16
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 24 Aug 2025
16 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
50212 readers
408 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
No, you appear not to understand it fully. It is true that I put the role of the individual as more important, but in a way where the individual helps the collective.
Under capitalism, the individual is motivated to profit at the expense of others; whereas with anarchocommunism, the individual is motivated to work together.
I reject the state because it will lead to tyranny. You presume that I conflate democracy with dictatorship, but that is not the case; for me, workplace democracy is crucial.
You also understand what I mean by 'vanguard'; an organised group that is led, as opposing to federated and decentralised, where no one leads.
When we formalise the most advanced, then we create a new class. Which fails the entire point of communism! You might say formalising it helps; but I disagree with that. Here we for example do not log peoples' races or religions; because we believe these to be counterproductive, as they are only ever used by fascists to segregate and create new classes. The lack of logging has resulted in that people do not as much feel animosity for each other based on race or religion; and that we cooperate more together. Indeed, it would be more classless.
Yeah, and when a majority votes for abolishing my rights, I sure as hell ain't gonna uphold that. Democratic centralism, whips, all that can kiss my sorry ass. Screw that shit. It is authoritarian, period. There's no "just" there; you are goodmouthing it. When they silence criticism, we become blind.
Except that in that case, there is no overarching group that enforces shutting down other opinions; the rejection of transphobia has grown through discussion and cooperation. Take blocking users, for example; it's something you can do without a larger collective forcing it on you. Sure, there's defederation as well, but you can always make an alt.
While these indeed do occur and have their merits, you should also not discard that millions of people still died under these regimes, just as with capitalism. And that dissidence was repressed; criticise the party, and you're gone. We can have improvement without authoritarianism.
What improvement in wellbeing is there then, when one cannot criticise? What improvement in fighting sexism is there, when queers were not allowed to be themselves in the USSR (and you can die for it in today's mafia Russia) and even up to today, in the PRC, cannot do so?
What improvements in fighting racism, when Russification displaced a ton of people and hampered the Baltics' selfdetermination, under an agenda of repression and ethnic cleansing? Indeed the US has far more of these problems; but it would be foolish to not also acknowledge the terribility of authoritarianism!
When I speak of communism, I speak of true liberation, not establishing yet another tyranny.
You're goodmouthing Trotsky's assassination. I know enough. I have one word of advice: stop and think about what you're doing: should people be murdered at all? Thanks for the good discussion, but I've no need for talk like this. The whole "he was organising terrorism against Stalin" is literally a lie that Stalin spread himself. He lied also about who killed Trotsky, saying it was another Trotskyist, when he gave the order himself.
Come back to me when you don't just criticise capitalism, but all forms of authoritarianism, totalitarian communism such as that of the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC included. We share the same fight, but that doesn't mean you have to lick the authoritarian boot.
I understand perfectly well, again, I'm a former anarchist. We've both read a lot of the same anarchist theory, the difference is that I've rejected it as I've read it and also read Marxist-Leninist theory.
My critique of anarchism is the same as it has been for centuries for Marxists, cooperative ownership as opposed to collectivized ownership gives rise to social striation on the basis of different geography and production, which gives rise to capitalism. The state doesn't give rise to capitalism, capitalism gives rise to the state.
You keep saying you reject workers states because they lead to "tyrannny," without justifying your claim, and further go on to say democratic centralism is dictatorship. How is workplace democracy to function if the outcomes are not binding? Any useful applications of democracy must be binding, otherwise nothing gets done.
As for your point against vanguards as being a class, this is wrong, flat-out. Vanguards are subsections of the revolutionary class, not a class in and of themselves, as they are formed from the working class, elected by it, and hold the same relations to production. A manager is not a class in capitalism, but a subsection of the proletariat.
Your argument against democratic centralism is an argument against democracy. Minority rights are absolutely crucial to a functioning democracy, but thay's fully compatible with democratic centralism.
TERFs are less effective than unified, intersectional groups. I recommend reading Leslie Feinberg's Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue.
The struggles faced by socialist states were real, yes, but it is a good thing to suppress fascists, Tsarists, imperialists, and terrorists. This is a fact of life, if you do not stamp out fascism, it will stamp you out. The USSR was more progressive on queer rights than western countries. Alexandra Kollontai was a bisexual woman and one of the most important figures in early socialist society. The GDR was giving state-run gender affirming care. Queer rights in the PRC are rapidly improving, one of their most beloved celebrities, Xin Jing, is a transwoman, and Cuba's family code is among the most progressive in the world. Socialism enabled this.
"Russification" wasn't really a problem. The USSR took national liberation very seriously. The fact that they established common methods of writing for communication existed alongside national autonomy in the various SSRs and SFSRs. You can read testemonials from various travelers to the USSR like Paul Robeson:
And yes, killing Trotsky, who was organizing terrorist attacks on Soviet citizens and government officials, was a good thing. Killing terrorists that threaten your people and Nazis is a necessary function of society.
Also, can't help but notice you ignored that the Zapatistas despise being called by western labeling like "anarchists," did you miss that part?
I'm not going to apologize for being a Marxist, nor for advocating for socialism as a means to eventually erase the state and thus any speak of authoritarianism. I will not be an enemy of existing socialism or of the working class of those countries.
You already are, auth
Nope, socialism is popular in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. The people like their system, and support their governments. Calling me "auth" for supporting them is a bit silly.
No, I don't, actually. For starters, all states are authoritarian, as all states are means by which the class in charge exerts its authority. To get rid of the state, all property needs to be collectivized, which both gets rid of class and the state itself. That means its good for the working class to have a hold of that authority, and use it against the Capitalist class. There's no "promising to abolish" anything, the state gradually withers away with respect to class withering away as property is sublimated and collectivized.
I am a Marxist, yes. I became one after engaging with history, theory, logic, and practice. The fact that poor logic and false history doesn't sway me doesn't diminish my points. I haven't seen any ethical arguments being brought up here.
Not in the same ways. You support dictatorships where workers have no power, nor the means to eventually hold power later down the line. I support neither capitalist regimes nor dictatorships pretending to be socialist.
Yes.
No marxist can describe how this will happen. The dictators in charge do not have incentives to give away their power, nor are there other mechanisms in place that can bring about socialism. It's literally just propaganda. Inequality in china is not withering away, there's just a growing middle class the same way we had a growing middle class in other places where industrialization happened. The state owning and running things does not equate to socialism. It could, if there was democracy of some kind rather than oligarchy supplemented with very minor political participation from a fraction of the population.
Your auth states commit all the evils of capitalist empires and yet you still defend them. That's not exactly ethical. Authoritarianism can't be ethical in practice because of the incentives the people in power have to keep their power, and the things they do to keep it. "Communist" states are far more authoritarian than most liberal democracies, which is why I call them authoritarian. I call you authoritarian because you defend them and wish to implement similar oligarchies/dictatorships elsewhere. This is not to say I like liberalism, just by comparison your system is in many ways worse. Unions are way more suppressed, people are less active politically, and there are no big benefits to make up for it. Genocide is still happening, billionaires are still being produced, freedom of speech is still suppressed, etc. Like yeah we can sit here and compare metrics and see both capitalist and marxist states are doing good and bad in all sorts of different ways. Both systems work to a point. I don't care. I want actual democracy. I want actual freedom. I want actual socialism, or at least a system which can produce socialism unlike your auth vanguard states.
I will be blocking you after this.
Edit: To me the big mystery is why defend these states? Why aim for vanguard states? Can't we aim for something better rather than something that has "succeeded"? Why do we have to choose between liberalism and marxism when we can instead try to work towards actual socialism?
Claiming I support states where the workers have no power, without doing the legwork to explain how that's the case, is just smearing. It isn't a point. The socialist states I support are those that are broadly recognized as such by socialist and communist organizations and states, I am not acting out of the ordinary for doing so.
Marxists have described the withering of the state. From Engels:
To Lenin's State and Revolution, which centers this very issue. Marxists have written about the state and how it withers away upon collectivization for centuries, this isn't a new thing. Administration is not the same thing as a state. Further, the PRC is democratic:
The rest of your comment is a baseless, unsupported rant about socialist states supposedly being "just as bad" as capitalist states, despite the opposite being the case when it comes to uplifting the working class. From doubling of life expectancy, to certified safety nets, to tripling of literacy rates, to certified healthcare, to decolonial action, to fighting imperialism, socialist states around the world are rising while capitalism is dying, and you sit on the fence and say real socialism isn't good enough for you while you live in a western country. It's social chauvanism, plain and simple.
I don't block people, nor would I announce that I am going to. I don't take ill-founded insults or libel seriously, either.
To respond to your edit, here:
I defend the achievements of really existing socialism, that have brought dramatic democratization and uplifting of the working class. From Russia to China to Cuba to many other countries, socialism has proven to be extremely successful at meeting the needs of the people. We need to use a vanguard because it works, and vanguards themselves will appear whether we formalize them and democratize them as they have been in AES countries, or if we ignore them and let them form naturally and unaccountably.
We should always aim for better, but when that takes the form of saying "real socialism isn't good enough," then that becomes an incredibly privledged and chauvanistic viewpoint. Workers fought and died to win socialism in their countries, and are making constant improvements. This is actual socialism, not the socialism that lives only as a perfect ideal in our heads. Rather than saying that they did it the wrong way, or that they didn't fight hard enough, we should respect the tremendous gains they've made and try our best to carry out our own revolutions, charting a path to a better world collectively.
When we oppose the working class in socialist countries for the mistakes they make, and declare these states enemies when they ought not to be, we make the same mistakes as those who oppose Palestinian liberation because they aren't very queer friendly (and I say this as a pansexual person myself). It completely aids the imperialist narrative and serves as justification for color revolution and massive setback on the path to building socialism. It's against solidarity.
The revolution comes, comrade :3