512
meta lemmy cross-instances dissing
(feddit.it)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
512 points (84.6% liked)
Memes
45834 readers
2406 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
In the case of Russia, Hexbear largely hates it, they just believe it to be working against NATO. As for the DPRK and PRC, Hexbear defends AES over Capitalist countries, and that includes Anarchists.
It's impossible to be an Anarchist and side with Western Hegemony.
You don't need to side with any hegemony but defending countries that would and have killed anarchist movements makes you less of an anarchist than one that does defend any western power.
Ultimately advocating for anarchist ideals is more likely to work outside of authoritarian governments so I cannot understand how hexbear can defend those. But then again people vote against their interests all the time so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Western powers kill Anarchists too, to a greater extent. If you do not understand this, you are not an Anarchist.
Anarchists picking Socialism over Capitalism and Imperialism makes sense
I need some evidence to believe that authoritarian nations kill and surpress anarchists less than others.
Also none of those nations offer socialism any more than anyone else.
You're an Anarchist, all nations should be authoritarian if you were consistent with your views. If you legitimately believe Socialism to be more authoritarian than Capitalism you're LARPing as an Anarchist.
Citation needed.
I'm guessing you aren't an anarchist because that's mostly about unjust hierarchies, not conflating the word authoritarian.
Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.
I'm a Communist that works with and speaks with Anarchists.
Then you need to study up on AES countries, as there have been and continue to be Socialist countries, despite them not being Anarchist.
A state largely governed by a Communist Party that practices strong central planning and works against bourgeois control is Socialist. As an example, the USSR, where there were large implementations of democratization:
And large reductions in wealth disparity:
Despite overall GDP growth:
Hah, I grew up in the soviet occupied Estonia, democracy did not exist and neither did socialism. Advocating for anarchist ideas also got you locked up. I know enough about countries dressing themselves up as socialist to not fall for it. Socialism does not exist without workers democratically controlling the means of production.
Are you capable of addressing what I said without resorting to anecdotes?
I did, you claimed that you only need to fight the bourgeoisie and practice central planning to be socialist which I absolutely disagreed with. Like I said you need democratic worker control for socialism.
I did not.
The USSR did, as I proved and you simply said "no."
Ah yes, you also said you need a central party control for socialism.
You said they had socialism, I said they didn't. You didn't prove anything. If you wanna go into how elections were run and how candidates were chosen then we can but the picture you provided was accurate for just a brief period in the USSR. I can't remember if worker councils were dismantled during Lenin or Stalin but by the time they occupied Estonia they weren't a thing. In the USSR the higher ups in the party controlled the means of production, they also controlled who people can vote for while making sure that vote didn't change anything.
I did not.
The Soviets were never disbanded until the end of the USSR. You have no idea what you're talking about, nor what constitutes Socialism. It's clear that you're anti-Marxist.
Calling the USSR Marxist is an insult to Marxism. Especially what Stalin made it into. Hearing how people claim that was Marxism would have Marx rotating in his grave so bad it could generate power for the whole world.
Citation needed.