43
Which instances have the most diverse points of view?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
43 points (72.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44616 readers
1421 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
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
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 don’t trust campists
Keep protesting too much as well. No anarchists believes this garbage but we remember and we learned...