You’re 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 “weird decisions after massive trauma?” Won’t anyone think of the poor, poor Tsarists, woe are they…

To mirror you: To anyone still reading, this sort of truth stretching to defend the indefensible is why I don’t trust campists

An “anarcho-syndicalist” that a year prior tried to join the White Army, and a year after did join the White Army. Some “anarchist.”

“Lies?” It’s on Wikipedia, lol. As for Marxism, I genuinely don’t know what mythical form of Marxism you think is “real” Marxism in your eyes, again, read Blackshirts and Reds.

Don’t know what you’re saying about Dessalines.

As for “echo chambers,” they don’t exist devoid of context. An “echo chamber” mirroring the positions of the status quo upholds it, while one going against the grain disrupts the status quo. They aren’t equally “echo-y.”

Good on you for starting Blackshirts and Reds, good luck on your exams!

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 don’t think you act honestly when it comes to political conversations, such as jumping to labeling Marxists “fascist” 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.

I’d say that’s more of an energy consumption and willpower thing than being a “father of Marxism” for the fediverse. Further, @dessalines@lemmy.ml would have that title anyways as the lead dev of Lemmy itself. I wouldn’t call the Marxist instances “echo chambers,” living in Capitalist countries in general are already echo chambers, it’s the Marxist communities that challenge the echo chamber.

As a side note, did you read Blackshirts and Reds?

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 “slavery,” 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 worker’s 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 “contradictions” do you believe led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? How was the revolution “betrayed?” What “freedoms” did the workers give up? This is all vague and vibes-based.

You still didn’t elaborate on how Marxism is “akin to fascism.” I’m aware of the term “red-fash,” it’s a ridiculous term and I linked you a book thoroughly explaining why. I can’t force you to read it, nor can I force you to make a coherent point.

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

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.

Lmao, I think considering me a “juggernaut” is very funny, I’m 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.

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.

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? How were and are these economies based on the Capitalist Mode of Production?

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.

Edit: you don’t call a spade a spade, though, you call whatever you want whatever you want and don’t elaborate on it. Declaring something to be true doesn’t make it so.

No problem!

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.

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. What’s dominant rarely correlates with what is true.

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 don’t/didn’t 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 “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.

Edit: As for the “two sides campism is ML,” that’s 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 “Capitalist.”

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 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 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.

As someone who admittedly is guilty of “lecturing,” many do enjoy it and have DM’d me or replied thanking me for it. Different people respond better to different approaches, be they the walls of text I am frequently guilty of or shorter questions trying to get them to elaborate on their own understanding.

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?

I spend a good amount of energy trying to explain the merits of Marxism-Leninism and Leftism in general on Lemmy (and IRL, though that’s much trickier). Ultimately, you can’t make someone care. You can’t convince people of something they choose not to want to believe, either, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. Roderic Day wrote a great article titled Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” that perfectly encapsulates this process. People license themselves to believe whatever it is that they believe benefits themselves, regardless of evidence or empathy.

What you can do, however, is explain the merits of that which you believe in, and this is far more effective with people already targeted by the current system. Those closest to the edge, those radicalized by their conditions but not yet organized or versed in theory, are the perfect people to talk to. The effort required to gain an ally in that sense is far less than someone who is convinced that the system is fine, but just needs a little tweaking. Building strength through organization helps legitimize your positions and expands the circle, so to speak, by moving the “line of radicalization” further. Person A, who believes the system is fine but needs tweaks, goes from comfortably mainstream into the new line of radicalization, one step away from working to supplant the system, when those who were radicalized near them organize.

Further still, as conditions deteriorate, more people are impacted and more people are radicalized. This is both good and bad, bad in the sense that more are affected by the evils in society to a greater degree, but with the good being further chance of organization.

Just my 2 cents as someone who has spoken with many different people about Marxism.