• SomeLemmyUser
    164·
    2 years ago

    Agree with you in general, but I think a lot if people here are not really informed what differences there are materialistic ideologies.

    Yes, Stalin bad.

    But Guevara is not Stalin.

    Marx is not che

    Engels is not Marx

    China is not communist.

    Marxism is not materialism

    Socialism is not communism

    Also the amount of people bringing the “the 3 times people tried socialism were bad, so the whole ideology must be bad” argument are way to high IMHO.

    How many times was capitalism tried? How many times it worked out? Is the USA a “functioning” state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?

    While I agree with you, that oppression is bad, no matter what the oppressor calls himself, we should talk about policies without resorting to dogmas and generalising people in favor of fear the hegemonic class is propagating to stay in power.

  • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
    743·
    2 years ago

    Thank fuck. I thought Lemmy was some ultra militant leftist hellhole before the shift.

    I don’t like extreme radical left any more than extreme radical right.

    Fuck Che Guevara. Read a book.

    • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
      14·
      2 years ago

      Meanwhile anarchist organizing doesn’t have cops, it has Agents of Community Defense who definitely aren’t cops!

      I have nothing against anarchists, but you need to see past slogans to be anything but a useful idiot to neoliberals.

      • Big_Farto@sh.itjust.works
        13·
        2 years ago

        I mean any person or entity that enforces oppressive laws is a bastard. The government of China is far from some sort of benevolent state.

  • animelivesmatter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    651·
    2 years ago

    finds social media developed by tankies

    looks inside

    finds tankies

    fr I’m down with having a good old purge eventually but noone should be surprised

  • buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    561·
    2 years ago

    What are some good actual communist lemmy communities that aren’t supporting the fucking capitalist imperialist russian invasion?

    • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
      311·
      2 years ago

      look for anarchists if you desire a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

      communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.

        • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          19·
          2 years ago

          There are an infinite variety of flavors of socialism, at some point you gotta learn to find folks you don’t disagree with on anything too important. In my experience anarchists are generally chill.

        • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
          91·
          2 years ago

          https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you

          anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.

          the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.

          governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

          can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools

          • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            5·
            2 years ago

            governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

            I don’t. I don’t think all hierarchies are unjust, I evaluate them based on their effect on the world. If a hierarchy can solve a problem better, it’s the preferable solution.

            Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?

            But what if we all have a different idea of what behaving reasonably means?

            Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible.

            That’s silly. Systemic inequalities don’t make people park their vehicles on the bike path or murder their wife because they think she cheated on them. If anarchism is all about thinking people are angels unless bad, bad oppressive systems make them do evil things they couldn’t do on their own then I don’t think we’ll ever get along. It’s alternate reality and an incredibly naive way of looking at the world and human nature.

            Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don’t have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don’t want to hear about it any further.

            • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca
              1·
              2 years ago

              Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don’t have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don’t want to hear about it any further.

              So I have to ask… Why would you respond and then deny someone the same respect?

          • archon@dataterm.digital
            3·
            2 years ago

            I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

            In practice, direct democracy? Or, how would that work - how would we organize society? Positions would still need to be held, no? Roles appointed, decisions made, lines drawn. No one can be up-to-date on all matters in their local nor global environment. And certainly not at the same point in time. How would anything work with any cohesiveness?

            Sorry to be so dismissive, I’m actually kinda curious on your thoughts. Only ways I see are AI governance or a hive mind. Not sure about either tbh.

          • IriYan@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.

            Acknowledges Marxist theory as much as acknowledging Newtonian gravitational theory may be a way to put it. Most of the ones I know either accept Marxist general theory as a whole, non-critically, and the rest are anti-communist/anti-marxist idealists, as much as any fascist would be. Because the true essence and reason for the existence of fascism is anti-communism.

            There are many social relations that are oppressive, why limit it to state? Parents are oppressive, teachers, professors, bosses, cops, military higher officers, spouses, parents in law, … prison guards … they are all oppressive. Is it just the state? Is it a different class of people who oppress from those being oppressed?

            the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.

            Between the late 1800s and early 1900s the state became an insurer of labor law and justice, the welfare state was born, rights to pension, an 8hr day, sick leave, vacation, overtime pay, were all provided and were promised by the state. So we can say the state backed off and became hostile to capital. Between struggle (labor syndicalism) and the capitalist state there was a dialectic transformation, the social democracy was born. Today the state has absolutely surrendered to the powers of the banking financial world system, made out of a handful of banks and financial institutions mainly based in NY, London, Frankfurt, Paris, maybe even in HKong, Tokyo, to a lesser extent. All states owe to private global markets to such a degree that just one or two clicks down on their bond ratings and they are bankrupt and in the hands of IMF and other bankers to implement the most vicious neo-liberal reform anyone can imagine.

            This means that when leninists propose on taking over a state that just means removing it from the markets and sentencing the population to starvation and misery. “Abolishing the state” is just as suicidal. Should there be a thing like political responsibility for genocide proposed by pseudo revolutionaries, who want to enforce their fantasy on people already suffering because of capitalism?

            governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

            As long as you speak of “a system” you imply, like it or not, a centralized system, a system that supervises whether the system is implemented correctly or not. That constitutes an authority. Whether this authority and enforcement is conducted by “anti-authoritarians” who as a minority forced their terms and conditions on a society, we are speaking of a revolutionary vanguard, an authoritarian force over the entire society (under the state and within state borders).

            By the way, the collapse of the Syrian state had a gradual effect of Turkey moving sourth, Israel and Libanon moving further east, Iran moving west, I am uncleat of Jordan is taking a piece of the pie, and some Iraqi authorities are eyeballing the Kurdish management of some areas they would like to grub as well. So by abolishing a state these days the remaining states in the globe legitimize the neighbors all grubbing a piece without anyone being a state to protest. Assad’s only friend is too busy fighting the entirety of NATO playing a game on the heads of the residents of ex-Ukraine.

            can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools

            As long as your focus is to destroy and dismantle instead of constructing an alternative and an escape route from capitalism you will be condemned by history as a force of nothing beneficial to humanity.

            As long as you preach -isms- from a high tower looking down on people without ideology, and you refuse to accept that the dialectic between leninism and libertarianism has already materialized, that more than a million people have been living OUTSIDE of capitalism, in autonomous communities, for nearly 30years (this next new year’s eve), decide in their communities EVERYTHING about their own lives, mostly using consensus, and their federation (2 levels) is designed to serve the community not to dictate to the community, you are more authoritarian and stuck up than you really think. Now these people have liberated themselves from capitalism, they live outside it, they are unaffected by it, other by having to fend off some para-military attacks here and there 2-3 times a year, their values and principles are even more strict than the early 1900s CNT constitution, and they laugh really hard and stick a finger up to all revolutionary vanguards, but you keep speaking hypothetically, what if society did this and that and the other thing.

            If you want to be heard, you should be looking up to indigenous peasants, farmers, not down. If you want the residents of the favela to follow bureaucrats and academics to social change, you are in worse shape and dillusion than the average tankies. If you want children industrial workers in SE Asia to look up to your ideology and rhetoric, to buy your story, I assure you they think you are dumber than they are.

            Who gives a flying ** what “anarchism” acknowledges.

          • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 years ago

            I don’t know how any of that applies to what I said here.

            Edit: I skimmed through the text on the first read because I was sleepy. After reading more carefully I guess you’re agreeing with me somewhat: yes, the necessity for certain types of organization in specific situations is why I dislike anarchism.

            I don’t know why a certain ineffective administrative model would have to be coupled with a more equitable economic model. Although I didn’t want to argue that point, rather express a preference.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        51·
        2 years ago

        communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.

        Which happened almost instantly. I don’t have much hope that other radical leftist movements will fare much better.

    • Captain Minnette@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      21·
      2 years ago

      I’m on the FMHY instance and the only political ideology community that’s been showing up in my feed has been Anarchism, so it’s probably the instance to join if you’re libleft and don’t want to deal with Auth shit.

          • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
            21·
            2 years ago

            Okay Stalin’s Moustache,

            Listen there’s more kinds of people than liberals tankies, and fascists.

            There are also anarchist who can critizes these three groups ( and others) with out being within them.

            I have no problem with ML and other comrades of various flavors but if your going to be really Into to stalin your not going to be working with me.

            You should read about the Spanish civil war.

              • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
                4·
                2 years ago

                Sure. There are plenty of people who are anarchists, who are people I would not work with. Like armchair anarchists.

                And the word “tankie” does get used by armchair anarchists A lot often inappropriatly.

                But still tankie is a valid crique of Red fascism.

                And if you are a person who believes In communism, and can see it’s benefits but are unable to see it’s faults your probably a tankie.

                Please remember on multiple instances The Soviets turned their back on anarchists. Like in the Spanish civil war.

          • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            20·
            2 years ago

            To tankies fascist means opposing whatever flavor of authoritarian “communism” they prefer regardless of the reasons or context. This conveniently allows any number of pogroms, mass slaughters or engineered famines to be reframed as anti-fascist action, rather than a brutal expression of state power at the expense of the working class.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            16·
            2 years ago

            Then what would you have me call people who make excuses for invasion, oppression, and genocide just because it was committed by the Russian or Chinese government instead of a western one?

        • Frod@lemmy.world
          14·
          2 years ago

          “tankies” criticize the Soviet union, you know? They also criticize the ebil See See Pee but apparently there’s no room for nuance

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
            20·
            2 years ago

            What’s your definition of “tankie”? If you’re willing to call out Putin’s homophobic journalist murdering authoritarian bullshit and the Chinese government’s massacring of protesters and genociding of ethnic minorities you’re not a tankie imo, you’re just a communist.

              • aski3252@lemmy.world
                28·
                2 years ago

                Westerners slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for decades on end, and it was fine because we labeled them all terrorists.

                No, it wasn’t fine, that’s kinda the point… It isn’t fine when the west does it, it’s not fine when others do it too…

                • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
                  9·
                  2 years ago

                  It’s pretty typical tankie behavior that we’re seeing.

                  When you say it’s bad that Stalin implemented genocidal policies such as against the Krim Tartars, Kalmykks and other ethnic groups, they come back with wHaT aBoUt aMeRiCa.

                  They know that both things can be bad, but they have similar incentives to right-fascists. That is to say they’re liars.

    • HornyOnMain🏳️‍⚧️@lemmy.ml
      10·
      2 years ago

      didn’t they have a problem with people doing alt-right dogwhistles about anti-white racism recently? and it got so bad that they had to make a mod announcement telling people to stop doing it and all of the users started trying to explain to the mods how it definitely wasn’t a right wing dogwhistle

      • nunyunuymi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        32·
        2 years ago

        uh oh you said the forbidden word, here come several of the world’s most unfuckable people to tell you about how anti authoritarians are the real fascists and if you’d just spend half a year fully immersing yourself in russian state propaganda, you’d get it too.

        • arisunz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          19·
          2 years ago

          oh no they’re gonna totally own me with their terminally online amount of factoids while telling me how Genocide Is Okay When We Do It, Actually

          • hemko@lemmy.world
            5·
            2 years ago

            That’s a nice link you provided. Quick search shows it’s from same people (Ben Norton) as Grayzone, which is described in wikipedia as such:

            The Grayzone is an American far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. The website, initially founded as The Grayzone Project, affiliated with AlterNet before becoming independent in early 2018. A fringe website, it is known for misleading and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes. The Grayzone has denied human rights abuses against Uyghurs, promulgated conspiracy theories about Venezuela, Xinjiang, Syria and other regions, and promoted pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Grayzone has been described by Commentary as a propaganda shop devoted to pushing pro-Assad, pro-Maduro, pro-Putin, and pro-Hamas narratives.

            This is some truth social level shit

    • Hedup@lemm.ee
      22·
      2 years ago

      Take something antifascists and edit to be … still antifascists.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        34·
        2 years ago

        Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that

        • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
          71·
          2 years ago

          Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These “certain aspects” are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.

          A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.

          Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called “great men.” Excuses after excuses.

        • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          20·
          2 years ago

          The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people’s lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you’ve failed.

              • IriYan@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                state means centralization of power, and in a classless society what class and who would represent it in this centralization of power?

    • limbo99@lemmy.ml
      20·
      2 years ago

      It’s the prog-lib equivalent of woke. It’s used dismiss leftists with out engaging with our arguments. The term has lite ideological or argumentative use.

      • Darorad@lemmy.world
        38·
        2 years ago

        Libs use it that way, actual leftists use it to describe fascists that think they’re on the left and like red flags.

          • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            12·
            2 years ago

            If you’re in a position where you can freely oppress the capitalist class then you’ve already supplanted them and become the capitalist class.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              9·
              2 years ago

              Without a state to enforce environmental regulations, how do you intend to defend your community from pollution? By attacking the polluters with guns? They have guns, too. Probably more guns than you do, since pollution is so profitable.

              Without a state to defend against invasion, what’s going to stop some other country from marching in and enslaving you? Small arms won’t protect you from a modern military; only a modern military of your own will, and without a state, who will command it?

              Without a state to enforce mutual aid, what’s going to stop others from withholding it while taking yours? By the expectation that no one will be so greedy as to withhold needed aid? Then your proposed system will fail almost immediately. By some sort of aid credit that groups of people exchange equally in order to ensure that aid given equals aid received? Congratulations, you have invented capitalism.

              The state apparatus exists for a reason. It has of course been abused, but we can’t simply get rid of it and expect everything to be fine, or else we’d have already gotten rid of it a long time ago.

      • PlasmaK@lemmy.ml
        6·
        2 years ago

        Yes, because lunatics that support dictators just because they have wrapped a red flag around themselves and drop occasional buzzword are totally leftists.