You must log in or register to comment.
another American who doesn’t understand sociadism
I agree. Fascist countries like Denmark, Germany and Canada often get called “socialist” and they have been disastrous for the reputation of socialism.
You are certainly American but that’s especially stupid, is it a troll?
Would you like more resources or is this enough?
https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-strict-immigration-policies-ghetto-neighborhoods-2018-7
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/16/denmarks-mismatched-treatment-syrian-and-ukrainian-refugees
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/18/germany-afd-polls-krah/
try asking a real question and you might learn something
Or pour hot mountian dew down your computer so we don’t have to see your posts anymore
Try to get your head out your ass, that hrlps with thinking! ;)
Try to get your head out your ass, that hrlps with thinking! ;)
I think its sarcasm
As a Canadian First Nation; you’re an idiot.
R/asablackman
You too, are an idiot.
Stop thinking your identity is an excuse to deny genocide and grow up
Of course /s. Germany, with Fuhrer Schultz, Denmark with Grand Admiral Frederiksen (I had to look it up lmao), and Canada with Supreme Commander Trudeau. All of them are actively involved in passing legislation against socialists and Muslims. All of them are involved in gathering Muslims into re-education camps. When socialists protested their respective governments for starting to become capitalist, they were run over by tanks. Also, all of these governments prevent their citizens from accessing the internet outside their own countries. Agreed! Very fascist indeed!
Would you like more resources or is this enough?
https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-strict-immigration-policies-ghetto-neighborhoods-2018-7
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/16/denmarks-mismatched-treatment-syrian-and-ukrainian-refugees
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/18/germany-afd-polls-krah/
Dayum… That’s shameful for Denmark. As for the German far right, polls tell many different stories. The German government is still very democratic. What about Canada? You also accused them of fascism.
To be fair, I would agree that the German government is the most decent in Western Europe. But the far right and anti-refugee sentiment in Germany has risen dramatically, and it wasn’t that great to begin with.
But just to add a few more examples, you have places like Italy, Spain (the current government is still a direct descendant of Franco’s fascist monarchy) and France (see latest laws against Muslims and Arabs, and just the rising hatred in general).
The point is, Western Europe is always painted as this morally superior place, when it is very much not. People are quick to shit talk third world countries as if we’re the only ones dealing with fascistic governments. At least we acknowledge it. So many Europeans do not.
From another commenter: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/2023/08/10/83-areas-of-interest-located-during-search-for-unmarked-graves-at-residential-school
Also, all of these governments prevent their citizens from accessing the internet outside their own countries
if this comment is anything to go by that’s just a massive W for them
Go back to your Fox News with this conservatives bullshit
You’re the one that tells everyone you don’t agree with to go watch Fox News. Just in case you didn’t know, that is not a compelling argument at all.
If they just want to hear they are right and the conservatives are correct then I think they ought to go engage with those nuts on that “news”. You lot obviously have fallen for that bullshit so may as well continue to waste your life watching it since it’s obviously true to you. You are just some conservative roll who can fuck right off
What you’re saying basically is
If I lean more left than someone, they must be one of those MAGA conservative Fox news fanatic.
You might as well go make an account on hexbear.net.
Their account is on Lemmygrad, genius.
I literally said that they might as well leave lemmygrad.ml and make a new account on Hexbear.
Russia and China are Marx’s dream realized.
Saying Marx’s dream at all shows a complete and utter lack of understanding on your end
Right, cause commies don’t dream of a better future. They seize the means of production, put you to work, and then creatively fuck with you and forcibly shut your whiny ass up if you try to say something stupid.
Kindly go fuck yourself. Go back to your Fox News with that bullshit
How is this acceptable discourse? Do you even see yourself? Why are you even here?
If people werent Ukraine defending Nazis then there might not be an issue. If you can’t handle someone having a different opinion then get off the internet
That’s not what I said though, is it? I’m talking about you, your anger, and the fact that whatever your position may be, lashing out at people with such vitriol is counterproductive and shows you to be completely un-self-aware.
As they say, go touch grass. You are completely off your rocker.
Westerners deciding who’s doing real socialism or not. Westerners expressing their most vile sentiment for foreign countries rather than their own imperialism. Westerners praising the words of their own imperialist intelligence agencies. Westerners unironically praising their own nations for civil liberties like the freedom of fascists to assemble, freedom of racists to express themselves, freedom of parents to own their children, and freedom of school districts to continue racial segregation. Westerners praising imperialist nations like Norway as socialist while using bold language like fascism to describe places under that same exact threat of imperialism, like Cuba and Vietnam.
Westerners claiming foreign governments are merely pretending to be socialist, while claiming unorganized misinformed chauvinistic westerners are the true heirs to socialism, despite all they do is post online and complain about foreign nations.
Westerners praising anarchist movements from 100 years ago despite having no common cause with those movements, no connection to the circumstances within them, and probably no actual admiration of them. Westerners praising a bastardized, sectarian, perverse form of anarchism rather than attempting unity with organizations in their areas. Westerners refusing to speak with actual anarchists in their area, who by and large don’t give a shit and just want to hand out food or help at shelters. If Buenaventura Durruti were alive today he’d be regarded with scorn by western chauvinists.
Westerners continuing to bring up Trotsky of all people, who wasn’t relevant to world affairs for the last 15 years of his life and certainly not the past 80 years. Westerners not reading a single word of Trotsky’s work, westerners focusing entirely on Trotsky’s feud with Stalin, westerners not knowing that Trotsky was a literal military commander. Westerners calling themselves Trotskyists in 2023 for some reason. Westerners deciding they have a feud with Joseph Stalin, a man who died in 1953.
Westerners attempting to praise their own socialist leadership, who happen to be a scattered group of imperialist-aligned social democrats, Twitch streamers, and actual antisemitic grifters such as in the case of Caleb Maupin.
Its hard to challenge your opinions when you gish gallup 500 talking points
You gish galloped, you ad homin-ed, you no true scotsman-ed, you one true scotsman-ed, and then you mot and bailey-ed.
Checkmate sir
Its ok to say you dont know what any of those mean. You dont have to make an ass out of yourself in the process
DEBATE ME!!!I believe you just engaged in a masked man fallacy taken to the ad absurdum.
Checkmate
I believe you just engaged in ligma balls fallacy with a terminally online spin.
Checkmate
Hey, that one was decent actually! Good job!
“I know why the Hexbear ppbs”
Someone learned something here!
What happened to PPB? I haven’t seen it in a while despite a ton of PPB worthy posts
I dont know what ppbs stands for
It’s okay to sat you don’t understand proper logic and rely on a crutch of cutesy little checklist items
Nobody’s interested in becoming an anti-communist. It’s you who must change your opinions because they are wrong
If their post is short, accuse them of not engaging properly.
If their post is long, accuse them of gish gallop.
Said no one. Except you. You either know what a Gish gallop is, or you don’t. A long comment is not necessarily a Gish gallop. In this case the charge is entirely accurate.
Oh spare me, we both know full well that there was no long comment they could have posted that wouldn’t have been called gish gallop.
As if it’s somehow impossible to make a long comment in support of a single argument? As if Gish galloping comments don’t actually exist? Do I follow your logic properly? What part about this do I not understand?
Accusations of gish gallop are almost always just a bad faith way of dismissing an argument without bothering to address it.
What argument? 20+ arguments were made. Which one am I meant to address?
If I focus on one you’ll jump on me for not addressing the 19 others, which is why it’s a bullshit tactic.
Google “line breaks”. Google “paragraphs”. Thank me later
500 talking points and you couldn’t find a single thing to call into question
I dont want to be a victim of hexbear road rage thanks. You guys just vomit out material in hopes that you can string it together to form a cogent argument. Then you come back smug as ever asking why i didnt respond to the 10k talking points as if I was a human encyclopedia.
How would I distinguish you, based only on your reply, from someone who took one look at two whole paragraphs and decided you weren’t going to read that but had to keep arguing no matter what and spewed out some sour grape nonsense?
Its information overload aka gish gallup
How should we frame our arguments in response to a meme that paints every single prominent socialist and socialist country as fascist without addressing each one?
Really the burden of proof should be on the one making the claim, shouldn’t it?People confuse facism and authoritarianism all the time, and people respond to this as if they’ve never figured this out.
So instead of anything productive these threads churn out:
Omg communist countries are fascist!
actually no socialist!
lol oppression
Vs
hey why do so many socialist states end up being super authoritarian?
hey yeah thats a huge problem, but lets ignore it because west bad
Warning: this is a hexbear user
Warning: 🚨 ⚠️ Hexbearian detected! Everyone, into the posting bunkers!
But is warning morally justified?
Yes, because engaging with hexbears is a waste of time. They are not here in good faith. Either that or they don’t know any better, which in practice amounts to the same thing.
My post was an inside joke based on that users previous posts on our instance.
Have you engaged with a hexbear in good faith?
That’s a fair question and in all honesty the answer is no, because based on what I can easily see and understand of hexbears, they aren’t intellectually serious people and to the contrary are more akin to a kind of 4-chan trolling community than anything worth actual intellectual engagement.
I could be wrong, but so far I have yet to see any evidence as such.
So you wouldn’t engage with any of us in good faith, because you’ve decided that we aren’t capable of that
Very interesting how all those “pretend socialists” only exist in the third world, and all the “real socialists” existin the west. Yet all the successful revolutions have been done in the third world by “pretend socialists”, and the so called “real socialists” in the west have accomplished nothing. Their biggest success of the “real socialists” in the west being capitalist welfare states or social democracies that rely on old school imperial relationships to fund their welfare in a select few areas.
No Eurocentrism present to this line of thought here at all…
What do you think of Nelson Mandela OP? He was a very good leader, right? You know that he considered Cuba an ally and supported their revolution as Cuba sent troops to fight against the apartheid government in the border wars, took inspiration from Mao and called the Chinese revolution a miracle, thanked the Soviets for giving unending support in the fight against apartheid while receiving the a Lenin Peace Prize? So is Nelson Mandela now a fascist according to your meme?
Nelson Mandela was not a great man. At least not great enough to be so admired while F.W De Klerk had his funeral protested (F.W De Klerk helped end Apartheid).
Nelson Mandela did no more besides be a figurehead and help make a constitution that no one (not even when he was in power) follows. The ANC is corrupt to this day
Im going to come by your homestead with a handgun past midnight and make you feel true fear, Afrikaner maggot
Based
I’m South African, I know who F.W de Klerk is. Don’t lie about what he did, there’s a reason he was unanimously booed while receiving his joint noble peace prize. He didn’t help end apartheid, he was forced into a position where it was the only viable option. Pure pragmatism. He was a member of the NP for many years, he willingly joined that organisation at the height of apartheid in 1972. If he was actually interested in ending fighting apartheid, he would have joined a liberation movement, not the apartheid party.
de Klerk was an apartheid president that was so corrupt he ordered the incineration of evidence of his, and his parties, corruption and crimes against humanity to be carried out by industrial steel smelters. Not to mention what he did with all the “third force” shenanigans towards the end of apartheid that almost caused civil war. It’s been revealed that he knew all about it. Or all the racist things he said later in life that revealed his true character, such as refusing to call apartheid a crime against humanity. Yes, I also used to be a liberal that thought de Klerk was a good guy that helped end apartheid, that was until I actually decided to do some research into the matter. Nelson Mandela said it best when it comes to de Klerk:
“Despite his seemingly progressive actions, Mr de Klerk was by no means the great emancipator…He did not make any of his reforms with the intention of putting himself out of power. He made them for precisely the opposite reason: to ensure power for the Afrikaner in a new dispensation.”
Yes the ANC is now extremely corrupt, it was effectively couped by corporate interests in the late 90s and early 2000s. Remember the move from RPD to GEAR? Thabo Mbeki and Trevor Manuel? Ramaphosa running away to make money in McDonalds and mining instead of succeeding Mandela? Leaving the door open for Mbeki to become president, a self described Thacherite who instituted austerity measures, underfund Eskom and give South Africa it’s first bout of load shedding, and denied that HIV causes AIDS, killing hundreds of thousands in the process? This all paved the way for Zuma’s corruption and ineptitude, and for Ramaphosa to come back, even after his shameful involvement in Marikana. Yes the ANC is shamefully corrupt, incompetent and useless, and it’s interesting to look at exactly how it got to that position.
“Authoritarian” is completely drtetmined by
Western left anti-communist only like the socialists who lose
You exposed their ass
OP be like: “Yes, I’m a socialist. No, I’ve never read Marx nor Engels, I get my ideas from CNN. Why do you ask?”
Fascism.
I’m confused, are you saying he’s using it wrong?
Here’s a copy paste from Webster.
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Replace the word race with party and you’ve got an incomplete yes, but not necessarily inaccurate description of Stalins USSR.
Seriously not trying to just be a troll or shill here, so if you feel I’m wrong please let me know how and why. I am legitimately, in good faith, curious about the perspectives of some communist here. It is an ideology I am somewhat interested in.
You can’t just swap words out and assume the framework is the same. It literally makes no sense. Changing one word can, and does, have a huge effect on overall meaning of a sentence.
I’m sure a lot of people will chime in, I just want to add this short vid with Domenico Losurdo.Here.
Replace the word race with party
That’s a pretty significant difference, don’t you think? Exalting racism and exalting a political organization that opposes racism are diametrically opposed things, not equivalent.
Replace (good thing) with (bad thing). You looking pretty fucking bad now don’t you tankie?
Not saying it is a fair exchange, you are correct. But do keep in mind the wording in the definition is “often”. My suggestion of replacement was to emphasize that race is not a requirement to the definition, it’s just pointing out that it is usually the characteristic used to define who is the most loyal or desired type of citizen. From what I understand party loyalty could be definitely be applied there.
There’s a reason that race is included though, and that reason is that fascism aims to strengthen and reinforce existing hierarchies. That generally includes race, gender, sexual orientation, class, disabilities, etc. Theoretically it’s conceivable that you could have a political project that includes all of that except for race, but in practice it’s extremely unlikely that a fascist project would exclude it, which is why it’s mentioned in the definition.
Communists (esp. Marxist-Leninists) believe in using political power to reduce or remove these hierarchies, even if it requires the use of force. For instance, I think it’s good that slave owners in the US were forcibly suppressed and the people they enslaved were liberated. Does that “willingness to forcibly suppress the opposition” make me (and Lincoln) a fascist, even though my goals and values are completely opposite to those of fascists?
If “the opposition” in your definition is taken to include groups that would also forcibly suppress their opposition given the opportunity, then it seems that Webster’s has unintentionally baked in assumptions from which the only conclusion is something like anarcho-pacifism, while labelling all states as inherently fascist. This is either a bad definition, or a bad interpretation of the definition.
That is a good point. It’s a really interesting application of the tolerance paradox. This is some good perspective I’m getting, glad I made this comment thread.
Replace the word race with party and you’ve got an incomplete yes, but not necessarily inaccurate description of Stalins USSR.
Replace the Sodium in Sodium Chloride with Hydrogen and OH GOD IT BURNS IT BURNS OW OW OW OW!
“Replace the word ‘pollution’ with the word ‘jews’ and captain planet looks pretty fascist!”
A different response, which comes from a different angle to those pointing out that Marxism-Leninism is not fascist:
The word ‘fascism’ is used so fast and loosely outside of a technical context that I wouldn’t say one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong. It depends on context. (Incidentally, same for ‘socialism’, even principled well-read communists can’t agree on a definition.)
For example, if we’re talking about the actual Fascist ideology (think of Mussolini and associates) then I would even hesitate to include Nazism due to the very different roots: they’re both nationalist anti-liberal anti-democratic, anti-socialist ‘third way’ ideologies and they did ally in the war, sure, but to group them both as ‘fascism’ trivializes core differences in how they formed, why they successfully formed, how they appealed to their followers (fascism actually recruited many self-identifying socialists in Italy and its important to recognise why to prevent it), and why they were ultimately antisocial and unsuccessful in their goals.
This isn’t just some academic masturbation nitpicking or anything: I believe that the ignorance of Classical Fascism by lumping it in with the far more obvious and baseless idiocy of Nazism makes it harder to recognize and counter, especially when neo-Nazis are such ridiculous cartoonish farces. Fascism stemmed from National Syndicalism and has core economic ideas like corporatism (from ‘corpus’) that could fool people, and sounds much less stupid that Hitler’s bizzare esoteric fantasies about Aryan racial supremacy: even Mussolini considered Hitler crazy.
The point of me making this distinction is that the dictionary definition you gave isn’t even wrong in describing fascist ideologies, but, I don’t think that list of common traits should be mistaken for a definition. Those traits are the results, not the foundation of the ideology, and a neo-liberal state like the USA can easily match many of those traits despite being a very distinct ideology. Any you will absolutely see people saying ‘USA is fascist’ as a shorthand for nationalist, racist, imperialist, oppressive, blah blah blah, but it’s definitely not post-National-Syndicalist faux-socialist corporatist collectivism. We should obviously fight both but they are not the same and manifest differently.
Personally I like the definition that the historian Robert O. Paxton uses. Now, he’s a liberal, but he does have good insight into fascism and he doesn’t fall into that trap of deciding that communists and fascists must be the same thing. His definition isn’t materialist, but it’s a good start.
To paraphrase, his definition is “a suppression of the left among popular sentiment.” By left he means things like socialists, labor organizations, communists, etc. Fascism is a situation where a country has found its theater of democracy has failed and the capitalists need anything at all to keep themselves in power, even if it means cannibalizing another sector of capitalists. The fascists are the ideological contingent of this, who put forward a policy of class collaboration between working class and capitalist, instead of what socialists propose, which is working class dominance in the economy. Fascists exalt nationality or race because that extends through class sentiments. It brushes aside concerns like internal economic contradictions. I once had a comrade say something like “Fascism is capitalists hitting the emergency button until their hand starts bleeding.”
Communists using a vanguard party is to defend their own interests against capitalists or outside invaders. The praise of the CPSU in Stalin’s era was precisely because it acted as a development and protection tool for the working class. It did its job and people were wary of any return to the previous Tsarist or liberal governments. Women began going to school, women were given the vote for the first time. Pogroms ceased. In less than one lifetime of the CPSU administrating the country, people went from poor farmers to living in apartments with plumbing, heating, and clean medical care. That’s why there was such praise of the party, because they actually did things people liked, and they didn’t want anything to threaten them.
Also, what does it matter if there’s one party or two? The working class have a singular, uniting interest to overthrow capitalism. Why are multiple parties needed? Anything the working class needs to negotiate for can be handled within a socialist, democratic structure, not two or three competing structures against one another. Take a look at Cuba, which has one party, but doesn’t use their party to endorse candidates. Everyone’s officially an independent in the National Assembly.
I’m confused how he could make these observations and remain a lib, what happened?
He was a professor at Harvard most of his career, if that explains anything. He’s also on record calling the January 6th capitol thing a fascist coup attempt.
If i remember his book correctly, at start he explicitly denies marxist definition of fascism, and then in course of the book his research lead straight to it being correct on at least two separate occasions, them makes full stop and end the topic when he realise what would he have to write next.
I don’t know if thats merely ritually exorcising communism in order to have his book accepted by liberal academia (like in case of Geza Alfoldy for example) or he really is this intellectually dishonest, because he clearly did realised. Anyway it was funny as hell and the book isn’t even bad.
Possibly because of the way he’s found his career. Paxton is very popular in France and was very instrumental in introducing liberal historiography into French WW2 history. For him to throw a bone to Marxists would be undermining how he earned a name for himself in the first place.
Yeah i see that in polish social sciences too, especially by older authors, it’s hard here to keep position in the academia without paying at least lip service to anticommunist witchhunt. Unfortunately even those people are already dead and the new ones are not even shy about being opportunists, most books publish nowadays are almost worthless since it’s either anticommunist propaganda, pophistory or bland compilations from older ones.
Prepare for the 14year Olds on hexbear to come in and pretend that China has a great government
define fascism
Cheering on the genocide committed against ukraine for example
Literally no such thing. The Holodomor is a fiction created by Nazi propagandists to paint the failures of Soviet agricultural policy in dealing with a famine as a deliberate attempt to exterminate Ukranians.
Important to note, this was merely the latest in a long series of famines which had historically plagued this part of eastern Europe. It was also the last.
For more detail, look up the hearst press holodomor controversy
Much appreciated. I could do with more specificity the next time I have to make this argument lol
not a genocide by any reasonable definition of genocide, and calling non-genocide things “genocide” dilutes the term in a way that is beneficial to nazis.
none of us cheer the invasion, we shit on boris johnson for sabotaging peace talks you dolt.
Misuse of the term genocide is considered soft-holocaust denial.
war=genocide now
So the Us did a Genocide in
Lybia Cambodia Iran Iraq Afghanistan Nazi Germany Japan The United States
to name a few
Do you seriously not see how degranged it is to change the definitions of words based on vibes to try to win an argument online?
Fuck ooooooff
deleted by creator
You’re the one doing holocaust denial by crying crocodile tears over nazis
So you hate Nordic countries?
Sorry, this meme doesn’t make sense, what do you think socialism is?
This is a weak meme lol.
deleted by creator
Lmao how many people own the means of production in Scandinavia?
It certainly isn’t a democracy, given that they’re a capitalist country where the oligarchy of wealthy companies get more say than the average person.
Again, what do you think socialism is? What do you think fascism is for that matter?
socialism is when people within my borders are happy
the happier they are the more socialistier it is (this analogy probably still doesn’t even make sense if you look at suicide rates lmao)
Well, there are quite a lot of government owned by the Scandinavian government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Sweden?wprov=sfla1
And about the democracy Sweden gets a 100/100 in the democracy index.
So, not only are you wrong about their socialism but also on the democracy. Ergo, you are a disinformation spreader and someone that under communism would 100% be an enemy of the state.
The nordic model is a hybrid of social democracy (liberal, not socialist) and corporatism (definitely not socialist).
All forms of socialism, from anarchism / libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to marxism-leninism, are fundamentally anti-capitalist. The sooner you get this the sooner you’ll stop making a fool of yourself.
I understand that, but some people say “hey Scandinavia kinda socialist though” and you know what? Scandinavia is in general a decent place. Also, as another commenter said, Sweden got a 100/100 on the democracy index and there is a list of government owned enterprises in Sweden.
Again: my only beef is with those who support Stalin and whatever the ccp is doing (putin supporters too) and I’m personally leaning probably more towards democratic socialism or ancom (not sure though)
If you’re leaning towards ancom then why tf are you looking at government of any form through rose coloured glasses. Nordic governments being more ““democratic”” than Putin’s or Xi’s governments doesn’t make them “decent”. They’re still structured after capitalism, they’re just better at exporting their exploitation.
They’re the type of socialism (social democracy) that I approve of.
Social democracy is not socialism, it is social-fascism, class collaboration leeching off the wealth of the global south like a settler vampire from the hill of the imperialism. Look at how social democratic settlers treat immigrants, or minorities/natives. You fundamentally do not understand what socialism is.
And no offense, but you have no fucking idea what the the PRC is doing. You know nothing about their government structure, how policy is carried out, or the way the system functions at all. I guarantee you could not name the tiers of government, or even three government officials without looking it up. Your ignorance is shown right away by the fact that you say “CCP” (Chinese Communist Party) when the correct acronym is “CPC” (Communist Party of China). This is such a simple mistake that proves you have not read any media outside of the west regarding China.
As a point of unhelpful pedantry: I feel the need to point out that social democracy, while far preferable to liberal democracy, doesn’t actually qualify as socialism since it doesn’t guarantee workers control over the means of production.
But also, that’s far less important than recognizing that Stalinism is fundamentally awful so you’re doing far better than anyone on Hexbear.
Edit: to Hexbear people, don’t reply. I don’t care about your opinion about anything. If anyone posts a Tankie meme at me I’m reporting you for harassment.
Does the average Chinese or Russian worker control the means of production, or do they not?
As far as I am aware, they do not.
It was a rhetorical question, of course they don’t.
Hexbear’s preference for China and Russia have nothing to do with communism and everything to do with their alignment with and love for their dictators.
Calling communists fascists? Lmao please read theory, like any theory. Fucking anything at all would be better than this lib bullshit.
Uhhh the “National Socialist” Party was fascist, right? Entities posing as socialist CAN lie and actually be fascist, correct? Or is this western propaganda too?
The original meme listed communist movements and people, which are what this edited meme is referring to. It’s possible for fascists to pretend to be socialists, but the things and people referenced were not that.
Uhhh the “National Socialist” Party was fascist, right? Entities posing as socialist CAN lie and actually be fascist, correct? Or is this western propaganda too?
Wait 'til you learn that urinal cakes aren’t yummy baked treats
I will have you shot
The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
Look, I agree that it’s dumb to call yourself a socialist and have zero respect for most attempts at socialism, especially when your critique doesn’t come from anything serious but just parroting of cold war propaganda. I agree that these countries weren’t literally the devil, nor fascist, not “pretending”, that’s all fine.
But it’s still so dishonest of MLs to dig for quotes and smugly boastbout how “libertarians never succeed”. Even if we completely ignore all the very explicit and deliberate attempts at sabotage anarchists had to endure from their statist “comrades” (which we shouldn’t but we always casually seem to be forced to do in the name of “unity”), it doesn’t change the fact that vanguardist revolutions have all been incredibly flawed too.
You all are very often willing to recognize your failures, most of the people like you I have talked to seem to agree that at some point the revolution was “hijacked”, usurped, corrupted, lost aim, usually coinciding with a figure they don’t like taking over the revolutionary government and messing things up.
The supposed “strong state that crushes all opposition” being taken over by the reformist opposition and then the capitalist one in the case of the USSR and Leninists. The market reforms of Deng in the case of China and Maoists. But you all never seem to ask yourselves the question “Why was that allowed to happen?”. Why am I supposed to put my trust in some authoritarian bullshit solution specifically justified as a means to protect the revolution when it failed at doing so? Why do you have to be so smug and condescending at me for not trusting in things that didn’t work?
Why do you instead of learning from the mistakes in your methods that most of the time you yourself recognize and trying to come up with new ideas and systems for the current age, insist on still clinging to material analysis of the world of a hundred years ago as the gospel, the sole undying and absolute truth on how to Make Socialism, merely saying “it’ll totally work right this time” instead? Why do you insist on mocking and “”“dunking”“” on anyone who refuses to do that?
They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted.
This is all completely false. It genuinely is just lies. You can disagree with the explanations, but to claim there literally aren’t any is just ignorance and a complete lack of good faith. Look, if you’re a socialist in the internet, you probably have dealt with confidently incorrect liberals whining about strawmen that you don’t believe, because they haven’t read anything about it - and it’s probably been incredibly frustrating. So why do you never think twice before doing the same thing with anarchists?
I’m always told to read Lenin and a ton of authoritarian essays and I always do in good faith, but it’s extremely rare for me to ever be afforded the same honour, and then all the conversations I have end up with people telling me shit like this and me having to explain anarchism 101 to them because they genuinely don’t actually know anything.
No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
I am also always told to be charitable and nuanced about the failures and mistakes of vanguardist revolutions, but no one ever has the same honour with anarchist ones.
I am quoting Parenti. You’ll need to read Blackshirts & Reds to get an answer – that’s where the quote is from – or one of his other books.
Thanks for ignoring everything I said.
Sorry to disappoint. I don’t have hard opinions about anarchists vs MLs. I generally think Engels was more convincing on authority, but I’m not well read enough to have a formed opinion on it and haven’t read anything from the last decade or so. I especially don’t think the things that you’re asking here because I didn’t write the statement, Parenti did, and he did so for rhetorical effect against western leftists putting ideology over AES. I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I am sorry for being agressive. I mostly assumed you thought the same things as the person you were quoting. I appreciate that you at least admit you aren’t well read enough, that’s more than most people I talk to.
I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I really appreciate this too. Thank you. I think as a direct expanding on what I’m talking about, this essay is very good:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary
It’s available on video form too, but the video doesn’t have citations.
Here’s a good rebuttal of On Authority:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/london-anarchist-federation-the-problems-with-on-authority
A modern and a classical reading on how anarchists view authority and power:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-power
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-what-is-authority
Cheers pal, I’ve favorited this post to come back too. I’ve read Bakunin before, but I haven’t read the rebuttal on On Authority or the other essays you linked. Looking forward to it! Appreciate the time you put into this
Thank you for being willing to engage sanely in the first place. <3
At least it’s something new instead of a method that has failed to bring about socialism time and time again through history. All those transitory government systems just end up being dictatorships that give as much power to the workers as the fucking US, less even.
You will never achieve socialism if you just prop up a ruling class with vastly different class interests, they will never cede power to the workers.
It’s very far from new, and it has failed entirely to bring about socialism time and time again through history.
You will never achieve socialism if you just passively support the status quo while condemning all forms of AES for not being pure enough.
What I support is workers organising. What I don’t support is Stalinist strongmen oppressing workers. Socialism without power of the workers is meaningless and not worth achieving, that’s literally the current system. If I wanted capitalism with socialist aesthetics I can just move to China, that already exists. What I want is actual power to the workers and nothing else.
Workers had more power and say in democracy in the USSR then they have ever had in a Western capitalist country, and American police are more brutal, more violent, more repressive, and kill more people than any “strong men” under Stalin. You’ve consumed too much anti-communist propaganda.
No, me and my family lived under Soviet rule in an annexed satellite state. Workers had no power here, people who were friendly to high ranking party members had power and if workers did not comply they got sent to slave camps in siberia where they were not likely to return.
I really don’t care about the US and it’s quite weird how literally everyone who is trying to paint the USSR in a good light says that with no prompting. Like lung cancer is also bad but bringing that up in every single conversation about anything is weird.
no prompting
My sibling in Christ you mentioned Stalin, a leader of the USSR, and this entire thread is about socialist states
Was Stalin the president of the US? Is the US the leader of socialism or something? The US has nothing to do with socialism, like I have been part of my local anarchist group for years and no one has ever even mentioned the US.
When and where did you live in a SSR?
What decade were you born in?
1993 every time. They always “know” what the USSR was like better than their tankie grandparents
Did an AI write this? You didn’t actually respond to anything I said.
Neither did you.
I clearly did, but by all means, go with “no u” and see how convincing it is.
You attributed some failed strategy to me and then accused me of purity testing states that are only aesthetically socialist. That response had nothing to do with what I said.
Hexbear users don’t operate in good faith so no point in actually trying to engage them in good faith. They will wear you out if you do.
We engage in good faith only so long as we are met with good faith, if you aren’t going to respect us we have no reason to respect you
You aren’t new you are in a tradition of 200 years of stepping onto rakes. Your face plant is not innovative
Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle.
No, it’s pretty simple. It’s called “profit sharing” where workers get the lions share of profits. It’s more realistic than alternatives in a country that thinks Joe Biden is a communist.
Not sure what your point here is mate
I didn’t expect you to
Lmao good talk
Repeating CIA approved talking points to own the Tankies
oh no the tankies be tanking
