Removed by mod
Please help me understand Hexbear.
Removed by modSo, since coming here, I've been accosted left and right by ML's calling me a Lib for not being a ML. Essentially that's what it's come down to.
My personal philosophy aligns with Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Bookchin. I consider myself an Anarcho-Communist or Communalist, depending on the situation, I suppose.
I firmly oppose fascism and authoritarianism. I believe in direct democracy and the inherent goodness of humanity.
I really thought that I had found a place where leftist thought was going to be welcomed, but so far I have not found it here. All I've found are hateful people who want me to leave.
Like I said elsewhere, it's almost as if they don't want new people to join their cause. Like they're actively pushing people away who could have the potential to learn, and who have explicitly come here to learn and to engage in good faith.
I just don't get it. I feel like our cause will never come to fruition because of these types of attitudes.
You must log in or # to comment.
Hi, I was one of the ones calling you out for being a liberal when you were going off about china or the USSR or whatever a while back. I'm an anarchist. I said it then and I'll say it here too: You're not an anarchist, you're a liberal. Anarchists don't carry water for the CIA. I hope you will become an anarchist through reading and learning.
I don't "carry water for the CIA". That's hilarious. I do, however, analyze all the propaganda that I can find, from all sides, and make my own determinations.
Your determinations, then, are very bad and just so happen to align perfectly with the CIA line.
To be fair, that's not unusual if you haven't unpacked imperialism as much yet. OP doesn't seem like a troll, so I'm pretty game for talking things over with them as long as they stay chill.
Yeah, the problem is they only became "chill" when they realized that absolutely no one was taking their side when they came in shitting all over the place with "tankie" this and "red fash" that. It's a miracle they weren't permabanned ages ago, because people have eaten permabans for far, far less.
You're probably not a CIA plant, but challenging your own foundational thoughts on both current or historical enemies of the US can be helpful in someone's growth.
There's so much propoganda that Americans/westerners consume without even realizing it can shape criticisms of AES.
I really like this article about AES. What do you think? Is it CIA propaganda?
I'm honestly not very far into that article and it's just not very good to me. I hate using the phrase "strawman" but that's exactly what it does multiple times within the first few paragraphs. There's no way I'll make it the entire 17 minute read, so I'll just respond to the general premise.
The defense of AES states is so that they can hold on as capitalism crumbles in hopes something better comes afterwards instead of something worse. There's no global communism button which we just have to find and press so I'm going to support movements that support workers around the world.
I have some leftist criticisms of AES states, but as an Amerikkkan it's more important for me to look to build socialism/communism/anarchism (whichever route we take) at home and defend those looking to build theirs abroad.
Because non-leftist criticisms or apathy of AES around the world plays into the hands of the capitalist order. Which is why you'll find people calling you a :fedposting: or CIA or whatever. Because unless those critiques come from the left which the article doesn't because:
First, this attitude is one that courts stagnation over revolutionary change
Revolutions happen to create these states.
Furthermore, the doctrine of defending that “socialism which actually exists” over building new socialist societies has, in practice, always amounted to a doctrine of defending revisionist and pseudo-socialist capitalist systems instead of supporting the cause of genuine socialism.
Is the application the there's a single global blueprint forward (like a communism button) and there's just absolutely not going to be.
So that's why truthfully we should offer critical support for socialist countries as they exist, because otherwise our from the right criticisms are just carrying water for the CIA.
we should offer critical support for socialist countries as they exist, because otherwise our from the right criticisms are just carrying water for the CIA.
I hear you on that. But the issue that I seem to have is that there doesn't seem to be any "critical" support. It's just full-on boner support.
You're probably looking on meme pages then (at least around here), because even around here in serious threads or news stories you will get criticism from the left of AES groups.
Yo , if you want to explore this idea further .. hit me up
I do, however, analyze all the propaganda that I can find, from all sides, and make my own determinations.
And your levelheaded analysis led you to the conclusion that you had to make bait China posts and yell red fascist in the comments?
Maybe don't post stuff from the chud propaganda website foreignpolicy.com, and take what it says seriously. It's neoconservative propaganda
Also if we want an anti sectarian space, we ourselves must not engage in sectarianism. You called Stalin a "Nazi collaborator" and proceeded to call other users "fed fash" and tankies". Whatever our thoughts on Stalin, Marxist Leninism, Maoism, etc, or their methods, this will not go over well.
You called Stalin a “Nazi collaborator” and proceeded to call other users “fed fash”
But see, calling people the worst thing possible is just friendly ribbing! This is why whenever I'm introduced to a new group I joke that everyone's a pedophile -- it's bonding!
"when I literally call other fascists it's fun and not sectarian, but when others call me a liberal it's sectarianism"
Maybe don’t post stuff from the chud propaganda website foreignpolicy.com, and take what it says seriously. It’s neoconservative propaganda
Then I would expect the comments to reflect that, and to point out how exactly it is propaganda, instead of just dismissing it. That would be interesting to me.
You called Stalin a “Nazi collaborator” and proceeded to call other users “fed fash” and tankies".
Please do not put words in my mouth.
I have not called other users red fash. I have said that red fascism is a thing.
I have not called other users tankies, but I have used the term pejoratively.
Stalin did make a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. That's a fact. In my book, that's Nazis collaboration, even moreso than Gandhi's nicely worded letters to Hitler imploring him to rethink his actions. But apparently Gandhi's the "nazi collaborator" because of his letters opposing Hitler, and Stalin isn't, even though Stalin literally shook hands with the Nazis.
You probably know more than me about pol pot tbh, so I'm open to that. I know about the glasses thing, and that apparently the Khmer Rouge is what no theory does to a mf. I've seen you posting good takes for a while, so generally take you more seriously than Guy_ "I am so sad and concerned that these red fash tankies are rejecting my state department propaganda" Dudeman lmao
the red fash are coming for us all, just look at this report by professor zenz
Dude I would describe my ideology exactly the same as yours(ancom/communalist/democratic confederalist) but you are repeating capitalist propaganda uncritically, for example the only reason the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed is that the western powers refused to agree to an earlier anti Nazi pact proposed by Stalin https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
Yeah, but you STILL don't shake hands with fucking Nazis. I don't give a flying fuck. You know?
You don't, but you also don't have the fate of millions of people on your shoulders, regardless of any moral judgement you care to pass presenting one side of the story without the other pushes certain narratives and is disingenuous. You know?
:this: Who killed the nazis versus who smuggled them out and gave them new jobs
but you also don’t have the fate of millions of people on your shoulders
True.
presenting one side of the story without the other pushes certain narratives and is disingenuous. You know?
I suppose I can see how someone could interpret it that way. That wasn't my intention.
Hexbear is pretty US-centric, as English forums are, but do you think there are zero Chinese users? “You’re an X” and “that guy who says you’re an X is right” are the same. As far as I am concerned this violates the rule.
Look - if someone told me that the US was a fascist state, I would agree with them. I wouldn't take it personally. Neither should any Chinese user.
Yes, although the US and the USSR both traded with the Nazis as long as they could, the USSR actively helped occupy Poland. Handshakes don’t matter; killing resistance fighters does, in spite of extenuating circumstances.
Exactly. I'm with you there.
We have better things to do than fight about 80-year-old actions of a state that’s been dead for 30 years.
I agree.
Also, as a small tidbit of thinking about fascism part:
Red fascism comes from fundamental disagreement over fascism nature with marxists: if your thinking is repressive state is fascism, sure, but that’s not all that fascism is though
state enemies are all authoritarian, therefore fascistic. It’s the product of 50s conservative thinking, and not very good one (to me).
- curiously, fascism doesn’t apply to the whole usa history (not in popular circles), where you can make a case that usa was and is a post-fascist country.
Thank you for actually engaging with me in good faith instead of insulting me. I have some questions:
if your thinking is repressive state is fascism, sure, but that’s not all that fascism is though
I agree. In my view, Fascism also involves the means of production and exploitation of labor and nationalism.
fascism doesn’t apply to the whole usa history (not in popular circles), where you can make a case that usa was and is a post-fascist country.
Interesting. I can see that line of thinking. In my view, Monarchism is a form of Fascism. So, breaking away from Monarchism to a more democratic way of doing things, one could say is moving beyond fascism.
But what we moved into (Capitalism) is worse than Feudalism because it blurs the class lines, giving false hope to the common people, convincing them that if they just play the game they too can one day be kings too.
I may be misunderstanding your comment. But I really do appreciate you taking the time to engage me in good faith.
I think you just have to have idea which users have some reactions lol.
Main underscoring point is claiming country that killed most amount of fascist is fascist itself is very unpopular opinion, so you’ll get pushback on it always (I think a deserved one). It’s not like you have to use that term exactly.
But monarchism isn’t fascism, like wtf. fascism is internal process of expropriation by rebelling petit bourgeoisie, lumpen and proles, but expropriation along ethnic lines, instead of class ones. By defining ethnic lines, it has to involve national myth-making, and dehumanization of others, it doesn’t have to have a single leader (although all of them did).
Monarchism is not fascism, however ethnic violence with the goal of appropriation is very close to fascism. America got there with settler colonialism against indians very explicitly. Like imagine hitler in 1810-70, what would he do differently in usa? What would be different in the end state?
country that killed most amount of fascist is fascist itself is very unpopular opinion, so you’ll get pushback on it always (I think a deserved one). It’s not like you have to use that term exactly.
Oh, I definitely get that now. Any criticism of Stalin or any of the other authoritarian regimes is NOT welcome at Hexbear, apparently.
fascism is internal process of expropriation by rebelling petit bourgeoisie, lumpen and proles, but expropriation along ethnic lines, instead of class ones. By defining ethnic lines, it has to involve national myth-making, and dehumanization of others, it doesn’t have to have a single leader (although all of them did).
I guess the issue is that that's using the academic definition of Fascism, rather than the colloquial definition.
The colloquial definition would be something like:
- Hierarchy
- Authoritarianism
- Nationalism
- Lack of democratic processes
This is why many say that Capitalism IS Fascism, I believe.
I've gone a step further and said that Capitalism is Feudalism, and Feudalism is Fascism.
imagine hitler in 1810-70, what would he do differently in usa? What would be different in the end state?
Well, seeing as how Hitler got his ideas FROM the United States' treatment of the Native Americans and Chinese, he wouldn't have done anything differently.
I would be lying if I say it would be super welcome by some parts, but it wouldn’t get people angry. And also, stalin is kinda irrelevant, he is dead. unless you are having a peasant country in need of rapid industrialization, and you don’t want to make same mistakes/successes, either defending or attacking him is, largely, meaningless.
Also, your definition of fascism is very peculiar, I think even some anarchists would be surprised by it.
Colloquial definition of fascism is bunch of bullshit (“it’s what hitler did(tm)”), despite hitler being nazi, and much better case studies for fascism being rise of mussolini and persistence of salazar and franco in late 70s.
It’s not an academic definition, lol, it’s kinda trotsky/marxism influenced one, which I subscribe too, but not some divine truth from academia.
Re your 4 points: every corporation fits your definition of fascism, why do you think they don’t exhibit same outward projections?
again, you are using terms with very specific definitions for marxists (and historians) like feudalism/monarchism/capitalism and then get surprised when people with different frameworks think it’s strange. Capitalism is not fascistic by itself (neither is feudalism), it’s horrible in all the ways, but fascism represents a very particular solution to some capitalism ills, in my view.
How is feudalism is fascism, I’m actually curious?
Also, small note with hitler inspiration: germany had its own colonies, it was perfectly able to make their own horrible decisions without usa know-how, as they have made them already in other places
every corporation fits your definition of fascism, why do you think they don’t exhibit same outward projections?
I'm not sure what you mean by "exhibit the same outward projections"?
It's all about money/resource accumulation and distribution. Capitalism, if left to its own devices, inevitably devolves back into Feudalism, and Capitalism's hierarchy is almost identical to Feudalism's.. Company Towns have been a thing forever, and the ideal state of an anarcho-capitalist system (or lack thereof) is a Feudal society by another name.
Capitalism is not fascistic by itself (neither is feudalism), it’s horrible in all the ways, but fascism represents a very particular solution to some capitalism ills, in my view.
Makes sense, if your definition of fascism is what you said it was. Makes total sense.
How is feudalism is fascism, I’m actually curious?
Feudalism is fascism (according to my definition of fascism) - authoritarian rule, nationalism, suppression of dissent, etc.
This reply made me make an account after a long time lurking.
How old are you? The way you type gives off major vibes of either being extremely immature or being a wrecker.
You need to do a lot more research before you comment the way you do friend, even in this latest reply you show evidence of having no clue what you're saying. How does feudalism display nationalism if the nation state didn't exist during the feudal epoch?
You're asking a community to give you a level of respect that your behavior so far doesn't command, might seem harsh friend but you need to realise this.
How old are you? The way you type gives off major vibes of either being extremely immature or being a wrecker.
I'm 40.
LOL. Why is it always the same old shit? Kids accusing their elders of being kids?
In fact, I'm willing to bet that the ONLY people who use this line of ad-hominem are under 35. How old are YOU, kid?
How does feudalism display nationalism if the nation state didn’t exist during the feudal epoch?
Sigh. Again, you guys are using academic definitions for words - as if words can only have a single meaning at all times throughout all ages.
What is called a "nation" today was called a "kingdom" or "fiefdom" back then. Words change, but meanings remain the same.
The United Kingdom is actually a perfect example of this. It's a kingdom that we call a Nation now, because that's the meaning of both words.
Nation-states are a recent invention, like Anglo-saxon kingdom was not a nation, I implore you to read history of feudalism
LOL. Again, you're hung up on dictionary definitions of words and not what the words actually mean.
A kingdom IS a nation. It is a geographical area within which a governing body has authority and sovereignty.
What authority? They didn’t use same coins, the law was the dictate of local lord, not some codex, judiciary was the lord. Borders? What borders? Common language? Common identity? They don’t know who the king was, outside of seeing new shiny coins, languages were unintelligible in some places 100 miles from each other. There were no taxes to nation, all your interaction was confined to your lord and maybe church taxation.
What exactly nation-like characteristic they’ve shown?
THE FUCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITION IS WHAT WORDS ACTUALLY MEAN! THATS WHAT A DEFINITION IS! You can't be perscriptivist with language to the point that others have no fucking clue what you're talking about. That's stupid, you might as well just speak gibberish. You'll never be able to communicate if you just make up what words mean and expect people to take you seriously.
Ok cool, then if you're using that definition what does it mean for feudal "nation" to be nationalistic. And from that, how is a feudal "nations" nationalism an indication of fascism?
Hmm see how you get nowhere when you use words differently to how they're used in a context like a forum without defining what you actually mean without reference to anything else?
Cool, was just asking your age because of the possibility that you were a younger person not aware enough of the background of some of the topics you're talking about. Obviously I touched a nerve.
Your take on semiotics is interesting and completely wrong in this case. Yes words can change and meanings stay the same, but you are not using the meaning of these things correctly.
you are not using the meaning of these things correctly.
Any lexicographer would disagree with you.
I mean paramilitary violence coupled with political goals, the corporations don’t exactly do that, not in the imperial core.
Capitalism doesn’t evolve into feudalism, because it’s much more broader than feudalism ever hoped to be. As a feudal lord, the only way to increase your fortunes is land, because productivity is low, then it became take over sphere of trade (mercantilism), then it became owning means of production. Capitalism achieving its ultimate monopoly equilibrium is nothing like feudalism. I think you have very simplistic perception of feudalism (no offense). It was much freer than cyberpunk hellhole of capital totality.
Actually in the article/essay I linked to you (as it’s anarchist), they use very similar thought process (authoritarianism, blah-blah), even they don’t go to declare everything on earth fascism lol.
:sleepi: now, so good luck with your hot takes (?) or catch some sleep as well
paramilitary violence coupled with political goals, the corporations don’t exactly do that, not in the imperial core.
Capitalism achieving its ultimate monopoly equilibrium
There is no such thing as "equilibrium" in Capitalism/Neo-Feudalism. It's all just a big chess match to see who can launch their dicks into space first.
I think you have very simplistic perception of feudalism
Sure. That may be the case.
It was much freer than cyberpunk hellhole of capital totality.
Sure. That may also be the case.
I mean there are militias, but there are no amazon strikebreaker blue shirts, not yet. I specifically said in imperial core as well, as in global south they usually do exhibit this behavior, but still they hire mercenaries outside, instead of grass-roots brownshirts typically.
Equilibrium is monopoly, it is just stopped/frozen for a time due to popular pressure in the 20-30s with trusbusting/social democracy stuff. Don’t mistake random shenanigans with competition: if given free reign, companies will have cartels and buyouts in 10 years
if given free reign, companies will have cartels and buyouts in 10 years
Less than that, if the Trump Administration is any indication.
You're just making up meanings for words. We're not using our own personal definition for words and expecting others to know what we're talking about, we are using words based on what they mean in order to facilitate communication, y'know, like how language works.
Any criticism of Stalin or any of the other authoritarian regimes is NOT welcome at Hexbear, apparently.
Not true, we shit on the USA literally all the time.
I constantly criticize Stalin. People disagree but it's definitely allowed. There's a difference between criticism and calling people literal fascists.
I'm glad you're getting more positive responses out of this thread. Most of the time you get back what you put in here, so if you start off harsh, then it's gonna get harsh. If you're chill, then you're gonna get chill.
One of the ways everyone kind of flags trolls / wreckers is that they act sort of normal for a little while before flipping out and being huge assholes. When we see new users that start matching that pattern a little, people notice.
That said, sometimes a post gets shitty, at which point I just log off for a while or find a different post.
I’m glad you’re getting more positive responses out of this thread. Most of the time you get back what you put in here, so if you start off harsh, then it’s gonna get harsh. If you’re chill, then you’re gonna get chill.
Makes sense. I appreciate it.
One of the ways everyone kind of flags trolls / wreckers is that they act sort of normal for a little while before flipping out and being huge assholes. When we see new users that start matching that pattern a little, people notice.
Interesting. Sorry if I gave off that smell.
But there is a reason why party made a pact with nazis, and it’s very simple one :shrug-outta-hecks:
You can’t make your own book of collaboration, and then be surprised when you definition gets you angry reactions :shrug-outta-hecks:
I don't agree with having double standards. Either you shake hands with Nazis or you don't. Period. I'm not sure how anyone can be "nuanced" about this.
There is a moral premium in suicidal charge, sure. I for one don’t see value in it despite the purity.
No, you see, Stalin should have thrown even more Soviet Citizens into the blender in a move that absolutely would not have achieved anything positive. Strategy and practical politics are worthless, everything can and should be done from the comfort of a nice, plush armchair.
In any case, this isn't the place to discuss this, so I'm going to be going. :mao-wave:
I don’t think you are a dummy :meow-hug:
Ussr had expected battle readiness of 1942-43, this was known, pff, in 36-38 to party. After unsuccessful shenanigans in spain, they’ve tried to approach france/uk to make an alliance against hitler, possibly over sudetenland annexation (?don’t remember exact time table). As they were tod to jog on, and Britain signed non aggression pact of their own, what choice did they have to stall for war? They’ve made amends/stalled, made ridiculous propaganda at international, and inside the country to appear going along
Divided poland, blah blah. They have hoped for invasion in 1942, as in 1941 prime invasion time was in april, Germany missed it, and ussr thought great, we have a year, just according to plan. Alas hitler was not very rational :vivian-shrug:
Also when they "Divided" Poland, Russia just took back it's own territory
Meh, poland russian border always was a mess, I for one don’t think “it’s own territory” is particularly strong argument for any leftist
A much better argument is that the USSR rolled into Polish territory weeks after the Nazi invasion and actually pushed the Nazis back (without combat) to the agreed-upon border. Would it have been better to let the fascists have all of Poland?
Thank you so much for elaborating. I really appreciate it.
internet is not conductive to good faith discussion without at least similar plane of expectations/terms :meow-hug:
You've made one post about China and proceeded to argue with every single person responding to it lmao
It’s only the biggest struggle sesh they caused they’ve been in several other smaller slap fights over saying red fash and calling socialist project fascist since they made their account
Hey comrade, AnCom(ish) here. The site has a couple things about it that are a lot different than reddit.
-
Anti-imperial - The site is pretty assertive in critical support or just neutrality for AES. I don't think it's not an official rule, but you're definitely going to get shit most of the time for shitting on places outside the imperial core like China. Still a decent amount of discussion over social issues there. Might be a little different in the anarchist comm here, though.
-
Revolutionary - We got banned from reddit for posting about how killing slaveowners was a good thing and most of the community also (finally) gave up on electoralism after bernie got shafted again. If you're reformist or pacifist, just don't be surprised if people disagree with you.
-
Bullying / grilling - we give each other a lot of shit. That comes and goes, but increases as someone gets argumentative.
You probably had some takes that haven't been challenged much on reddit and now are here. We get a lot of wreckers, so takes that repeat propaganda are going to get you a lot of pics of hogs shitting on their balls.
If you feel like political discussions are stressing you out, try shitposting some about other topics for a while. There's one user here who just posts shrek shit so anything goes if it's entertaining.
I don't think you're a lib, especially since you've stuck around. Hope this helps answers some of the "what the fuck even is this place" questions you have.
Thanks. I appreciate it. I truly do.
I remember when /r/chapotraphouse was banned. I was banned along with it.
I just wish that this place could live up to its code of conduct and ideals. I would much rather be welcoming to "libs" and radicalize them (as I was radicalized), than push them away by being a dick.
I understand the desire, but radicalizing libs is best done in person, not online.
Yeah, apparently so. Because all the leftists online a fucking dicks.
-
There's no crying in Anarchism. If you wanna proclaim views that don't align with the majority here, just do it and relish in the pushback rather than whining about it. If it is too mean or sectarian, report it. Nobody has the power to downvote you
I just thought that this site was based on, you know:
a leftist social platform centered around community building through discussion, shitposting memes, and sharing content, and We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, and Please "remember the human" and be kind to your fellow leftists. and Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every leftist has a place in our community. Discussing differences in theory is fine and encouraged, just don't make it personal. Remember: Sectarianism is liberalism. We will ban you if you insult, demean or harass anyone. That is not welcome behavior. This is distinctly different than ribbing or grilling someone.
But NOBODY here is adhering to that.
My good-natured "ribbing" of tankies turned into a fucking dogpile of real shit and I started engaging in good faith instead of having a sense of humor about it, I guess? I don't know. I'm just tired.
If you keep on calling people that, you're going to get banned. Knock it off.
He was already banned for using "tankie" as an insult constantly. He was unbanned and told to knock it off. Now it seems he's switched to "red fash", which is objectively way worse.
He thinks he's avoiding sectarianism because he just calls ML leaders and states "red fash", but then avoids it with users of the site that align with those same leaders and states. Ridiculous behaviour.
Almost everything this guy has done so far has been sectarian shit flinging, debatebro behavior, and making a huge mess. I'm not sure I buy the "good faith" thing.
Honest question: Would Volin have been banned, then? Exiled, you might say?
I don't know. One thing I will say is that despite this site's claim of left unity, it does trend towards being very ML, including me. I like this site, and we could use more anarchists. That being said, you are encountering pushback because a lot of your positions are not anarchist, they are liberal.
Ok. That leads me to another question then - what would the prevailing thought be among anarchists regarding authoritarian governments like China/Stalin's USSR etc.?
I think you're right. It does deserve its own post. That would be a great discussion. I'll put a pin in it for now.
Volin smeared Makhno as a rapist with no evidence
If he did that to another user here, yes he would probably be banned
He's one of the main theorists behind synthesis anarchism, the debate between synthesis and the platform is an interesting issue in anarchism imo
Which is one of the reasons I'm here. I want to talk about this stuff.
Well yes, of course. That's a personal dispute.
But would he have been banned for calling Bolsheviks "red fash"?
Idk have you been banned for saying it? Your probably not going to get banned for simply using 'red fascist' unless it's a repeated personal attack, but you shouldn't get upset when people here out how stupid it is to apply this is label to country and its ideology which suffered 80% of casualties in the world war against fascism, etc
And your reaction to these criticisms shouldn't be to go on the defensive and assume sectarianism, but to challenge your beliefs and integrate the criticism if it is in good faith and applicable
And Chomsky would have been banned for celebrating the fall of the USSR ? Point ?
That is the point, actually. You seem to have gone off the deep end.
:downbear:
Critical support for noted anti-communists like Chomsky and Zinn, but emphasis on the critical
hah alright, so that guy would be a cool convo to have, but try talking about it from the perspective of the system being criticized vs saying people here who follow that tendency are somehow bad.
My advice is to not call anyone on this site "red fash". That's how you get everyone to hate you.
So they can't just own it and laugh? They have to get all defensive and pissed?
Like, couldn't we have some flair or something so that we could all know where each other are coming from, philosophically, so we can live together and not take each other so seriously?
I mean, say what you will about /r/politicalcompassmemes, but that flair aspect really helps lighten the conversations.
“Can’t they just own being fascists?”
Come on dude you can’t be serious.
Politicalcompassmemes is a subreddit filled to the brim with Nazis and fascists, both of which are banned from this webzone on sight.
Flairing hasn't been implemented yet.
I can own being a tankie but when you say "red fash" you make fascists more powerful by mixing up the definitions.
I still think "social fascist" isn't acceptable either btw.
social fascist
yeah, I agree on this. "social chauvinist" works better anyway to describe a certain kind of SocDem that supports imperialism.
ib4 "so you mean all SocDems", yeah I'm being charitable lol
Social chauvinist and social imperialist are both terms that describe the phenomenon well, I think. They are much better terms.
Anyone want a permaban? Please leave a bigoted comment, on my webzone, if you want me to send you a permaban
red fash is one that's not gonna get a good response, yeah. tankie is fine lol
r/politicalcompassmemes
I get your point kind of, but they also let nazis hangs so not the best example.
Got it.
I'm just saying that the flair kinda helps, because it identifies your perspective, so people aren't so quick to judge.
Lol never thought I'd see a real life dril-have-to-hand-it-to-them.jpg
I'm an anarchist, and I was you on the sub two years ago. Stick around you might learn something.
So we're supposed to agree with your opinion that we're fascist and then laugh it off? MLs aren't fascists and have done more than anyone else to fight them. You're basically complaining that we don't agree with your slander against us.
If you want people to stop arguing with you, there's a rule here where you can say "ok I'm done with this conversation now" and then if someone keeps going you can call the mods on them. But continuing to argue gives the people you're arguing against leave to respond however they see fit, with certain exceptions. Gotta learn to love the fight, or stop fighting. Exceptions are made for things that might reasonably cause PTSD reactions
When I was 12 I cried because of a fight I was in with another person on the pbp-RP section of the gaming forum I was on. Now I do not get upset at posts, even mean ones. Now I only cry if I get no engagement on my posts. If people tell me to shut up and that I suck, that just makes me laugh in fact. I post more because of that
Now I only cry if I get no engagement on my posts. If people tell me to shut up and that I suck, that just makes me laugh in fact. I post more because of that
:gigachad-hd: Go ahead, insult my posts. It will only make my takes worse.
Yeah basically you can call time out at any point but if you break the time out then you accept that they can too.
If you want people to stop arguing with you, there’s a rule here where you can say “ok I’m done with this conversation now” and then if someone keeps going you can call the mods on them.
That's a great rule. I came here for conversations though, and that's what I expected. I did NOT expect insults from everyone though, or to be immediately suspected of being a troll.
If people tell me to shut up and that I suck, that just makes me laugh in fact. I post more because of that
Well sure. But I expected honest conversations here. Not being "dunked on" constantly. That doesn't help anyone.
Well, there's a lot of wreckers so people have itchy trigger fingers for dunks.
Yeah I gotta agree here. We do love dunking on here, and Guy_Dudeman might be a bit out of his element. @Guy_Dudeman, my advice is to stop arguing about these topics for a few minutes and post some pictures of trains on c/urbanism.
Yeah, I think you're probably right. Anyone else like baseball?
Apparently so! I haven't seen any myself yet, so I guess that's why it's coming out of left-field (pardon the pun).
can you give me some examples of you ribbing tankies?
Calling them red fash = not gonna go well.
Saying they want a big strong papa figure = funny.
There's a lot of ways you can dunk on marxists without calling them idiots.
Dont do the CIA's job for them. If you dont wanna critically look back on da chinas or da yew ess ess arz, instead try thinking about what you can do locally and for your own community.
Yeah, it's also possible to analyze both the USSR and China as an anarchist without repeating cold war 1 + cold war 2 shit. There's a place for that and I totally get when Anarchists critique using the state as a way to dismantle the state. MLs are fine with that trade off / gamble, but Anarchists mostly are not.
Jesus weren't we banning people for debatebroism at one point? We should bring that back.
I'm not here for that either. I'm here for genuine discussion and camaraderie. I've found neither until the last hour or so when people finally realized I was a real person and not here to troll them.
Correct. I didn’t mean “racist fascists”. I meant “authoritarian fascists”.
This you?
And?? You make this post on wanting to be accepted and act like people accepting your weirdly defined definitions is somehow tangible on any leftist cause, then at the same time make comments as poor and low effort as that^ Do you not realise how you're coming off?
Oh, I'm a terrible actor. Believe me, if I were a troll, you would fucking KNOW it. I couldn't act my way out of a paper fucking bag. And no, that's not code for anything sexual.
What, specifically, makes me a liberal and not an anarchist?
Yeah, I guess I should just go live in a cave by myself and leave everything to the thinking people.
we're all born liberals, dude. Just read some theory by people who did revolutions and see what they have to say.
Ah yes, the fellow trying to debate bro me on faith is now mad people here don't like leading questions and state department propaganda. I'll not fight you here, it's not my place. Just wanted it to be known, :mao-wave:
So, since coming here, I’ve been accosted left and right by ML’s calling me a Lib for not being a ML. Essentially that’s what it’s come down to.
You should report these types, mods do a pretty good job stamping out sectarianism when it pops up.
If you read his posts and check the modlog, you'll see he's been going off about "tankies" and "red fash" left and right. He was already banned once for sectarianism two weeks ago, he's just gotten back on it.
Anyways, not gonna intrude further on the Anarchist comm. :mao-wave:
Yeah, he's been having a bit of a normal one. Asks leading questions, acts like an ass, and gets surprised when no one appreciates it.
I was going to say, the mods do a pretty good job of banning sectarianism.
They do, it's nice. Keeps this place workable for all of us. :left-unity-4:
I still think "social fascist" should be considered sectarianism and banned tbh.
I'm not trying to get into a slapfight about this in the anarchism comm, but "social fascist" refers to a specific material analysis of social democrats in 1920s-1930s Germany (whether or not it's correct is beside the point). I don't see why it would be sectarian, considering it refers to social democrats, and no one here would claim social democrats as comrades.
I've never seen it used against Anarchists/MLs/other Socialists, and if it was it would obviously be incorrect and sectarian.
“social fascist” refers to a specific material analysis of social democrats in 1920s-1930s Germany
I think the issue is (1) applying it to a wildly different context, like the modern U.S.; and (2) flinging it around at people who do not call themselves social democrats (some of whom even make a point to distance themselves from social democrats), much less endorse anything the social democrats of prewar Germany did.
The left is too small to play fast and loose with "not my comrade, so they're basically Nazis." That's poison.
I've been reporting them. It doesn't seem to do any good.
Should we ping one of the mods and get them in here? Not sure which one to alert.
I don't know. At this point, I'm just almost willing to throw in the towel. People don't seem to want me here. They just want to call me names and insult me.
So they can’t just own it and laugh? They have to get all defensive and pissed?
The site does have a pretty consistent problem with being unwilling to seriously interrogate anything presented that falls outside of the site line on particular subjects.
It's much more interesting and productive to actually analyze something like an FP article through a Marxist lense than treat anyone who says anything against China as at best an unwilling actor on behalf of Empire and suffice to call them a lib, a child, or unworthy of talking to.
I've been disappointed with the quality of discussion on this site on a broad range of issues lately. Frequently people are disinterested in even fully understanding the material they're engaging with before determining whether it is acceptable or unacceptable based on whether it is sufficiently exuberant towards what we imagine communism means and responding accordingly with "based" or burning flag emoji and joking about who should be shot.
With some reflection, you may notice that the tone of this site frequently is quite violent and even jingoistic in a way that really isn't connected to the general feeling or priorities of the masses and which rarely spares a thought for what is really constructive to a communist project.
Reading theory isn't just a meme, and not just because the works of Marx or Lenin or Mao are valuable per se. It's equally important to follow their example and practice spend time calmly investigating issues and thinking through how the world fits together and what that means for what is to be done.
For my part, rather than hold my tongue as I often do, I will take the time to practice this here and encourage people to critically engage with material even when what I have to say is outside the bounds of Hexbear orthodoxy.
Really sorry you're made to feel this way. This site needs more anarchist comrades not less. :ancom-heart:
Yeah, it's disappointing. I'm really disheartened, honestly.
I'll put it on my list. There's so much to read. I've read a lot, and there is just endless pages and pages of shit I could read. I could read the rest of my life, and spend all my time reading theory, and zero time doing anything else that helps the cause (like, say, talking with other leftists on the internet).
Lol, buying some food for homeless gives me more hope than reading latest red/black infighting, but I like different perspectives to better relate/discuss stuff irl
well i hope you stick around! i used to be an anarchist and am still sympathetic to it. this site kinda opened my eyes a bit.
This isn't the space to debate anarchism vs ML or whatever given that this is literally in the anarchism comm.
I'm learning to keep my mouth shut about how bad China is.
I didn't mean to post is AS propaganda. I meant to post it as a conversation starter. I was primarily wondering why China has private energy companies to begin with. Energy, in my opinion, should be a fundamental right.
'I posted/defended usage of state propaganda just to start a convo'
"I walked into a restaurant and shit my pants to start a conversation, why is everyone annoyed?"
So... do you have any sources of real information that you go to that you trust?
I meant to post it as a conversation starter.
maybe a good rule of thumb is, unless you're lambasting capitalist propaganda don't post it. If you were sincereposting "you're all browsing on your iphones yet you don't like capitalism, curious" you'd get a similar response.
:rat-salute: Don't get me wrong, hexbear leans ML in the userbase but the mods are extremely proactive with removing sectarian stuff. Just keep in mind if somebody's posting here they're more likely than not to be your comrade with the same goals and it makes it easier to blow off any friction.
Thanks. It's just really hard. Because the first reaction I get from folks is "you're a wrecker, so I will shit on you so fucking hard!" instead of "oh? why do you think that?"
I think it's just about presentation. This site is constantly targeted by wreckers so people's guard is up, and of course there's never a shortage of generally new people whose LIBERAL radar is still tuned to reddit so they assume anything outside of their ideological orthodoxy is bad intent and go full blast when a more reasonable interrogative would probably be better suited. If you have legit questions about some probably-cia-propaganda and real concerns, present it that way - "here's this article saying this thing, can someone explain what I'm missing or where the lie is". We're mostly nerds so you're basically assigning homework to motherfuckers that love that shit and you'll get better responses that way.
That would be great. I'll do that next time. God, I'm so exhausted from today. I hardly got any real work done.
Sadly, it's probably the best policy. I learned the same a long time ago. Just don't let the trap of not being willing to argue over it cause you to stop seeing the double-standards. Also, maybe find a more productive way to argue than to fall back on tropes like "tankie" and "red fash".
Productive ways are leftcom-ish critiques (or some boomer shit popping round gender expression), as anarchist ones run into problem “all states are bastards anyway”, why spend time on china :shrux:
I mean, I think "all states are bastards anyway" is actually a good argument that China is bad, in the sense that China, as a state, is therefore a bastard. Sure, it isn't unique in that propensity (and no one reasonable should be arguing that it is), but if the point is, "hey, saying China Good is wrong because China is a state and states aren't good", that's an intellectually consistent position. MLs may not care for it, but the answer to "why spend time on China" is pretty clear: because it is one of the most populous, increasingly powerful states in the world. You may not get agreement out of them, but if they call you a lib for that, they only discredit themselves.
As someone who doesn't particularly sympathize with either position, I have the luxury of taking those lefcom-ish positions, of course, which makes it easier, but part of learning to argue with a specific tendency is learning to understand what arguments it is prepared to answer and then not giving that answer. MLs who aren't critical of China will respond to "China, as a state, particularly bad" with "But what about the US!?" because they are used to it. "China, as a state, bad; China, as a large nation with a lot of power, relevant. US as a large state with a lot of power also bad and relevant." Is not one they have a good answer to, except to go "US worse", to which the answer really ought to be, "Okay, but China still bad and relevant, and I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time". Then you get into "b-b-but imperialism", to which the answer they expect is "China is imperialist, too", which they are prepared to argue with. Instead, you reach for "More than one thing in the world can be bad, and being anti-imperialist doesn't make China automatically good." which, again, they have no answer to.
Most important is the understanding that you aren't going to get them to agree, no matter what you say, so your goal should be either A. to make them view your position as human and not just a strawman or B. to demonstrate to the audience why you are correct. Nothing is won by playing directly into their expectations.
But that’s an argument on foundational scale, I think “smaller” disagreements are more important/possible to talk about (well, with China-sympathetic ml) like workers seasonal migrations, dodgy foreign policy in nearest countries, certain institutional elitism etc, where your critique is nuanced and caring about poor people, instead of latest usa think tank bugbear.
But then again, you never know :shrug-outta-hecks:
I think that there's plenty to engage-with at the very specific level (i.e. "this very specific action is bad") and at the foundational level (i.e. "philosophically, this is bad"), but the problem is often the connection between the two, which is where I tend to see things get most strident. It's going, "regardless of the position of Taiwan on China, China's continuing claim to Taiwan is imperialism" that tends to get the "just poked a hornet's nest" response, in my experience.
Dunno, it's obviously very frustrating, and I tend to just not engage, because I don't expect to have valuable conversations.
Eh, taiwan is nest of bullshit tbh, I don’t think china should touch it with tent foot pole as well, even on political level, without going into the weeds of colonization and general dodginess.
Tis fair enough, but philosophical discussions require more broad net I guess, there are more than 2 countries in the world
there are more than 2 countries in the world
huh, I may need to get a new map...
Just don’t let the trap of not being willing to argue over it cause you to stop seeing the double-standards.
Yeah. It's just exhausting.
maybe find a more productive way to argue than to fall back on tropes like “tankie” and “red fash”.
Yeah, they seem to really take offense. They don't seem to see the double-standards, or they've rationalized them in their minds. I don't know. I'm just fucking over the attitude.
Honestly, it's going to be hard for me to stick around if every comment I make is jumped on with people insulting me.
:shrug-outta-hecks: Leftists of all stripes don't like it when people imply they're fascist. I'm an anarchist slash third world maoist, I think there are critiques of china but none that wouldn't apply to the west. As everybody else has said, slinging around "tankie" and "fascist" at other leftists isn't going to make anybody feel like you're particularly interested in being part of the community.
