Cross-posted from “TRUE communism!” by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
just buy a cock cage and find a keyholder near you
there are many in Germany
you are a good boy and don’t need to subjugate yourself to this humiliation
Start the argument
Disengage
Hey do you think it’s kind of weird and self aggrandizing that you named the whole website after yourself?
Disengage
what the fuck is wrong with the brain of whoever made this
Well you see decades of CIA propaganda, started by the Nazis in the 40s, have become such widespread narratives that most people take them at face value without thinking about it.
Oh also
i just realized i think the guy who posted this is like the db0 that the dbzer0 instance is named for
like this was literally bait posted by the dipshit running this place and then they cry about “blah blah blah you’re so divisive calling us anarkiddies” like they didn’t explicitly ask for this exact treatment by posting this fucking bait
is this horseshoe theory?More like horseshit theory
Well, that was quite entertaining.
I understand that this is an anarchist comm, so you’re free to post whatever you want, but I don’t think it’s productive to take a stance that fundamentally rests on misrepresenting what you’re critiquing. Since you invoked my username in one of your comments here, I’d figure I’d give the Marxist stance its fair representation.
First, there is no such thing as “true communism.” The obsession over purity in politics is a result of dogmatism and book workship.
Secondly, for Marxists, the stance isn’t that you “do a state” and then “stop doing the state.” For Marxists, not just Marxist-Leninists, the state is purely a body that resolves class contradictions through class oppression. It isn’t hierarchy, and it isn’t organization. Communism in the marxist conception, as a stateless society, is stateless in that once all property is collectively owned and planned, there is no class distinction. Administration remains, and is not to whither, as that’s a necessary product of mass, industrialized production.
Taking that into account, the state can only disappear if all class disappears, and class cannot be abolished until all global production is collectivized. There has never been that point, you cannot have communism in one country. You can be socialist, in that public property can be the principle aspect of the economy and the state can be proletarian in character, but the state can never whither until all states are socialist, interconnected, and borders fading away into one democratic system.
Socialist countries like the PRC do rely on commodity production to engage with the global economy, as they must for the time being. They can’t achieve a global system as one single country. As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character. You cannot “declare socialized production” with the stroke of a pen, it’s something that must arise from development. That doesn’t mean the character of an economy that is dominated by public ownership is capitalist, either, just that it is on the “socialist road,” ie it is socialist, and working its way to higher levels of socialization until communism is achieved.
This is all starkly different from the anarchist position, that we can develop from the outset a decentralized, horizontalist society. I’m not going to debatelord here, this is an anarchist comm, but if you’re going to misrepresent the views of Marxists, then I feel you’re doing a disservice by making anarchists less prepared to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.
It feels a bit disingenuous to hear the following:
to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.
I mean I got your point the other day, that I shouldn’t necessarrily argue about Communistic dogma without reading all the literature, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get to that point and not just be waved away as a bad faith actor. So I was already working hard just to be told to go and read up.
OP is using the same intensity hammer you guys got going on over there. Is it fair?
I don’t remember having this convo with you, so I don’t have any reference for that convo. OP is misrepresenting the Marxist stance. It’s one thing to critique the genuine positions Marxists have, it’s another entirely to invent a strawman to argue against. The intensity of the argument isn’t the problem, the illegitimacy of the argument is.
0·13 days agoI don’t think it was with you specifically, more hexbear in general? https://lemmy.ml/post/28545991
Oh, good catch!
I sure do love being treated like I’m a part of a hivemind, and that everyone on Hexbear is interchangeable with no individual characteristics… 🫠 /s
Seriously though, I thought that was an odd statement, but that makes sense.
Yup, that was me. Sorry for mixing you up. I guess you spoke to me like a human there first, that’s why your name stuck.
I feel it still doesn’t take away too much from my argument. While OP’s post is outright malicious and is meant to start a fight, I wasn’t doing that on what I thought was a proper place for discussion.
Again, I don’t want to jump to conclusions, and I did make a mistake, but don’t you see what I’m trying to get at?
Personally, I try my best to adhere to the principle of “no investigation, no right to speak.” I’m not perfect at that, but I do my best. Someone who has a strong stance on a subject without doing the due dilligence to justify that strong stance muddies the water. I believe you were guilty of it over in that thread, and I believe OP is guilty of it here. Does that make sense?
Goodness, does it ever.
But my problem was that the group put me in a box. Nobody wanted to know my level of education, just if I read this or that book on communism.
It is a totally fair reason not to engage in argument. It’s just… How can I put it…? Just because I didn’t read a book, I can’t be knowledgable on a subject?
My guesses are that your community is so exposed to bad faith arguments, so you cannot give everyone the time of day. I haven’t gone back to reread the thread, but you can probably see how I was basically backing into a corner through the whole thread.
The intensity of the argument isn’t the problem, the illegitimacy of the argument is.
Yeah, I know OP is trolling. I see it is causing calls to not pull apart. Sure, maybe not every thread goes for the jugular on the hex server, but it fept by going against the grain I was a pariah immediately.
I mean at the end of the day it is petty squabbles on the internet, I just feel that we’re missing out if we don’t make a connection. Like, you seem smart, well read, and have a pretty novel world view that would interest me. I grew up in the context that communism is not of the devil, so it was terribbly disjarring that I finally saw a safe space to talk about the fallies of communism with hobby scientists on the matter.
I dunno, maybe I was devil’s advocating and triggered a healthy response. It still feels off that I felt shut up there and now I see members of that community pleading for more open communication here.
Hexbear is a space for communists and anarchists to hang out, and there’s a culture of cedeing no ground to ill-informed takes in order to help protect that space in a deeply anticommunist English-speaking internet. There’s a strong culture of requiring well-sourced, developed, and informed takes in order to go against the grain.
The reason OP is coming under attack is because it’s obviously just left-punching and baiting a response, and the post itself is ill-informed and misrepresentative.
I suggest that if you want to learn more on Hexbear, you try to use more open language. I see in that thread when you tried to be more clear that you aren’t just another anti-communist, you got kinder responses.
As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character.
When has this been achieved in communism?
Cuba, USSR, PRC, etc, though these are/were socialist. Communism, in the Marxist sense (not anarchist), must be global, fully collectivized, etc, while these are examples of single states in the context of a globally capitalist-dominant system. Nevertheless, they are all examples of socialism, where as they developed as socialist countries their economies became increasingly developed and collectivized.
The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms that set elements of the system against each other, and the PRC at one point under the Gang of Four tried to shortcut its way to communism out of a dogmatic approach to socialism, but post-reform as the PRC has been developing, it has steadily been increading the socialized character of its production. The large firms and key industries are firmly held by a proletarian state, and over time as the small and medium firms grow, these are more and more controlled by the public sector.
The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms
The USSR collapsed because of internal contradictions and oppression.
The former is partially true, (though not intrinsic to socialism, but the unique flaws in the later years of the soviet system), the latter, no. The large majority of the people supported the system and wished to retain it until the very end due to the social instability at the time, and the larger majority regret its fall. The “internal contradictions” were the liberal reforms that added elements embodied into the system that worked against a collectivized and planned economy.
The soviet economy was relatively strong, but towards the end because of liberalization, as well as problems from needing to dedicate a large proportion of production to millitarization to keep parity with the US, it began to decrease the rate of growth that was so rapid earlier on.
More importantly, it’s absolutely true that the dissolution of the USSR was avoidable. The mistakes made by the soviets towards the end don’t need to be repeated, we can learn from what worked so well with the socialist system while also not repeating their mistakes. The torch is carried on by countries that have learned, like Cuba, the PRC, etc.
Marxism is a science, and is improved through practice.
Marxism is a political religion with sacred texts, prophets, a promised paradise on earth, and superficial pseudoscientific trappings. It has killed more people than any other ideology in history.
- No, political theory is not the same as religion.
- No, there are no sacred texts in Marxism. One of the key elements of Marxism is Dialectics, it’s an ever-evolving theory. One of the more important works is Oppose Book Worship.
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from “a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.
- No, Marxism does not promise “paradise on Earth,” in fact it directly tackles the Utopians that tried to make such a paradise, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon.
- No, it doesn’t have “superficial pseudoscientific trappings.”
- No, it has succeeded in lifting billions out of extreme poverty, ended famines common to feudal countries like nationalist China and Tsarist Russia, and more. Meanwhile, liberalism created industrialized mass-murder in the Holocaust, caused Chuchill to divert food from India to the deaths of millions, has created the conditions for mass murder, genocide of Palestinians, and so much more. The death toll of liberalism, both by ratio and in total, far surpasses Marxism and it isn’t close.
You’re deeply unserious.
Marxists will always have a wall of text full of theoretical facts and logic to point to. Practice looks very different. It means no diversity of opinion, oppression, secret police, gulag, millions of deaths.
Contrary to you I actually know people who have lived in socialist countries. I even have a former high ranking party member in my family.
lifting billions out of extreme poverty
Industrialization did that, not Marxism.
The Marxist equivalent of “but the GDP…”
: The revolution that feeds the children gets my support.You, apparently: fuck those kids
What a stupifyingly disingenuous statement, but then again about right for a campist.
You looked at a chart that outlined improvements in quality of life that included a boom in agricultural output, aka, literally feeding the children and called it
The Marxist equivalent of “but the GDP…”
Clearly the tankie brain cannot comprehend criticism from the left…
It’s alright, don’t worry about it.
Being so ideologically rigid that you’d let children starve to avoid “state authoritarian bureaucracy” is not actually something to be proud of, lib
You’re so right, it would have been way better for everyone in the territory of the USSR to be illiterate and poor and starving, so they wouldn’t have cared so much when the Nazis effortlessly murdered everyone from western Poland to eastern Siberia. Who even needs industrial output when you could have a “”“horizontally-organized”“” bandit kingdom named after its unelected leader?
Ye ofc the only alternative the the Stalin regime was stagnation and defeat, clearly nothing else could have possibly have happened…
Why would there need to be an alternative? It was already the best possible version of what could have happened, within the bounds of a crushing siege by the entire capitalist world on one hand, and basic human fallibility on the other. There is no other political leader in history with a higher proportion of correct decisions to mistakes than Stalin, and they were mistakes, as in consequences not intended from actions taken earnestly to protect the people of the USSR - unlike the actual unspeakable atrocities being committed constantly by every single imperialist nation at the time, as well as before and since.
Even just on its own terms, the USSR was unimaginably more humane than what came before:
what existed outside of it:
and what came after:
This is called the “Eastern Cross” by the way, a demographic phenomenon unique to former nations of the USSR, where the death rate and birth rate suddenly cross over each other in the 90s. It’s way better that this happened, of course, than the USSR being run by “”“authoritarians”“” who would protect their people from sabotage and murder using the necessary amount of violence (that is, still less than their enemies).
But I forgot, we’re comparing an actual nation that had to actually exist in the dirt and blood of the real world, to the geometrically perfect platonic anarchist society that lives in your head, so I guess I have to concede. I’ll go tell all the communists in the third world to pack it up and disband their organizations and scratch out all the hammers and sickles so you can go tell them how to avoid being assassinated by the CIA the right way.
just to add thisThanks, and to add even further, this had global effects too
High living standards and strong workers’ rights and compensation in the USSR forced capitalist nations around the world to make concessions to their workers. Once the USSR had been destroyed, the concessions could be rolled back and the profits guzzled by the capitalists.
Nice list of pre-prepped propaganda.
Did pootin give you those?
it’s not like stalin purged the census statisticians for months when he didn’t get the statistics he wanted
It’s way better that this happened, of course, than the USSR being run by “”“authoritarians”“”
eh we all know capitalist oligarchies are always worse comrades
Damn, I didn’t know you could bluff the Wehrmacht with fake industrial output. Who knew you could just lie about how much steel you were producing and simply will more divisions of tanks into existence?
Also, more importantly than that, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up that claim? In fact, do you have a single shred of evidence to back up ANY of your claims? I’ve never even heard a claim like that before. Did you just make it up off the cuff? Do you care about evidence? Do you read books? Have you even the slightest singlest iota of interest in the actual factual history of the world, or are you just a larper who prefers a particular set of drapery on the society they idly daydream about?
I care because these were people who actually lived and fought and bled for a better world and I will not have some imperial core shitstain besmirching their name by drooling out the cheapest CIA propaganda ever produced. Are you stupid? What do you think living inside a successful propaganda campaign would look like? Have you ever considered why your opinions align exactly with the interests of the US State Department? Go and read Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti, it’s short and you’ll learn something.
I didn’t say anything about Soviet voluminous military output or the prowess of determined command planning under Stalin at rapid industrialization. I was talking about their human statistics, their mortality statistics.
https://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/polka/gold_fund08.html is Soviet academia rehosted on Demoscope, a neutral website on the publications in demography—not democracy.
I’ve read that part of that book. On the topic of prison mortality, it just repeated the historical consensus of 799,455 official executions between 1921 and 1953, and 1.5–1.7 million additional deaths in the Gulag out of the 18 million that passed through between 1930 and 1953. 1.5 million ÷ 18 million is over 8%. Meanwhile, the review article “‘A Dark Cloud Will Go Over’: Pain, Death, and Silence in Texas Prisons in the 1930s” lambastes the suffering of state prisoners, weeps over “the prison population swelled from 5,000 prisoners in 1930 (itself cause for much concern in prison Annual Reports) to crisis levels of 7,177 in April 1939, making the Texas Prison System one of the largest in the country” and denounces the 68 deaths per year. ( 68 + 21 lynching deaths ) ÷ 5,000 is 0.178%.
Yeah, doing the same thing without imperialism, massacres, oppression, population displacements, secret police, thought crimes, and other stalinist atrocities was just not possible. I understand now. Those are things are a necessary path to a society which will eventually transform into a liberal capitalist cleptocracy.
Likewise imperialism, slave trade, enclosures, exploitation was clearly the only way for the UK to transform into a democracy you see, and they too fought the fascists so they were clearly on the right side of history.
I swear, MLs and their fetishizing of stats are exactly like the nroliberals fetishize GDP growth.
Oh shit yeah, I forgot about all that bullshit the CIA made up.
Wait a second, THOUGHT CRIMES??? THOUGH CRIMES??? Do you think ‘Thought Crimes’ were a real thing that existed outside of the anticommunist screed ‘1984’?
Anyways, on to your next point, oh, it’s the most unreasonable fucking false equivalency I’ve ever seen in my life. The UK is not and has never been a democracy, it is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that has occasional political pageantry where it pretends the people have any power at all, just like every single nation that is not communist. Fighting the Nazis is the literal only time the British Empire did a single good thing, and their problem with German fascism was the German part, not the fascism part. And then they immediately started drawing up ‘Operation Unthinkable’, the plan to resume an invasion of the USSR using mainly Wehrmacht soldiers, a plan I assume you support wholeheartedly as it would have destroyed what was obviously the most evil nation in the world at the time, the one whose soldiers liberated Auschwitz.
Fighting the Nazis is the literal only time the British Empire did a single good thing
didnt they fight the boers at one point. would have been much better if they beat the amerikkkans too tbh
it is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that has occasional political pageantry where it pretends the people have any power at all, just like every single nation
that is not communistFTFY
Wait a second, THOUGHT CRIMES??? THOUGH CRIMES??? Do you think ‘Thought Crimes’ were a real thing that existed outside of the anticommunist screed ‘1984’?
… They said while “AES“ China is massively oppressing it’s LGBT populace from expressing LGBT ideas.
But I know the typical delusions of campists, any criticism about “communist” nations is “CIA lies”, (until it’s irrefutably proven, at which point it becomes an “unfortunate mistake”) much like any criticism of fascist nations is “fake news”. Just one of those wacky coincidences.
That is in fact very obviously true. If they hadn’t developed their economy far faster than any other society in history, they couldn’t possibly have produced enough food and war materiel to defeat the Nazis, which I hope we can agree was an extremely important thing for the Soviets to be able to do.
The revolution which was betrayed by the bolsheviks in its infancy would have achieved the same results and not devolved into an authoritarian dystopia in the process.
“A type of economic success achieved multiple times under “the tankies” and under literally nobody else would definitely have been achieved under the liberal government that the October revolution overthrew” is too farfetched and historically unfounded to even make a good historical fiction what if novel.
Always good to fight other leftists as fascism closes its grip on the imperial core. Great strategy.
(Posts like this aren’t allowed on Hexbear, and for good reason. What value is there in shitstirring like this? Why be needlessly antagonistic? I really don’t get it.)
You don’t get it we’re not leftists, we’re red fascists.
Also
Yep, Russia did the thing.
In the meme image.
Authoritarian Communism broke, then it flipped back to Authoritarian Capitalism.
Yep, it had enemies.
Yep those enemies were very involved in helping it to break.
But this still is what happened.
Yep, it took a while.
Sorry the comic is ~80 years long?
Horrible line of reasoning. Anarchist projects have all reverted to capitalism much faster than the Soviet Union did.
Not without being conquered by fascists or red fash. I.e they’re internally consistent.
Okay, so stop being a literal child and draw that thought out to its logical conclusions. I did that fifteen fucking years ago and realized, oh, hey, China isn’t Literally Evil for Doing Authoritarianism. They exist in a world with the fucking CIA, and all the feel good anarcho idealism in the world isn’t going to protect them from their literal fucking terrorism.
If you actually use your fucking brain you’d understand that it matters what “authority” is used “for.” Let me spoil it for you- using it to defend a revolution from internal and external reaction and imperialism IS GOOD, UNLESS YOU’RE A FUCKING REACTIONARY.
You don’t need hierarchies to defend against imperialism
You don’t need hierarchies to defend against imperialism
Anarchist projects have all reverted to capitalism much faster than the Soviet Union did.
Not without being conquered by fascists or red fash.
You sure you don’t need those hierarchies buddy? You suuuuuuuure?
this is why people like me just laugh and call you a fucking child, because like, what are you even on? What does your revolutionary society look like? How is it organized?
You just out yourself as an ignorant, illiterate fuck who doesn’t realize that political anarchism is about the abolition of unjust and arbitrary hierarchies, not some idealist bullshit ass “we need a non hierarchical society” and a belief that you just get there by fucking magic. You are going to need to have a political organization of some kind, and guess what? The establishment of that is inherently fucking hierarchical!
What makes it good is not being a hierarchy based on fucking nobility or property ownership or oppressive class relations, dipshit. You are better off jerking yourself to death in your goon cave than chasing after some platonic ideal of A Lack of Hierarchy when here in the fucking real world the bourgoisie, fascists and cops are closing the noose around your neck and mine.
I’d tell you to grow the fuck up but I know you’re just going to keep crying about authority and hierarchy while every single fucking lying weaselly ass statement from your mouth assists the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, whether you know it or not
Imagine equating a state and related movements that massively improved working-class people’s lives, including in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, including by providing guaranteed housing, universal healthcare, fundamental women’s rights that are taken for granted today, and which not only fought off settler-colonialism in the form of the Lebensraum and the Holocaust, but also helped many other countries liberate themselves from European powers, with things like Germany under NSDAP, the US, Pissrael, and NATO in general.
The USSR was also destroyed by encirclement and (nearly 100 years) of pressure from reactionaries.
But again, you and and the people on the comm you named after yourself are the ones hypocritically positing that any socialist project that fails is evidence that that project’s ideology inevitably leads to capitalist takeover. None of the “tankies” on Hexbear are saying that because it’s asinine, but if you actually believe it, to be ideologically consistent, would require condemning anarchism also.
red fash
Deeply unserious
The USSR was also destroyed by encirclement and (nearly 100 years) of pressure from reactionaries.
Yeah, right… it had absolutely nothing to do with the batshit-insane economic and social blundering of the CPSU.
Nothing at all.
It was literally the fastest growing economic system of all time. It went from wooden hand-drawn plows to spaceflight in a single generation, while defeating the most devastating invasion in human history. The nation once called “the India of Europe” became the first interplanetary civilization.
Then, after the entire collective might of the capitalist world had slaughtered dozens of millions of the bravest and most committed communists, it started falling apart because liberals took over. It was dissolved illegally, against the wishes of 70% of the population that voted in a referendum to keep the Union, in a bloody coup that killed over 2000 people fighting against its destruction. By the end of the 90s there had been 7-10 million excess deaths above the death rate of the 80s in Russia alone, making it one of the worst non-war human-caused humanitarian disasters of all time.
In short, the people of the USSR were revolutionaries and heroes, whereas you are a grotty little chauvinist from the imperial core who doesn’t want to improve the world, because if you did you would want to win, and if you wanted to win you would read history, and if you read history you would come to the same conclusion.
Yep, it had enemies.
Yeah… the main one being the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
This is so disgustingly wrong it actually pisses me off. Our enemies were fascists and imperialists for the most part. Fuck dude Lenin even aided Makhno.
The commenters on that site use Pol Pot as an example lmao. I cannot take them seriously.
Also this drivel.
do you have a link? were the “less authoritarian” factions under the libertarian socialist umbrella? if we just listed every massacre or genocide by marxists, we’d be here all day.
Anarchism is a branch of communist thought, socialism is a branch of communist thought, “libertarian” was a rebranding of anarchism originally in places where it was made illegal to disseminate anarchist literature and speak of anarchist philosophy. So libertarian socialist is an oxy-moron and no less contradictory than American modern Libertarians who simply want corporations to supplant the state.
Like it or not we have to take a diversity of tactics to build duel power and engage in a prolonged defensive war against the forces of reaction and that means aligning with others whose ultimate goal is communism. This goes doubly so within the imperial core. Weakening the core takes pressure off of besieged socialist movements in the periphery, and support for anti-imperialist forces against the west makes the empire less capable of repression at home having to exert force on more and more fronts.
Actual anarchists are teaming up with people of all sorts of tendencies and groups like Palestine Action are quite diverse. The people doing the most effective below ground action aren’t arguing about 100 year old mistakes and ideological hangups, they are learning together from them and doing what needs to be done.
Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the factory owner.
I guess it’s tempting to say stuff like this when you can point to capitalists moving their factories to China to take advantage of cheap costs of production, but you do realize that capital is recoiling in total fear of the monster that their investment in a legitimately socialist country has created, right? If Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the factory owner, why are American imperialists (who politically answer to and are controlled by the forces of capital) so dead-set on isolating and crushing China? Why are they trying to open 3 fronts around China, separating them from Iran and Russia, as well as creating a proxy army in Taiwan?
Furthermore, why is it that liberals and fascists can more or less be trusted to reliably communicate what their intentions are (within some margin of error, it’s especially necessary substitute “development” for “colonization” when you listen to them talk about the economy), but when it comes to communists they actually mean the opposite of what they say? Fascists are pretty open about believing that the causes of conflict are the impure rabble that have corrupted the noble races. Liberals are pretty open about believing that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system of liberal democracy in the West, the problems are with foreign influence (Russiagate, TikTok) and with poor regulation/over regulation, or with too little government influence and too much (depends on which side of the Keynesianism debate a liberal lands). But when communists say, labor must seize the means of production and become the rulers of society, what they really mean is that a small cabal of vanguardists should rule over the workers like dictators? Why is it that the communists are understood as inherently duplicitous?
edit: Maybe I’m naive to expect a response but I did feel like expanding on my argument about the suspicion placed on communists that isn’t placed in equal measure on fascists, particularly. There is a sense in which fascists are duplicitous, hide behind many layers of masks like the ever-present chan-board irony culture that has actually influenced much of the modern internet. But communists are the opposite! Communists can’t operate behind secrecy and with the kinds of tactics that fascists employ because communists rely on the masses. For communists to be successful, they can’t trick the masses into believing one thing, then implement another; they must educate the masses about what the masses must themselves do, then empower the masses to carry out revolution. I think that Roderic Day does a good job of explaining this phenomenon in his essay Really Existing Fascism, where he even generalizes the instinct to conceal reactionary aims to also apply in equal measure to 21st century liberals:
According to Marx, solidary forms of social organization that in the past had arisen simply out of need and circumstance, which were equally superseded by need and circumstance (by the efficient oppression of man by man, by slavery), were to make an emancipatory comeback. However, this time around they would be enshrined and protected by masses of conscious workers, workers who know the value of their labour, who demand an economy that they have made, that they know they have made, and that they are capable of remaking ongoingly. [60]
Nietzsche, if we accept the reading of him as the ultimate fascist philosopher, is easily understood as making an analogous plea to his own reactionary constituency. Where Hannah Arendt and John Seeley try to claim that Western colonization and slavery were “absentminded” pursuits, Nietzsche persuades readers that there is glory in all of it, if done properly, aesthetically, “beyond good and evil.” Where Marx wants the masses to rediscover “primitive communism,” only this time consciously, Nietzsche wants elites to pursue the brutal programme of “primitive accumulation,” only this time consciously and without private shame.
I say private because, in anti-symmetry with Marx, and fully aware of the danger of letting people know what he’s really about, Nietzsche recommends concealing one’s aims. Thus we come to understand Nietzsche’s warm reception in the liberal West, whose architects turn out to be much better pupils of Nietzsche than the Nazis ever were. George Kennan posits American supremacy as an end in itself, donning a perfectly serviceable mask of liberal pluralism, then goes on to play an important role in planning several decades of “Pax Americana” on the basis of genocidal terrorism. The defining characteristic of the fascist is that they defend their anti-egalitarianism purposefully. The fundamental cleavage between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism is simply the heightened awareness, given the Revolutions and Counter-Revolutions of the 20th century, that it is tactically expedient to wear a mask.
The comments are going to be normal.
db0 does this on purpose because they have a humiliation fetish or something.
Nothing humiliating to db0 though on here, just some angry hexbears.
I see a bunch of us giving you all far more patience and grace than you deserve in the face of ignorance and insults so yes when you keep going on about shit in the way you and some others here are to the point you veer into double genocide theory and downplaying western atrocities you forfeit your moral high ground.
When db0 starts weaponizing neurodivergence to excuse shitty behavior yes we get pretty pissed. Fuck y’all.
Bait used to be believable…
disengage
Traditionally your kind only does that when all the other leftists are dead and it’s time to sign treaties with fascists.
Remember when after signing Molotov Ribbentrop, Stalin was best buddies with Hitler, they split Poland, and nothing happened afterward? No particular thing, no largest land war in human history, no 27 million dead Soviets who were killed by the fascists that the UK and other Western European allies had… also signed treaties with?
my kind? what is that supposed to be referring to?
Red fascists.
quite a conclusion to jump from ‘disengage’ to that, plus I’m an anarchist
It’s so fucking tiring with these people.
That does tend to happen when you step out of your world of alternative facts.
You wrote that explicitly to shame people from using a rule meant to cool down comment sections, and you wrote that to promote the “left unity” delusion by jumping on the attempted bullying bandwagon, so their assumptions are rational at least.
Are you the leader of anarchism that gets to decide who is and isn’t an anarchist? I’ve been trying to find whoever is in charge of the anarchists, it’s an honor to meet you!
You wrote that explicitly to shame people from using a rule meant to cool down comment sections,
that’s quite an accusation, I think it’s reasonable to infer insincerity from my words, but shame? I think that’s coming from somewhere else. I was mostly being glib responding to someone calling your post bait.
you wrote that to promote the “left unity” delusion by jumping on the attempted bullying bandwagon, so their assumptions are rational
that’s an awful lot to read into one word. I’m pretty sure I was just making a joke, sorry that it was at your expense but I don’t think that’s bullying.
Follow up question: if that was bullying then what does that say about the people doing red scare smear campaigns based on what server people are on?
Commenting on the most commented* post in db0’s history!!!
(Can you see this? )
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/45802317 This has more comments, though its mostly libs.
That’s not even close. I have one with 1k+ angry hexbear comments
Which one is that?
Oof that was somewhere in autumn 2023
Wow! Where does the time go?
Since you’re here, You gonna do anything about all the ableist hexbears I keep having to ban from my comm, or nah?
Did you report the ableism? Also if you are compelled to make a bait post but don’t want to argue you can ping me and I will kindly use my admin powers to lock the post from the hexbear side allowing you to have a meme echo chamber ❤
Just for my own record I’ve started reading the post, I’ve come across you insulting someone’s reading comprehension which is ableist against those with dyslexia, insulting someone’s inability to read the room which is ableist against those with autism.
Again I’m sorry this has been such a stressful post for you, and I’m more than happy to work with you by using our admin and moderator tools to aid you in curating an online experience that is pleasing and relaxing
And of course here’s Hexbear posting about how they hate this place after they came here breaking the rules of our instance.
https://hexbear.net/comment/6307751 https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/48342361
Be warned @db0 they’re insulting you in there, because they’re such good, moral, and just socialists. Also mocking other users in here like @masquenox for not satisfying their debate bro tactics.
And here’s them admitting to lurking on the thread to Gotcha! and leap onto users.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/48132283/19880859
Hexbear, the totally innocent instance!
As is tradition. I don’t care though. They’re well known to constantly lie and misrepresent people they hate in their own comms. So long as they don’t come and shit in here.
Fair enough. If the hexbear defed is ever for a vote, I’d probably vote yes.
At this point, so probably would I. Funnily enough, they think my experience with KKE was what disillusioned me against MLs, but in truth I was never that much against them specifically instead of their ideology only. But my hexbear experiences and the absolute constant of bad faith, ableism, bullying and disinfo I see from them, made me far more wary of MLs as people.
The latest case of them not respecting requests for disengagement and goading people to be their lolcows is just the lowest they’ve ever fallen in my eyes.
Hexbear is a leftist colored KiwiFarms.
Man hexbear is pissed and just can’t help but defend their lust for authoritarians. Then ask for left unity when we won’t want to be with people who uncritically support China and North Korea.
Maybe someday hexbear will learn better but today isn’t that day.
A good communist is suspicious of all leaders. Because nobody fucks the working class like leaders
Well said!
Distrusting the vanguard is counterrevolutionary
They got so upset some of them resorted to ableism. Just astounding stuff.
Clearly the tankie brain cannot comprehend criticism from the left…
Not ableismquick, explain how that’s ableism. Like holy shit you peeps are completely shameless in trying to do quick gotchas.
Calling into question the functioning of someone’s brain is pretty neuronormative.
I’m not being that serious though, because I also can’t find any example of someone being ableist to you beyond calling you stupid (it was me, I did that).
Hexbear has probably the lowest tolerance for ableism of any place I’ve seen on the internet. The raiding parties you see coming into your instance to bash liberals on the internet and correct their disinformation are not really representative of the tone of conversation on the actual instance itself between people who aren’t spoiling for a rumble, not that I would expect ableism even then. The mods of Hexbear are very strict about that kind of thing, so watching clown-to-clown communication between you and your buddy as you just outright lie on the internet about the nature of another online community, in a farcical echo to how your forebears fabricated lies about socialist states, demanded comment.
