Cowbee [he/him]

We are on an international internet forum, basing terminology on the Overton Window of the US is silly. What makes more sense is to not rely on arbitrary vibes and lines that shift second by second and instead base terminology off of structures.

The center-left includes moderate Socialists and Market Socialists, having structures that support and reinforce Capitalism like Social Democracy creep across into “left” territory blurs the lines in ways that add confusion.

Is being a Marxist the same as being a “troll?”

To be fair, the only people who consider Social Democrats to be “left” are Social Democrats and the people to the right of them. Most people use “left” to refer to anti-capitalism, be it Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, etc, and not to refer to Capitalism but with large safety nets.

It’s why I try to get more people to read theory, the people leaving Reddit usually are the types who care enough to keep up with current events and willful enough to abandon Reddit over ideals, but generally haven’t yet read leftist theory.

To be clear, many people do read theory, they just aren’t the same people trying to recreate Reddit.

More prone than who? ml?

Yep, if you’re a Marxist, you risk being censored on .world

You’re doing great! Also with your “reasonable nice guy” facade!

Do you disagree with what I said there? I fully believe solarpunk is especially at risk of opportunism, I fully back that, and even some of their users agree that they should do more to combat that, such as linking solarpunk theory and trying to be more unified in message.

Secondly, what do you mean by “reasonable nice guy facade?” Do you think I have been unreasonable or secretly evil? What’s your point?

Hexbear has Marxists and Anarchists, it’s a non-sectarian “left-unity” instance. Lemmy.ml is admin’d and moderated by Marxists and some Anarchists. Similar, but different.

If I see nonsense like that I’ll correct it, but I maintain that it’s more likely than not a misunderstanding of what was stated, if you aren’t going to link an example.

You’ll note that I did end up continuing the conversation publicly in this thread. I have only once actually taken a conversation into DMs, with Blaze, whom they can probably back me up on. When I say “feel free to DM if you have any questions” regarding theory I have linked, it’s because I don’t expect anyone to immediately buzz off and read a book or article and then get right back, it’s an open offer to continue the conversation at any point in time.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by not actually answering questions? In this thread you can see it’'s the exact opposite, I am curious what you mean by that.

Finally, when I make my arguments and leave links for supplemental reading, it isn’t a requirement to continue conversation. It’s supplemental, in case they have doubts or wish to learn more beyond a simple Lemmy thread. If it’s necessary reading, I usually quote a relevant paragraph and link the main work.

For clarity, I did read the link you sent. I’ve read it before.

Plus it isn’t actually about convincing you, it’s about leaving a record to let other people read and not just take your words at face value. You’re too far gone

That’s fine, I am doing the same for you. I doubt you’ll be convinced, but it’s important to correct blatant misconceptions about Marxism IMO.

The Hexbear Cowbee is a 4 month old account, the Lemmy.ml Cowbee is 9 months old. The Hexbear account is the alt that I go to for fun, the Lemmy.ml account is the one I go to to try to correct misconceptions surrounding Marxism. I usually avoid .world communities though, as they are more prone to censorship, I try to stick to Lemmy.ml or other instances unless I see something particularly egregious on .world.

Ah, I misread, I thought you said “explaining to Natsocs like you” and not “explaining Natsocs to you.” My bad, I apologize.

That being said, you were the one coming in to dispute my claim that fascism is right-wing, and the second I pushed back you said it would be a waste of time to explain, I just think that’s a bit silly. Did you expect me to fully agree with you instantaneously?

This is my main account, who do you think I am an alt of?

So, in other words, “I made it up.”

I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim “stateless doesn’t actually mean stateless,” whatever, sounds like a you problem.

And I am telling you that the Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.

What gives you the right to call me a Nazi for saying “fascism is right-wing?” That’s incredibly rude, entirely uncalled for, and utterly unfounded in reality.

Sure, so can you explain what you disagree with about what I have said, and why you believe fascism to not be left nor right? I am aware of “Third Positionists,” they serve Capitalists and arise from Capitalist decay.

I think I won both on agreeableness and reason, given that I responded to each of your points and you responded to none of them while calling me a religious fanatic.

Can you point to an example? I haven’t seen any Marxist claim that Communism would be devoid of central planning and hierarchy. If you can point them out, I will be more than willing to correct them, though I am fairly certain you are misinterpreting their words given that you made the statement that “Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing.”

Fascism is described as both “Capitalism in decay” and as “Imperialism turned inward.” It served and serves the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat, and historically arises when the Petite Bourgeoisie is facing proletarianization. That’s why the most violently MAGA are small business owners and the like, and why they think immigrants are the ones proletarianizing them.

I highly recommend reading the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti, which covers the material conditions surrounding fascism and who it served.

Then as a student of history, are you saying the Tsars, Kuomintang, Batista regime, and so forth were better for their citizenry than the Communists? It’s very well-recorded just how bad the previous regimes were and how dramatically material conditions improved post-revolution.

This feels like arguing with a Jehovah’s witness. To your credit, you’re not getting annoyed or abusive in the face of my contradiction. But then that’s also a hallmark of religious people: absolute certitude, which provides a certain peace of mind.

The fact that I have carefully cited multiple different sources from multiple periods and patiently responded to your bold-faced attacks makes me a “Jehovah’s Witness?” What about those supposed “much better alternatives to Capitalism?” Where are those? I have responded to every point you’ve made, and your response has been to belittle me and take the high-ground without responding in kind. That’s rude.

It’s worth noting that when a Marxist says “stateless,” they don’t mean “governmentless.” The Marxist theory of the state surrounds classes, while the Anarchist theory of the state surrounds hierarchy.

When an Anarchist says they want a stateless society, they envision a complex web of horizontal communes, networks of mutual aid, like a spiderweb.

When a Marxist says they want a stateless society, they envision a world Socialist republic that has managed to fully absorb all private property into the public sector, which no AES state has managed to accomplish thus far.

The idea that Marxists are advocating Socialist states to dissolve into Anarchism is wrong, nobody claims that. What Marxists claim is that their notion of the state will wither away, leaving a classless government.

That’s also why Marxists are anti-Utopian, they don’t advocate for Communism about a belief in its moral superiority, but because Capitalism naturally creates the conditions for it through free competition giving way to consolidation and monopolist syndicates, which can be siezed, publicly owned, and centrally planned.