this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
42 points (72.8% liked)
Asklemmy
44625 readers
961 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, I am aware that this is what you believe. However I would argue one can't accept "AES" but disagree on "how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution." because what Anarchists want look nothing like those "AES" states, and therefore the paradox.
Utter nonsense. Anarchists which accept Leninist analysis are extraordinarily few.
That's not what campism means.
I think it's pretty clear that one can accept AES as clear improvements for the conditions of the Working Class as compared to Capitalism, while preferring decentralization and approaches like prefiguration over centralization and public ownership/planning. It isn't a paradox to say "A is bad, B is much better than A, but I ultimately want C."
Further, Lenin's analysis of Imperialism as a special phase in Capitalist development is 100% compatible with Anarchism, as it purely describes Capitalist development and not how to achieve revolution or what a post-revolitionary society should look like. I specifically mentioned analysis of Imperialism and preference of AES over Capitalism, and not Marxist-Leninist analysis of the State, Class, etc, because those aren't compatible with Anarchism. What Lenin outlines in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is a fact that can't be denied. Developed Capitalist countries have seen merging of Banks and Industrialists, resulting in Financial Capital dominating industry, with Monopolies of the few governing the economy and exporting Capital to the Global South in order to super-exploit for super-profits. To deny Imperialism is like denying Colonialism.
We see this alignment of Anarchists globally against Imperialism in societies like the EZLN, which takes much inspiration from Marxism-Leninism with their own characteristics. Those in the Global South are intimately familiar with the mechanisms by which they are exploited and oppressed by the US and Western Europe especially, which is why the Anarchists in the Global South tend to align more with Marxists than Capitalists.
As for Campism, my point is more that you group Anarchists that disagree with you up with Marxists if they recognize the impacts of Western Imperialism and reduce it to Campism. I admit, I could have worded it better, but it's a bad rhetorical trick to deliberately reduce the logical foundations of a position to purely whatever it happens to look like on the outside.
That's the thing. Anarchists don't see "aes" as separate from Capitalism. They are capitalism. Just with a red coat off paint. I can accept that their style of state Capitalism may be an improvement in some areas while being a problem in others, much like Nordic social democracies are different from the unrestrained Capitalism of the USA. But none of them is something anarchists truly support. And therefore again, a paradox in your argument.
Seeing that capitalist nations exploit the poorer ones doesn't require Lenin anyway. This isn't what makes one accept "aes" or the campist mindframre
Anarchists always fall in the anti capitalistic camp but that's where the alignment is ends. There's no evidence that those in the "global south" are approaching MLs any different than I do.
No I just point that anarchists who hang out in hexbear or which regurgitate ml talking points about being two sides, are just campist. I don't know call critics of Capitalism campsits. I only call campist, campists.
To claim that economies where public ownership and planning is primary are Capitalist is silly. That either requires believing that states like Cuba and the USSR don't/didn't have public ownership and planning as the dominant factor of political economy, or a belief that Public Ownership and Planning as primary is Capitalist. The former would be a case of historical inaccuracy, the latter is theoretically ridiculous. I believe you are supplanting your own opinions on Socialism onto Anarchists in general, who tend to prefer Anarchism over Marxism due to differences in analysis of the state, not necessarily what is considered Socialist to begin with.
Saying the difference between pubicly owned and planned economies as primary and privately owned and planned economies as primary is simply a "red coat of paint" is a serious analytical failure, you can acknowledge Marxism as Socialist without thinking it better than Anarchism.
Secondly, you're entirely pivoting your point regarding Lenin's Imperialism, I think. Are you acknowledging that you misunderstood what I was talking about, or are you saying Lenin's analysis of Imperialism isn't accurate? Moreover, it isn't just about how more developed Capitalist nations exploit countries in the Global South, it's an analysis that this is the main obstruction of Socialism of any kind, be it Anarchist or Marxist. Further, it's an analysis of Imperialism as the dying stages of Capitalism, as it directly results in inter-Imperialist wars and total folding of every nation under the thumb of Imperialism until nations begin to break free, weakening Imperialism overall.
Finally, I think you need to talk to more Anarchists globally, and not just in the West. The Zapatistas in EZLN openly cite Marxism-Leninism as one of the founding influences of Zapatismo. Historically as well, Marxists such as the Soviets provided material aid to Anarchist revolutionaries. To only claim Anarchists hostile to Marxism as legitimate, and denouncing Anarchists willing to work with Marxists against Capitalism and Imperialism, is a bit chauvanistic.
Edit: As for the "two sides campism is ML," that's just further proving my point, you refuse to look at the internal logic and call things whatever you outwardly see them as, like you did with calling AES "Capitalist."
Sorry mate but I'm under no illusions on what those "public" economies truly are. There's a nothing "public" about it anymore than state owned services in capitalisti nations are "public". When it's all based on the capitalist mode of production, they're not socialist. They're at best social democracies which is why they are all just continuing the same capitalist degeneration.
About Lenin, I am saying that his analysis of capitalist exploitation between nations isn't anything noteworthy for anti-capitalist criticism. For certain it doesn't prove that "aes" states don't engage in exactly the same imperialism just because they call themselves by a different name. Hierarchies are always going to fight other hierarchies to come out on top. It's ultimately why even ml "aes" states couldn't truly work together without friction.
Spare me the chauvinism accusations. I'm not the trying to co-opt movements with my ideology from afar here.
And yes, me and most anarchists think there's something wrong with anarchists who accept ml talking points and collaborate with them after all the historical lessons to the fonttwry. It's no wonder that most such anarchists eventually reject anarchism and become MLs as well.
I'm don't really care to keep belaboring this point though. I wasn't even talking to you. I just wanted to point out that most anarchists outside of hexbear don't see much anarchist potential there. What we see is people who surround themselves in authoritarian rhetoric due to all the other benefits the space has and eventually get converted to pure authleft, or campism. I personally haven't witnessed even a single self-assigned anarchist there, except the one person who incidentally was the most toxic of all I encountered.
Abouts campism, I don't "refuse go look at the internal logic". That's just sophistry. I just call a spade, a spade.
I'm going to need you to elaborate on what you mean by, say, Cuba not having public ownership. Who do you think owns industry? This is a very silly argument to be having, we can see in Capitalist economies like the US that the Public Sector is used to subsidize and support the interests of the Private Sector, whereas in Cuba, the USSR, etc industry was run and planned publicly. There is a world of difference and pretending there isn't is a fringe position among Anarchists as well as Marxists. Do you have a genuine case to make, or is this a case of "I declared it therefore it's true" things you've been doing? How were and are these economies based on the Capitalist Mode of Production?
As for Lenin, his analysis of Imperialism doesn't mean AES states cannot practice Imperialism, but at the same time that statement itself is a nothingburger, you aren't backing up any of your assertions.
As for claims of chauvanism, I was speaking of your attitude with respect to Anarchists in the Global South. The Zapatistas, the largest and biggest example of working Anarchism, openly state that Zapatismo was influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Anarchists in Spain were materially backed by the Soviets. Anti-Marxist Anarchists have gotten into conflict with Marxists, but this is not a rule about Anarchism nor Marxism.
You're allowed to have your opinion on the Anarchists of Hexbear, but I think you have a bad habit of asserting your opinion as a Western Anarchist as the Anarchist opinion, and I believe this clouds your judgement greatly.
Edit: you don't call a spade a spade, though, you call whatever you want whatever you want and don't elaborate on it. Declaring something to be true doesn't make it so.
Cuba, Soviet union, China they all have wage slavery. Ergo they're not socialist. They're just state capitalist, where the state apparatus is the capitalist and the party is the bourgeoisie. Which is why all these nations just keep doing capitalist shit. I assure you, the concept of state Capitalism is not fringe among anarchists so I would suggest you talk to some anarchists who don't accept "aes" now and then.
Also, I'm not here to have a debate with you. You just jumped into my replies. I'm under no obligation to argue with you rigorously. Hell I'm just typing on my phone here.
Also I never argued that anarchists can't be influenced by ml theory. That is however much different than wholly accepting talking points about "aes" which is anathema to anarchists. However I would argue that every time anarchists collaborated with MLs under the banner of" left unity", they got betrayed. That's a lesson that most of us don't forget.
Finally, I speak only for myself and from my experience with a lot of anarchists, and MLs, and trots, and hardcore stalinists. The idea that anarchists collaborate with ml irl, is fucking laughable and would get you laughed out of any anarchist squat or communist party meeting in Greece. Hexbear is the first time I've seen this and it only "works" because anarchists who are consistent with the larger anarchist theory are labeled "liberals" and "wreckers" and summarily banned.
Can you elaborate on "wage slavery" and how such a term applies to AES states? Getting paid for labor is not anti-Socialist. Further, pretending government is a Capitalist and that the parties are distinct from the working class, and moreover are the actual owners of the economy, is ridiculous. Using the USSR as an example, wealth disparity shrank massively, the top of society earned around 10 times as much as the bottom, as opposed to well into the hundreds as was standard before and after Socialism. If they constituted an owning class, they sure sucked at it.
The real political economy was not based on an M-C-M' circuit founded for the profits of party officials, but a Socialist economy based on public ownership and planning, which resulted in working class victories like free healthcare and education, large scale infrastructure, and early retirement ages. Saying any Mode of Production with wages has "wage slavery" isn't accurate, it's fringe.
You aren't under an obligation to debate me, sure. I'm not demanding you debate me, you're under no obligation to continue. I replied to your original comment as I am free to in order to offer perspective as someone that spends time on Hexbear.
Saying every time Anarchists worked with Marxists they get betrayed is not historically accurate either, there are many cases of alliances that achieve good results. Usually conflict arises if one faction millitantly opposes the other, which was frequently done by the Anarchists as the Marxists usually had more support among the public.
I'm not Greek, nor do I think Greece is the sole authority on the merits of leftist collaboration. I know for a fact that they have historically worked together and do continue to, not all the time of course, but frequently.
The two juggernauts going head to headππ
Lmao, I think considering me a "juggernaut" is very funny, I'm just a dude online that happens to take Marxism seriously. Db0 has a bigger claim to that mantle considering they do a ton of good work on the Piracy and FOSS front, which I respect a good deal, even if their theoretical analysis and knowledge of Marxism is severely lacking.
Nah bro you definitely also should give yourself some props. You're probably the most ardent Marxist on the fediverse. Even though your contributions may not have reached the heights of db0's you're still quite influential in your sphere iykwim.
You're the father of fediverse Marxism while db0 is the father of fediverse Anarchism.
I seriously disagree, there are many better than me over on Lemmygrad and Hexbear. I just spend more time on federated instances.
Willingness to engage outside the echo chamber and in good faith makes you better than them in my book
I'd say that's more of an energy consumption and willpower thing than being a "father of Marxism" for the fediverse. Further, @dessalines@lemmy.ml would have that title anyways as the lead dev of Lemmy itself. I wouldn't call the Marxist instances "echo chambers," living in Capitalist countries in general are already echo chambers, it's the Marxist communities that challenge the echo chamber.
As a side note, did you read Blackshirts and Reds?
Not broπ
And by so doing become echo chambers of their critiques. Anywhere on the internet that is saturated with those who think alike is an echo chamber.
I read a bit. I haven't really been able to get through it cuz i have exams coming up. So i should get to it when those are over.
Don't know what you're saying about Dessalines.
As for "echo chambers," they don't exist devoid of context. An "echo chamber" mirroring the positions of the status quo upholds it, while one going against the grain disrupts the status quo. They aren't equally "echo-y."
Good on you for starting Blackshirts and Reds, good luck on your exams!
I'm saying bro is not all that.
They may not be equally echoey but they're still quite echoey and often deafeningly so.
Thanks!
Getting exploited is certainly not socialistic. The fact that things improved compared to feudalism doesn't mean it was socialist, every capitalist state improved over feudalism. They were just worse than others because they were red fascists who ruled with an iron first until they fucked it up so much it collapsed under its own internal contradictions. Like fascists tend to do.
Saying that most people were working for a wage isn't "fringe" it's the goddamn truth. The whip doesn't disappear because it's the people's whip. It's in fact why "aes" is laughable as a goal. "sure let's just do a revolution so I can work for a boss again, because this time it's the peoples boss" said no one ever.
Anarchists have always been betrayed by MLs in revolutionary periods. Always. Cooperating by doing some anarchist direct action in modern capitalist societies isn't changing that.
Not all labor is exploitation, nor is getting paid for labor exploitation. Labor as a commodity purchased for below its value for the purpose of profit is exploitation, but such a system wasn't descriptive of the Soviet or Cuban economies past the NEP. Rather than flowing into the pockets of an owning class like in Feudalism or Capitalism, the social production was channeled into public services, infrastructure, and more. What caused the overall collapse of the economy in the Soviet Union was trying to keep pace with the US millitarily, which required spending a far greater percentage of GDP on Millitary R&D and development.
Further, the absolutely wild jump to fascism is completely divorced from reality. Read Blackshirts and Reds, fascism has served the Bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat and is thoroughly anti-communist. You went from "Anarchism is the only form of Socialism" to an even more absurd "Marxism is fascist."
Moreover, I did not say that AES states don't have wages, I said wage slavery is not the same as getting paid for labor. This is either dishonesty or a genuine misunderstanding on your part.
Anarchists have not always been betrayed, again, the only supporters of the Spanish Anarchists were the Soviets.
If you think the anarchists of Spain weren't betrayed and undermined by the Republicans and Stalinists, I don't know what to tell you. Tell yourself what you want but anarchists won't forget next time.
All labor where the workers do not directly and democratically control their output is slavery. The party bureaucracy setting wages, output, managers and destroying the unions and the soviets put exactly wage slavery into practice.
What caused the collapse of theater Soviet union was the internal contradictions of an inherently flawed capitalist system. If the workers had freedom they would have never given it up. But the revolution was betrayed from the start and they never got that freedom.
And yes, leninist/stalinist form of authoritarianism is akin to fascism. It's why anarchists call them red fash. Is that also a new term for you? Look it up someday.
It was actually a Trotskyist faction, itself against AES, that led to a breakdown between the Anarchists and Marxists in Spain. The Marxists remained the only supporters of the Anarchists. Seems you did forget.
As for "slavery," by this definition taxes are slavery and public services are slavery. Marx already went over how workers cannot own all of that which they create in Socialism directly, as from a given worker's production needs to be deducted necessary maintenance of administration, social services, and more in Critique of the Gotha Programme. By your definition, Socialism is slavery. Further still, the Soviets were never disbanded, and there were still Unions. Your history is off again.
What "contradictions" do you believe led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? How was the revolution "betrayed?" What "freedoms" did the workers give up? This is all vague and vibes-based.
You still didn't elaborate on how Marxism is "akin to fascism." I'm aware of the term "red-fash," it's a ridiculous term and I linked you a book thoroughly explaining why. I can't force you to read it, nor can I force you to make a coherent point.
Your constant insistence that I'm incoherent is acerbic and I have no patience for it.
For anyone else still reading, I suggest you go and read anarchist accounts of why they feel they're constantly betrayed by MLs in russia and kronstadt, Ukraine, Spain and petty much everywhere they made the mistake to ally with the mls for the sake of the revolution. Sorry but I don't have the time to counter revisionism in lemmy
Fair enough, but I think that goes both ways. You usually make a claim, then when pressed act vague about it. I admire your work on the Piracy communities and your FOSS development quite a bit, but I don't think you act honestly when it comes to political conversations, such as jumping to labeling Marxists "fascist" without elaborating.
Also kinda silly to bring up Kronstadt, which was led by a Tsarist in the middle of a civil war, with plans to execute the Communists.
Yes yes we know the lies told about it. Again, people can go and read on their own about the slaughter of anarchists that happened there.
I didn't call Marxists fascists. I called Lenin's and Stalin's regime red fash.
And I don't act vague, I just don't have the patience to reopen 100 old debates
"Lies?" It's on Wikipedia, lol. As for Marxism, I genuinely don't know what mythical form of Marxism you think is "real" Marxism in your eyes, again, read Blackshirts and Reds.
Links to Wikipedia Wikipedia talks about an anarcho syndicalist. Whatever man
Edit : lol you reported me
An "anarcho-syndicalist" that a year prior tried to join the White Army, and a year after did join the White Army. Some "anarchist."
And that supports your argument how exactly? Oh no! Humans are flawed and can make weird decisions after massive trauma? Not to be mention 1 man is not all sailors. Quickly grasp at the first excuse to validate your slaughter. As red Emma said at the time, "Trotsky protests too much...."
To anyone still reading, this sort of truth stretching to defend the indefensible is why I don't trust campists
You're defending a Tsarist that tried to deliberately sabotage the Soviets during a bloody Civil War, and later joined the Tsarist army as a means to kill more Soviets, as "weird decisions after massive trauma?" Won't anyone think of the poor, poor Tsarists, woe are they...
To mirror you: To anyone still reading, this sort of truth stretching to defend the indefensible is why I donβt trust campists
Keep protesting too much as well. No anarchists believes this garbage but we remember and we learned...