism while db0 is the father of fediverse Anarchism.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

I seriously disagree, there are many better than me over on Lemmygrad and Hexbear. I just spend more time on federated instances.

[db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

If you think the anarchists of Spain weren't betrayed and undermined by the Republicans and Stalinists, I don't know what to tell you. Tell yourself what you want but anarchists won't forget next time.

All labor where the workers do not directly and democratically control their output is slavery. The party bureaucracy setting wages, output, managers and destroying the unions and the soviets put exactly wage slavery into practice.

What caused the collapse of theater Soviet union was the internal contradictions of an inherently flawed capitalist system. If the workers had freedom they would have never given it up. But the revolution was betrayed from the start and they never got that freedom.

And yes, leninist/stalinist form of authoritarianism is akin to fascism. It's why anarchists call them red fash. Is that also a new term for you? Look it up someday.

[grammarpolice@sh.itjust.works]

Willingness to engage outside the echo chamber and in good faith makes you better than them in my book