• sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    24·
    3 months ago

    what is the practical application of that information? it’s to keep society safe and functioning. in an ideal world, this wouldn’t be necessary but china has 1.3 billion people and remains one of the safest nations on earth for a reason. you don’t see police constantly brutalizing people there, because their network of cameras and identification means that unless something presents an immediate threat, they can typically just let the person do their shit and then catch them at home. you can’t drive ten miles in america without seeing someone pulled over by police for some minor traffic violation- is that freedom, was that interaction necessary? what about the odds of that interaction escalating to the citizen being murdered by police? this isn’t an issue in china because firstly the police are trained and secondly many of those interactions are entirely eliminated

    america knows all that about me too but i can still get mugged walking a mile to the gas station and i’ll still see 5 homeless people along the way and multiple cops just posted up waiting to fuck with someone

    i used to be an anarchist. idealistic thinking isn’t realistic.

      • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        33·
        3 months ago

        I’m not an Idealist, but I’d rather die than live under a dictatorship

        brother then you know what to do because your ass is living under a dictatorship of the borugeoisie

          • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            21·
            3 months ago

            You don’t want to be ruled, then you’re a libertarian. Hence the “live free or die” slogan from the American imperialists in your header image

            Call yourself a syndicalist, but no unified council of syndicates to run a group? Best of luck

          • Black_Mald_Futures [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            20·
            3 months ago

            , I just want neither a political party nor the borgeoisi rule me

            Well guess what buttercup, you’re going to have to grow the fuck up and learn how politics works because even under whatever anarcho-whateverist bullshit you dream up you’re still going to be subject to the rules of the dominant parties.

            You’re a liberal larping as an anarchist if you think anarchy means “i’m totally free from the burdens of what others want”

      • hello_hello [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        24·
        3 months ago

        here is how they treat peaceful journalists:

        No way you just linked to a CNN dipshit shoving his way through a restricted area while speaking only English. Your “journalists” don’t exist they’re Western chauvinistic propagandists. Do some self crit and explore the resources hexbear shares on modern China.

          • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            22·
            3 months ago

            now that you know what that is, consider what views you’re espousing if you are indistinguishable from them. it’s western propaganda, complete blindness to your own material reality, anarkiddie bullshit. “i’m not an idealist, but i’d rather die than live in a dictatorship”. comrade what do you think capitalism is? it doesn’t matter which supposedly superior western nation you live in, you are in a capitalist dictatorship- refer to what i said about “complete blindness to your own material reality”.

            your post literally reads like “i can go to walmart and buy a tv on credit, how can you say i’m not free?”

              • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                26·
                3 months ago

                ends up like the USSR or China

                yeah, that’s not a bad thing. i really think you have a lot of unlearning of western propaganda to do.

                comrade, i mean no disrespect- i was an anarchist when i was a baby leftist as well. in an ideal world, and purely speaking ideologically, i am an anarchist. i would love if the world operated entirely free of any sort of state, if any sort of hierarchy was able to be examined and dismantled if need be

                but i realize that the modern world is much more complicated than the answers anarchism provides

                the only way to achieve communism, even if we’re talking entirely stateless communism, is to seize the state and use it as a vehicle to enact the will of the revolution. i am genuinely curious how you expect it to be done otherwise? let’s say antifa just shot joe brandon and took over the white house. okay, now what? they just declare amerikkka is over? come on.

                • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m an anarcho syndicalist, I belive that we can build workers syndicates and communities where the workers own the means of production and only when we have those organisations we can even begin to think of overthrowing the state

                  • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                    24·
                    3 months ago

                    okay, simply put; the state is entirely controlled by capital. we live in a dictatorship of capital- this is a basically irrefutable fact for any sect of leftist.

                    with that being said, let’s say you do start taking over workplaces, building communities around those workplaces which the workers took over; what is the state going to be doing while all of this happens? even if you take over by entirely ‘legitimate’ electoral and peaceful means.

                    amazon workers can’t even go on strike without someone getting their skull cracked. you can’t demonstrate against genocide without being beaten half to death.

                    what has the state done in the past when workers even went on strike?

              • Black_Mald_Futures [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                18·
                3 months ago

                stateist communism always ends up like the USSR or China

                Advancing standards of living by leaps and bounds? Taking literal dirt farming feudal serfdoms to literally the world’s first space power in the span of literally 4 decades? Ending cyclical patterns of famine that have occurred for thousands of years, but never again under communism?

                Oh man so awful

                You’re the kinda guy who would hear about China building “ghost cities” and just believe the lies that they’re building useless shit to juice their GDP, aren’t you

        • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          Then why are you alive right now?

          because I will fight against capitalism, imperialism, dictators and monarchs util my last dieing breath

          also what I meant with that is that I’ll rather die than live in a dictatorship and not do anything to destroy it’s chains of opression

              • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                13·
                3 months ago

                The media bombards us with “China bad” shit 24/7. Even if it is actually as bad as you say you’re personal efforts are such a tiny contribution they’re effectively useless. Your efforts would likely be better spent trying to inform people about other bad countries that the western media focuses far far less on, or actively downplay their badness. Like Israel for example.

              • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                12·
                3 months ago

                do you think the average Chinese person would benefit from having their state overthrown or that they’d even want that? The Chinese state is highly popular among Chinese citizens. It regularly has an approval rating of above 90%. To what end would China benefit from having a different arrangement?

      • T34_69 [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        18·
        3 months ago

        here is how they treat peaceful journalists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjLt3XTY-rs Now you may say: tha

        Hahahahahaha oh fuck that was hilarious, thanks for posting. “Sirs! They are manhandling me! I say! We are in a public space and they are manhandling me!” Fuckin hilarious, I got no sympathy for CNN anglo propagandists trying to muscle their way into that space when they don’t even speak Mandarin and they’re obviously there to do a hit piece. Cry about it

      • heggs_bayer [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        …what if someone else (someone else as within some other member of the CCP) came to power who doesn’t like free speech, they could use this against free speech.

        They can and do. Free speech is a bad thing, especially in a nation under siege from the Great Satan. I especially want you and people with your views to have their free speech suppressed.

        Now you may say: that’s not as bad as some US police brutality, but that is because in the US these things actually get investigated and the officers that did wrong at least sometimes get what they deserve.

        Unironically believing this farquaad-point. It took over a year of protests and riots all over the Great Satan to get one (1) pig to get anything more than a slap on the wrist!

        first: they know less about you than the CCP does about a chinese citizen

        Fake news.

      • miz [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        10·
        3 months ago
        zhenli explains anarchism's reliance on idealism (cw: critical discussion of tendencies)

        […]

        Second, it ignores the actual, real distinction between Marxists and anarchists, which is centralization and decentralization, originating from differing views on historical materialism and idealism.

        Anarchists want to break up society into decentralized units, they see the centralization tendency of capitalist society as a bad thing and want to smash it and build an entirely new and different society out of a void, while Marxists see the development of capitalist society as in fact laying the foundations for socialism which it will be built on top of, i.e. it will be centralized.

        Bukharin explained this brilliantly a century ago.

        Communist society is, as such, a STATELESS society. If this is the case - and there is no doubt that it is - then what, in reality, does the distinction between anarchists and marxist communists consist of? Does the distinction, as such, vanish at least when it comes to examining the problem of the society to come and the “ultimate goal”? No, the distinction does exist; but it is to be found elsewhere; and can be defined as a distinction between production centralised under large trusts and small, decentralised production.

        …Our ideal solution to this is centralised production, methodically organised in large units and, in the final analysis, the organisation of the world economy as a whole. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a completely different type of relations of production; their ideal consists of tiny communes which by their very structure are disqualified from managing any large enterprises, but reach “agreements” with one another and link up through a network of free contracts. From an economic point of view, that sort of system of production is clearly closer to the medieval communes, rather than the mode of production destined to supplant the capitalist system. But this system is not merely a retrograde step: it is also utterly utopian. The society of the future will not be conjured out of a void, nor will it be brought by a heavenly angel. It will arise out of the old society, out of the relations created by the gigantic apparatus of finance capital.

        —Bukharin, Anarchy and Scientific Communism

        It is very important to understand that anarchists aren’t simply Marxists who want to get to statelessness faster. They are in many ways the polar opposite of Marxists, the gulf that separates Marxists from anarchists is just as large as pretty much any other ideology.

        Anarchists reject historical materialism and view history through an idealist lens, believing that all new societies are “conjured out of a void” as Bukharin put it, and thus they believe this new society can be anything they want it to be, if they can imagine it then it can be implemented.

        Marxists on the other hand, with a historical materialist analysis, see new systems as inherently being built upon new conditions brought into existence by the old system, i.e. socialism cannot be anything we want it to be but must be built upon foundations created by capitalism itself.

        Hence, Marxists see the centralization tendency of capitalism as the basis for what socialism will be built upon, while anarchists not only do not hold this view, but they view the conditions capitalism is bringing forth as a bad thing that must be entirely destroyed.

        A wide gulf separates socialism from anarchism, and it is in vain that the agents-provocateurs of the secret police and the news paper lackeys of reactionary governments pretend that this gulf does not exist. The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer.

        —Lenin, Socialism and Anarchism

        […]