Since Trump, Iâm finding the Lemmy.world experience to be increasingly akin to an echo chamber and itâs quite frankly starting to bore me. (Inb4, Iâm a left winger and I donât like Trump, but Iâm much more interested in a good spirited debate or novel points of view than I am in Orange man bad Nazi circle jerks)
If I wanted the same repetitive comments to be upvoted and any different opinion at all to be downvoted and even blocked/banned, Iâd have just stayed on Reddit.
Are there any instances where different, opposing and novel points of view are celebrated and debated rather than simply derided and downvoted?
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy đ
If your post meets the following criteria, itâs welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
- 0 users online
- 264 users / day
- 972 users / week
- 2.46K users / month
- 5.6K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.07K Posts
- 119K Comments
- Modlog
No single instance has very âbroadâ POVs, however some instances are federated more broadly and thus get more points of view. To that end, Lemm.ee and Lemmy.ml are much more diverse than Lemmy.world, which is defederated from the major instances with large populations of Marxists.
Hexbear and Grad tend to have a lot of Marxist (and Anarchist, in the case of Hexbear) perspectives you arenât really seeing much of on Lemmy.world, which is very âUS Democrat Liberal.â
You arenât going to find anywhere where the virtue of being âdifferentâ is worthy of celebration when it comes to POVs, and I think thatâs a bit of a lost cause. I donât see much value in entertaining the opinions of fascists, as an example.
Thanks for this. Will definitely check out those instances.
No problem! If youâre looking for right-wing viewpoints, you can already see them from a Lemmy.world account, they usually hang out either on Lemmy.world or sh.itjust.works, itâs more the Leftists that Lemmy.world censors from your view.
never seen an anarchist on hexbear tbh, but Iâve been alwaus banned pretty fast for stating my opinions on the state and the ukraine war
Iâve seen many, and Anarchist theory is linked and discussed frequently. Sectarianism is banned, so you havenât likely seen Anarchists getting into fights with Marxists. As for the Ukranian war, Hexbear overall adopts the viewpoint of Leninâs analysis of Imperialism as a special stage in Capitalist development, including the Anarchists, so you likely disagreed on those grounds.
I donât disagree that the us is imperialist, Iâm just saying that itâs also imperialist to invade your neighbors to restore the russian empires western border and increase your sphere of influence
Youâre describing different phenomena under the same title, which only adds confusion and not clarity. You should read Lenin, Imperialism isnât that long and it describes the modern form of Capitalism very accurately. Moreover, I donât really think thatâs an accurate outlook on the Russo-Ukranian war as a motive.
oh, yes I belive it is, why else is russia invading ukraine?
I donât think it makes any real sense to say that itâs about returning to restore a Russian Empireâs borders. From what we know, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between NATO and Russia, and this continued even after Socialism fell, because Russia eventually kicked out the Western Capitalists that bought up and privatized the former state industry. This was accelerated when Ukraine suffered from the Euromaidan coup, and the Russian-speaking areas of Donetsk and Luhansk broke away.
You were almost correct when you said it was to increase their sphere of influence, the goal of Russia is to either assure Ukraineâs neutrality or demilitarize it completely, as NATO has been intentionally encircling Russia and threatening them into opening up and letting the Western Capitalists back in.
Letâs imagine China arming and supporting Mexicoâs 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. Russiaâs geography is also mostly flat plains, making it easy to invade Moscow from the west. Historical context need to be taken to account.
> Letâs imagine China arming and supporting Mexicoâs opposition parties that align with China.
if that happend Iâd support mexico in itâs efforts to ally itself with china (if thatâs what the mexican people want)
> U.S would go into a fit and invade Mexico instantly. Same has been happening in Ukraine for a decade before the war started.
youâre just proving my point here, Russia is just as bad as the US
> You need to also take in account that Russia has been invaded countless times from western powers.
russia in itâs current form hasnât been invaded, except if you count ukraine, but russia invaded ukraine first
> Russiaâs geography is also mostly flat plains, making it easy to invade Moscow from the west. Historical context need to be taken to account.
so I can shoot someone because they have an advantage and COULD hurt me?
Thereâs some peeps who claim theyâre anarchist on hexbear, but end up parroting the same ML-talking points about AES and often have similar toxic behaviour towards those who disagree with the groupthink. If any are there, theyâre basically campists, like the rest. For example of such campist anarchist takes, you can take a look at abolitionmedia. But ultimately these anarchists are pretty isolated from the larger anarchist movement.
The biggest difference is that Anarchists on Hexbear almost always agree with Leninâs 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 itâs 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? Itâs 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 itâs worth, you already know Iâm an ML, I can let Anarchists speak for themselves, my being a former Anarchist isnât the same as a current Anarchist giving their POV.
Yes, I am aware that this is what you believe. However I would argue one canât accept âAESâ but disagree on âhow to structure revolution, and society post-revolution.â because what Anarchists want look nothing like those âAESâ states, and therefore the paradox.
Utter nonsense. Anarchists which accept Leninist analysis are extraordinarily few.
Thatâs not what campism means.
I think itâs 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 isnât a paradox to say âA is bad, B is much better than A, but I ultimately want C.â
Further, Leninâs 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 arenât compatible with Anarchism. What Lenin outlines in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is a fact that canât 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 like denying 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 itâs a bad rhetorical trick to deliberately reduce the logical foundations of a position to purely whatever it happens to look like on the outside.
Thatâs the thing. Anarchists donât see âaesâ 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.
Seeing that capitalist nations exploit the poorer ones doesnât require Lenin anyway. This isnât what makes one accept âaesâ or the campist mindframre
Anarchists always fall in the anti capitalistic camp but thatâs where the alignment is ends. Thereâs no evidence that those in the âglobal southâ are approaching MLs any different than I do.
No I just point that anarchists who hang out in hexbear or which regurgitate ml talking points about being two sides, are just campist. I donât know call critics of Capitalism campsits. I only call campist, campists.
To claim that economies where public ownership and planning is primary are Capitalist is silly. That either requires believing that states like Cuba and the USSR donât/didnât have public ownership and planning as the dominant factor of political economy, or a belief that Public Ownership and Planning as primary 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 âred coat of paintâ is a serious analytical failure, you can acknowledge Marxism as Socialist without thinking it better than Anarchism.
Secondly, youâre entirely pivoting your point regarding Leninâs Imperialism, I think. Are you acknowledging that you misunderstood what I was talking about, or are you saying Leninâs analysis of Imperialism isnât accurate? Moreover, it isnât just about how more developed Capitalist nations exploit countries in the Global South, itâs an analysis that this is the main obstruction of Socialism of any kind, be it Anarchist or Marxist. Further, itâs 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.
Edit: As for the âtwo sides campism is ML,â thatâs just further proving my point, you refuse to look at the internal logic and call things whatever you outwardly see them as, like you did with calling AES âCapitalist.â
Sorry mate but Iâm under no illusions on what those âpublicâ economies truly are. Thereâs a nothing âpublicâ about it anymore than state owned services in capitalisti nations are âpublicâ. When itâs all based on the capitalist mode of production, theyâre not socialist. Theyâre 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 isnât anything noteworthy for anti-capitalist criticism. For certain it doesnât prove that âaesâ states donât 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. Itâs ultimately why even ml âaesâ states couldnât truly work together without friction.
Spare me the chauvinism accusations. Iâm not the trying to co-opt movements with my ideology from afar here.
And yes, me and most anarchists think thereâs something wrong with anarchists who accept ml talking points and collaborate with them after all the historical lessons to the fonttwry. Itâs no wonder that most such anarchists eventually reject anarchism and become MLs as well.
Iâm donât really care to keep belaboring this point though. I wasnât even talking to you. I just wanted to point out that most anarchists outside of hexbear donât 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 havenât witnessed even a single self-assigned anarchist there, except the one person who incidentally was the most toxic of all I encountered.
Abouts campism, I donât ârefuse go look at the internal logicâ. Thatâs just sophistry. I just call a spade, a spade.
Iâm 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 isnât is a fringe position among Anarchists as well as Marxists. Do you have a genuine case to make, or is this a case of âI declared it therefore itâs trueâ things youâve been doing? How were and are these economies based on the Capitalist Mode of Production?
As for Lenin, his analysis of Imperialism doesnât mean AES states cannot practice Imperialism, but at the same time that statement itself is a nothingburger, you arenât 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.
Youâre 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.
Edit: you donât call a spade a spade, though, you call whatever you want whatever you want and donât elaborate on it. Declaring something to be true doesnât make it so.
Cuba, Soviet union, China they all have wage slavery. Ergo theyâre not socialist. Theyâre 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 donât accept âaesâ now and then.
Also, Iâm not here to have a debate with you. You just jumped into my replies. Iâm under no obligation to argue with you rigorously. Hell Iâm just typing on my phone here.
Also I never argued that anarchists canât be influenced by ml theory. That is however much different than wholly accepting talking points about âaesâ 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. Thatâs a lesson that most of us donât 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 Iâve seen this and it only âworksâ because anarchists who are consistent with the larger anarchist theory are labeled âliberalsâ and âwreckersâ and summarily banned.
Can you elaborate on âwage slaveryâ 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-Mâ 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 âwage slaveryâ isnât accurate, itâs fringe.
You arenât under an obligation to debate me, sure. Iâm not demanding you debate me, youâre 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.
Iâm 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.
The two juggernauts going head to headđđ
Lmao, I think considering me a âjuggernautâ is very funny, Iâm just a dude online that happens to take Marxism seriously. Db0 has a bigger claim to that mantle considering they do a ton of good work on the Piracy and FOSS front, which I respect a good deal, even if their theoretical analysis and knowledge of Marxism is severely lacking.
Nah bro you definitely also should give yourself some props. Youâre probably the most ardent Marxist on the fediverse. Even though your contributions may not have reached the heights of db0âs youâre still quite influential in your sphere iykwim.
Youâre the father of fediverse Marxism while db0 is the father of fediverse Anarchism.
I seriously disagree, there are many better than me over on Lemmygrad and Hexbear. I just spend more time on federated instances.
Willingness to engage outside the echo chamber and in good faith makes you better than them in my book
Iâd say thatâs more of an energy consumption and willpower thing than being a âfather of Marxismâ for the fediverse. Further, @dessalines@lemmy.ml would have that title anyways as the lead dev of Lemmy itself. I wouldnât call the Marxist instances âecho chambers,â living in Capitalist countries in general are already echo chambers, itâs the Marxist communities that challenge the echo chamber.
As a side note, did you read Blackshirts and Reds?
Not brođ
And by so doing become echo chambers of their critiques. Anywhere on the internet that is saturated with those who think alike is an echo chamber.
I read a bit. I havenât really been able to get through it cuz i have exams coming up. So i should get to it when those are over.
Donât know what youâre saying about Dessalines.
As for âecho chambers,â they donât exist devoid of context. An âecho chamberâ mirroring the positions of the status quo upholds it, while one going against the grain disrupts the status quo. They arenât equally âecho-y.â
Good on you for starting Blackshirts and Reds, good luck on your exams!
Iâm saying bro is not all that.
They may not be equally echoey but theyâre still quite echoey and often deafeningly so.
Thanks!
Getting exploited is certainly not socialistic. The fact that things improved compared to feudalism doesnât 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 isnât âfringeâ itâs the goddamn truth. The whip doesnât disappear because itâs the peopleâs whip. Itâs in fact why âaesâ is laughable as a goal. âsure letâs just do a revolution so I can work for a boss again, because this time itâs the peoples bossâ 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 isnât changing that.
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 wasnât 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 âAnarchism is the only form of Socialismâ to an even more absurd âMarxism is fascist.â
Moreover, I did not say that AES states donât 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.
If you think the anarchists of Spain werenât betrayed and undermined by the Republicans and Stalinists, I donât know what to tell you. Tell yourself what you want but anarchists wonât 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. Itâs why anarchists call them red fash. Is that also a new term for you? Look it up someday.
It was actually a Trotskyist faction, itself against AES, that led to a breakdown between the Anarchists and Marxists in Spain. The Marxists remained the only supporters of the Anarchists. Seems you did forget.
As for âslavery,â by this definition taxes are slavery and public services are slavery. Marx already went over how workers cannot own all of that which they create in Socialism directly, as from a given workerâs production needs to be deducted necessary maintenance of administration, social services, and more in Critique of the Gotha Programme. By your definition, Socialism is slavery. Further still, the Soviets were never disbanded, and there were still Unions. Your history is off again.
What âcontradictionsâ do you believe led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? How was the revolution âbetrayed?â What âfreedomsâ did the workers give up? This is all vague and vibes-based.
You still didnât elaborate on how Marxism is âakin to fascism.â Iâm aware of the term âred-fash,â itâs a ridiculous term and I linked you a book thoroughly explaining why. I canât force you to read it, nor can I force you to make a coherent point.
Your constant insistence that Iâm incoherent is acerbic and I have no patience for it.
For anyone else still reading, I suggest you go and read anarchist accounts of why they feel theyâre constantly betrayed by MLs in russia and kronstadt, Ukraine, Spain and petty much everywhere they made the mistake to ally with the mls for the sake of the revolution. Sorry but I donât have the time to counter revisionism in lemmy
Fair enough, but I think that goes both ways. You usually make a claim, then when pressed act vague about it. I admire your work on the Piracy communities and your FOSS development quite a bit, but I donât think you act honestly when it comes to political conversations, such as jumping to labeling Marxists âfascistâ without elaborating.
Also kinda silly to bring up Kronstadt, which was led by a Tsarist in the middle of a civil war, with plans to execute the Communists.
Yes yes we know the lies told about it. Again, people can go and read on their own about the slaughter of anarchists that happened there.
I didnât call Marxists fascists. I called Leninâs and Stalinâs regime red fash.
And I donât act vague, I just donât have the patience to reopen 100 old debates
âLies?â Itâs on Wikipedia, lol. As for Marxism, I genuinely donât know what mythical form of Marxism you think is ârealâ Marxism in your eyes, again, read Blackshirts and Reds.
Links to Wikipedia Wikipedia talks about an anarcho syndicalist. Whatever man
Edit : lol you reported me
An âanarcho-syndicalistâ that a year prior tried to join the White Army, and a year after did join the White Army. Some âanarchist.â
And that supports your argument how exactly? Oh no! Humans are flawed and can make weird decisions after massive trauma? Not to be mention 1 man is not all sailors. Quickly grasp at the first excuse to validate your slaughter. As red Emma said at the time, âTrotsky protests too muchâŚâ
To anyone still reading, this sort of truth stretching to defend the indefensible is why I donât trust campists
Youâre defending a Tsarist that tried to deliberately sabotage the Soviets during a bloody Civil War, and later joined the Tsarist army as a means to kill more Soviets, as âweird decisions after massive trauma?â Wonât anyone think of the poor, poor Tsarists, woe are theyâŚ
To mirror you: To anyone still reading, this sort of truth stretching to defend the indefensible is why I donât trust campists
Keep protesting too much as well. No anarchists believes this garbage but we remember and we learnedâŚ
I just want to point out how thoroughly dominated you were in this argument. Your ability to argue a point is almost as feeble as your historical understanding of socialism.
I wasnât trying to win an argument. I was posting on my phone. Stop taking the internet so seriously that you think this shit matters.
âHaha, I was just posting! Not arguing! Stop taking the 20 serious comments I made seriously!!â
more like right wing trolls
Why would a supposed group of right-wingers host Mutual Aid communities to help those in need, reading groups for Leftist theory from Marx to Lenin to Goldman and even feminist thinkers like Bell Hooks and trans activists like Leslie Feinberg, maintain millitantly defensive moderation principles to protect their large and active trans userbase, and do so for years without ever federating, and only remaining selectively federated with other instances?
Nobody has ever managed to answer that question any time they make that claim. Do you legitimately think itâs all an ironic bit purely for each other?
A better question is which instances have dominant points of view that actually align with the material reality we inhabit. Difference of opinion is only valuable when the opinion is grounded in factual understanding of the real world. Itâs valuable to have different views and interpretation of the facts, but if a view is divorced from reality then itâs just noise.
just like vanguardism
Can you elaborate?
I donât like the state and like the idea of a vanguard party even less and I belive that user to be vanguardist
thank you for providing an example of dialogue thatâs detached from reality
so you are not a vanguardist?
or am I wrong about vanguardism being bad?
please elaborate
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. Itâs quite telling that this ideology exists primarily in the western imperial core.
no, I just think that freedom is more important than defeating capitalism
Iâd 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)
I think drawing a line between a vague notion of âfreedomâ and what existed in AES without doing any of the work to back that up makes little sense. Further, I think trying to say Western Germany, which was highly developed and already one of the most Imperialist countries on the planet at the turn of the 20th century was stronger economically than the USSR, which started the 20th century as a mostly undeveloped agrarian society just beginning Capitalism, is ridiculous.
Thatâs like comparing someone who worked daily for what they accomplished for themselves with the Trust Fund kid who got a job at his fatherâs investment firm.
Moreover, the USSR had constant and stable economic growth for its entire existence, and one of the highest rates of growth on the planet, while doing 80% of the combat in WWII and providing free education, healthcare, retirement, doubling life expectancies, and more.
Typical westerner living off the people of the global southâs labor
Of course you dont want change with your fuck you got mine attitude
lol, china does the same imperialist shit in africa that the west does
Not at all correct. China doesnât use debt traps, nor does it focus on exporting Capital in order to produce outside its country lines at lower wages. Rather, itâs 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 âsame Imperialismâ is factually wrong. Thereâs 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.
Chinese investment in Africa has had âSignificant And Persistently Positiveâ long-term effects https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022021-chinese-investment-in-africa-has-had-significant-and-persistently-positive-long-term-effects-despite-controversy/
here, read the chapter criticism and tell me everything Iâm wrong about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-African_relations
Study after study shows that Chinaâs involvement in Africa has measurable positive impact, but here you are with your wikipedia link acting like you have a clue
Cope
howâs that a cope? Iâm against the US and china
thatâs because youâre an ignoramus
ok, why did I expect an actual argunent?
Because youâre a debate bro who wastes other peopleâs time arguing about subjects you have no clue about. If you want people to take you seriously spend a bit time educating yourself instead of speaking out of ignorance.
âNeither washington nor beijing, but washingtonâ
So, what youâre actually saying youâd rather live under capitalism because itâs not impacting your freedom, and you donât care about others. Meanwhile, claiming that western Germany was economically stronger than the USSR is another example of you being divorced from reality. Itâs 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.
> So, what youâre actually saying youâd rather live under capitalism because itâs not impacting your freedom
thatâs wrong, I belive that I have more freedom in (unregulated) capitalism thatâs not state backed, than in a one party system without democratic principles
> and you donât care about others.
thatâs not true, I want others to be as free as I am
> Meanwhile, claiming that western Germany was economically stronger than the USSR is another example of you being divorced from reality.
youâre literally making this up, I sayed that western germany was ALMOST as economicaly strong as the entire ussr, which is true
> Itâs 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.
first source I found: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Industry
this says something completely different
> This is how capitalism rots people brains, they start thinking imaginary numbers are more important than material reality.
so at first: you were wrong, but you also were double wrong, because even if russia did produce more than the US thereâs still the question of what to be made and for whom, russia probably produces more war assets rn, and that isnât necessarily a good thing, since they now can produce less of stuff the people actually need (that statement itself wouldnât be true if the russian economy was growing and they were exporting their war assets, but the opposite is the case, they produce the war assets to burn them on the battlefield and their economy also isnât looking good)
All capitalism is state backed, by definition.
uhm nope it isnât, in fact a lot of economists are against the state (eg: ludwig van mises)
also everything is bad when state backed imo, even communism
or as I tend to say:âI like my communism the same way I like my toilet: without the state watching over itâ
I donât think using the guy who thought economic planning was impossible because thereâs no way an individual person can plan an entire economy by themselves is a good representation of a valid viewpoint. Like, Mises had a comedically awful conception of Socialist economics from square one.
As for Communism, the State can only be abolished fully when class antagonisms are abolished, and such a status can only occur when everyone across the globe equally owns all property across the globe (or as close to that as is possible). Until then, however, there will be classes, and thus a state, so you canât just get rid of the state outright unless you wish to return to hunter-gatherer style economics, or if you are okay with classes in your conception of Communism by turning everyone into petite bourgeoisie, equal owners but within their own communes exclusively.
Capitalism canât even exist without the state to enclose the commons and maintain and enforce the legal framework of private property.
Yet, you do not believe in effective ways of organizing and actually challenging the system. So, really you believe in perpetuating the system while paying lip service to the idea of change.
You clearly donât since you reject practical methods that have been proven that free people from capitalism.
Itâs not true, and never has been true in any meaningful sense.
and yet https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Meanwhile in the real world, Russian economy is booming, and the World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/world-bank-country-classifications-by-income-level-for-2024-2025
The IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/17/russia-forecast-to-grow-faster-than-advanced-economies-in-2024-imf.html
Thanks for providing further evidence of you being utterly divorced from reality.
Itâs detached from reality because youâre just randomly chucking in some political terms you learned on reddit under an unrelated comment thinking itâs some kind of slam-dunk.
no, I know what a vanguard party is and that I donât support it, now weâre arguing about why I donât support it
What do you think the âStateâ 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 canât 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 âdetached from realityâ is wrong, there is clear theoretical and historical evidence for the practicality and effectiveness of Vanguard parties.
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
Whatâs your proposed solution? You canât force everyoneâs political knowledge to being fully equal, so there will be a vanguard whether you formalize and democratize it or let it form naturally and behind closed doors. Further, you canât get rid of both class and hierarchy without returning to tribal forms of hunter-gatherer societies, large industry requires administration. A horizontal network of communes retains classes by turning everyone into petite bourgeoisie, so you either want to abolish hierarchy, class, or industry.
if I had to choose Iâd rather end all hirarchy
Okay, so how are you doing that without a vanguard forming? Intentional or not, there will be differences in political knowledge and organizational skill. Do you formalize it? Let it form?
Imagine your issue with .world being that itâs too left-wing
Iâd be getting bored if it was an echo chamber of any flavour.
As Iâve said in other comments, Iâm here to learn and part of that means exposing myself to people that do not think alike to me. Iâm not hear to circle jerk about how right we are, maybe that was fun the first few thousand times, itâs just boring now.
Ideally Iâd like to get involved with a broad spectrum of people that somewhat represent the society that we live in.
Maybe I should just get offline and go to the pub.
What is it that youâre 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?
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 donât 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.
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. Whatâs dominant rarely correlates with what is true.
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 donât 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 othersâ maps. Otherwise youâll be baffled by the decisions of others, and you wonât 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 donât think we can guess good enough, Iâd rather ask directly.
How do you fight fascism without understanding why itâs supporters do what they do?
I donât think many people would oppose the virtues of good criticism. Thatâs a core tenant of Marxism-Leninism, in fact (at least, among comrades). I, however, donât really think internet debate is the proper stage for such criticism. Just my 2 cents.
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.
Register and account on another instance that passes the litmus test of federation with .ml and hexbear. Block .world on that new account. Donât block all those instances .world told you to blindly hate.
This.
The leftist instances have a good mix of leftists and liberals that are brave enough to do what theyâre told not to do.
Iâm about to say the same thing differently.
Eliminating .world filters the majority of the propaganda and bad faith users. What remains is leftist because once we pierce through the propaganda and bad faith, we all agree that left is human.
Weâve three core groups: social democrats, authoritarian socialists & communists, and libertarian socialists & communists. Each focuses on a different part of our timeline. Respectively: the present, the means to overcome the human paradigm, and the ideal solution as we understand it.
Edit: I left out anarchists, whom are often my favorite group. They never get the respect they deserve. I apologize for contributing to that.
Thereâs communities I like on .world, so I just ban the most insufferable users and comms.
Voyager allows blocking of the instance whole while allowing specific communities.
deleted by creator
You might be better off looking for a community where the moderation optimizes for that kind of discussion (ex. Removing low effort comments, requiring citations, academic oriented, etc). Itâs harder to find an entire instance that matches those points, but there should be a few communities like that
Then you can use the subscribed feed only, or block the communities you donât like
Closest I can think of is Hexbearâs News Megathread, but it isnât really for debate, just analysis of current events. Is there a comm like that elsewhere?
Gotta second this, itâs a little hard to find from a separate instance- you need to go to /c/news@hexbear.net and pick it from the pinned threads
The mega access was one of the biggest factors in making a Hexbear account for me, to be honest. A lot of great info in them (plus I like the casual chatting format of the general mega when I donât want to make a full post).
Thatâs a good idea!
i agree with this
i started a free speech community and theres no downvoting allowed which encourages healthy arguing instead of comments just getting buried in downvotes or removed
Which one is it?
not telling
If by âdiverseâ you mean âhas western conservativesâ, then considering how the entire concept of the fediverse is progressive, youâre not going to find many of them here. On Reddit, thereâs r/AskPolitics which overall leans liberal and is US centric but is more open to discussion than other subreddits. Thereâs some other debate subreddits as well which you might be interested in. Theyâre helpful for developing political views, but after that hearing the same BS from people who have fundamentally different values gets tiring and people leave so thatâs why there arenât many of those spaces.
If youâre open to other viewpoints that are opposed to both Republican and Democrat, leftist instances like lemmy.ml, Hexbear, Lemmygrad, and dbzer0 have that, and they can have very different stances on other issues as well (i.e. Lemmygrad vs dbzer0). They can still be echo-chambery (which is hard to avoid) but they also tend to have more users that are interested in intellectual debate.
As far as what instance actually has the most diverse points of view, Iâd say lemm.ee which federates with basically everybody and Iâve seen users there from all over the political spectrum. However, thereâs isnât much in terms of political discussion there compared to other instances.
Is db0 left wing? I felt like they lean closer to .world than left.
They claim to be anarchist and Iâve seen a lot of users from there criticize Democrats, although they hate Marxists also, so Iâm not sure. Theyâre also one of the few instances that federates with Hexbear, but they do block Lemmygrad.
They try to be anarchists but theyâre mostly from western countries so they have permanent programming they refuse to shake off (i.e. calling anyone that doesnât think eurocentric anarchism is the only real left wing ideology a tankie.). Compared to .worldâs Hillary Clinton though theyâre like Marx.
The only important thing, really, is that the instance you choose doesnât defederate with other instances for political reasons (except being literal Nazi instances). I find that lemm.ee users have a good mix of political expression ranging from Marxists to Moderate Conservatives. An account there, on lemmy.zip, or lemmy.ml is probably your best bet.
Yep, as long as you donât visit âlocalâ and no instances are defederated, you simply get the whole fediverse, there isnât any other experience available at that point.
Well, one other thing is that instances will only fetch content from communities that at least one instance member is subscribed to. Every instance will have a slightly different selection of content because of what communities the existing members have subscribed to (and larger instances will typically have a broader selection of content, because they have more users).
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, strategyâŚetc) Iâd 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 youâre aware of which kind of discussion youâve more tolerance for youâre good, but whether itâs tolerance for the occasional black crime rate statistic or an esoteric graph of the falling rate of profit, youâre not likely to find a space that has both.
In general Iâd go with Cowbeeâs recommendations though (for something thatâs still obviously fairly leftwing)
db0 is federated with world hexbear beehaw ml and many others.
Not with Lemmygrad, though, so if their goal is to be as broad as possible dbzer0 doesnât cut it.
What kind of diversity of thought are you looking for?
Could you give an example?
Is there an intellectually honest point of view that Donald Trump isnât a fascist?
I donât think heâs a fascist necessarily, although he is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist. So that makes him⌠oh.
I think you are going to have a hard time finding a place to talk with a group that overall deals in bad faith arguments and hate speech. They also tend to silo themselves off to their own platforms over concerns that their hate speech gets them moderated (because Free Speech != does not mean speech without consequences or needs to be tolerated by everyone).
If you really want to see the MAGA âpoint of viewâ you are probably better off going to them on Truth Social, Gab, 4chan, The_Donald, etc.
This is kind of the derision that Iâm talking about. (I am assuming that you are talking about the right wing). Whilst there is some truth to it, you disagreeing with them or their arguments doesnât mean that it isnât interesting, or worthy of discussion or debate.
I do agree that hate speech should be banned and that isnât what Iâm interested in.
Iâm not interested in the MAGA point of view per se, Iâm interested in a diverse spectrum of ideas and opinions that reflect a real cross section of society, where undoubtedly some of them will be MAGA people. Whereas there is a very strong left leaning bias here.
.world is very liberal, it isnât really accurate to call it âleft leaning.â You arenât going to find many MAGA people on the fediverse.
In the UK there is some similarity between liberal and left wing ideas, despite them being distinct political groups. Liberalism was originally seen as very left wing, a lot of people are now arguing that there is more in common with right wing politics, small state and such.
Iâd say my experience here has been much more left wing than liberal though, just my opinion.
Liberalism was only âleftâ when Capitalism was progressive, which was only true in comparison to Monarchism and Feudalism. Liberalism is a firmly Capitalist ideology, while Socialism is leftist.
The issue is that you canât have discussion or debate with:
So the issue is once you have removed those, you arenât left with many people holding a very broad spectrum of viewpoints outside of niche topics (Vi vs Emacs).
Itâs extremely big headed to think that only the people who agree with you are arguing honestly and have not based their arguments on any incorrect information.
Iâm here to learn and grow, not to circle jerk with my friends about how right we are.
I donât think itâs always a difficult task to tell if someone is arguing in bad faith or not, and someone basing their argument on incorrect information is not that (and I assume you know that). So trying to say that I see a mere disagreement on a topic the same as one made in bad faith sounds like youâre trying to conflate the two, making it a bad faith argument.
But if pretending a âdifference of opinion = bad faith argumentâ is what youâre looking for I guess good luck. That is what I would call a âcircle jerkâ, but to each their own. Not sure how that type of discussion with no basis in reality can help anyone to âlearn and growâ though.
It seems like you donât realize that the world is extremely polarized. Itâs not just Lemmy.
Do people do good, spirited debates anymore? Most of what I see would be more akin to wrestling a pig.
Debating online is largely useless for convincing the other party. Sometimes onlookers learn, but if itâs a debate neither party usually concedes. Education works, ie someone asking for more information, but thatâs about it.
We have to be the change we want to see
No.
E: okay, itâs not fair to just tell you the answer when youâre already broadcasting a desire to read a bunch of stuff so here goes:
If you want to see analysis and consideration of the right from an outside perspective you ought to be on hexbear or grad. Both instances donât have near as many sky is falling posts or comments and trend towards figuring out why something is happening within the framework of doctrinaire Marxism Leninism or imperialism or at least what should be done to mitigate the effects rather than having a big ol hissy fit over it.
If, as is implied by your post and comments (â good spirited debateâ, â opposing and novelâ, celebrated and debatedâ, â worthy of discussion or debateâ), you just wanna see people fight each other online then check out reddit, x (the everything app) and facebook where that happens often.
If you have, and this is a reach, the desire to understand people who you think are on that right wing spectrum around you in real life, go talk to them. People love telling you what they think and when they donât itâs because they know something you donât or theyâre up to something.
Your best bet is to be in a lot of instances. My experiences so far is that basically any singular instance has its biasâ, and while some unapologetically ban users for disagreeing with them, the ones that donât still down vote for disagreeing with them.
While one of these forms of censorship is worse than the other, itâs all censorship, and the only way to see a variety of views is to stay in the varying instances.
The point of the fediverse is to give people the option to create communities by themselves and not be subject to the ruling of one central allmighty entity. If someone does not like one community they have the chance to create their own with their own rules. This means people can decide for themselves what content they want in their community. However people coming from traditional social media seem to mistake this kind of freedom with not needing to follow any rules but thatâs not how it works.
Same goes for countries. Big ones cause problems IMO
Small, niche communities, and unfortunately youâll probably need to know what ideas youâre interested in ahead of time to get there.
People with intelligent but divergent ideas are always outnumbered by people pushing an agenda, and they end up getting moderated together because itâs hard to superficially know the difference.
Note that itâs entirely possible to have an echo chamber thatâs divergent from bigger echo chambers, and thatâs were a lot of people are pointing you, because of the instance you asked on.
I have an alt on .ca, I find thereâs a pretty good mix of beliefs there. And a fair number less tankies than where this alt Iâm on isâŚ