671
We can be friends until the revolution
(lemmy.ca)
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 10 Dec 2025
671 points (100.0% liked)
Lefty Memes
6321 readers
228 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Serious posts, news, discussion and agitprop/stuff that's better fit for a poster than a meme go in c/Socialism.
If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low quality!
Rules
0. Only post socialist memes
That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme. Please post agitprop here)
0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility
(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)
We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.
We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.
When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.
0.5.1 Style tip about abbreviations and short forms
When writing stuff like "lol" and "iirc", it's a good idea to try and replace those with their all caps counterpart
- ofc => OFC
- af = AF
- ok => OK
- lol => LOL
- bc => BC
- bs => BS
- iirc => IIRC
- cia => CIA
- nato => Nato (you don't spell it when talking, right?)
- usa => USA
- prc => PRC
- etc.
Why? Because otherwise (AFAIK), screen readers will try to read them out as actually words instead of spelling them
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such
That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)
6. Don't irrationally idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah anarchists and non-ml communists get along great because we want the same thing.
Ignoring that there are many instances of MLs and anarchists getting along great, Marxists in general (including MLs, which are the most numerous among Marxists) are aligned with anarchists against capitalism and fascism, but have entirely different analysis on what to do about them. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production and distribution, while Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production and distribution.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
None of this was specific to Marxism-Leninism, but Marxism in general.
Here's another analysis for you: Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
Anarchy is not about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves. About creating social structures that are based on mutual aid and human connection instead of ability or need. Anarchy isn't about making a single system that everyone follows. It's about creating many overlapping systems doing many overlapping things. Different cells are not some distinct group of people with their own flags and names where you need to apply to join. It's just a name for a group of people that have something in common. The same person will belong to different cells as every cell represents some part of society. They cannot form states because a state needs to have polity and anarchists should reject polity wherever possible.
But that's just how I see it. other anarchists will disagree and that is the most anarchist thing ever.
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your viewpoint, it's far more constructive than the other user essentially saying "Marxism bad."
The issue I take with your descriptor is that eventually production and distribution do become necessary. States arise due to class relations, and class relations arise due to modes of production. In cooperative-based production and distribution, ie cells producing largely for themselves but also exchanging through mutual aid, eventually class distinctions do rise historically, even if people resist that. We cannot just return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles.
I agree that mutual aid is a great tool, especially in times of struggle and in systems like capitalism where the wealthiest plunder the wealth created by the working classes, but this ultimately is derived from production, which necessitates analysis of the mode of production.
Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process to create a society that meets the needs of everyone. It isn't about sacrificing until some day a better society can be achieved, it's about building that better society outright and being aware of the social transformations it goes through as production and distribution are collectivized and the state and class wither away.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain "marxism bad" (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don't care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it's not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn't a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn't really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It's not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
You sound cool and seem to have enough patience to counter ML-propaganda. Hope you stick around :)
I'm in a mood to be social for a bit. I don't really have any IRL outlet so this will have to do.
Also it seems hexbear took intrest in my post and for better or worse I've decided to engage them: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/59334692
Ugh. Well, good luck if you try to engage in such a bad-faith space.
A deep comment thread without a single intentional misquote and 'so you hate pancakes' tactic. Love to see it.
Ignoring the bit on "vanguardism bad and Marxism ancient" for now, though I disagree vehemontly with both. One thing that you bring up is that a lot of the currently or formerly existing anarchist societies depend on outside production and donation. It simply isn't feasible to produce, say, a smartphone horizontally. You need rare earths, highly trained individuals for circuit manufacturing, incredible amounts of previous capital and continuous organization of labor and logistics to make it all come together. The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Marxists do focus on class, the mode of production, the base. Marxists focus on the liberation of all peoples, not just those within our immediate communities. And to be fair, most anarchists also tend to care about liberation for everyone, not just their immediate communities, but the key difference is that Marxism does not depend on everyone believing the same thing, or rely on production from the outside. Marxism focuses on the liberation of all oppressed peoples and the satisfaction of everyone's needs, forever.
Social relations are core to Marxism. The economy is just one such social relation, but there's also culture, hegemony, art, and class itself. You cannot have Marxism without analysis of social relations.
Of course if an anarchist community desires smartphone they will depend on other anarchist communities for the resources to build it or to acquire what they build. One of his early points is that in an anarchist world there will be a lot of anarchist communities and they will be different to one another because different people, different needs but that doesn't mean they will fight, they will co-exist, respect each other, depend on each other and share.
The exact quote was:
For some the concept of leaving is difficult, because in some of the systems the individual doesn't have a choice but anarchism is also about choice.
The sheer complexity and international logistics required to produce a smartphone far surpasses what can be created in relatively small communities, and horizontalism works better at smaller scales. A commune focused entirely on mining rare earths is going to have different class interests than one focused on semiconductor production, and at the scales these are currently produced at already horizontalism begins to break down.
If we imagine a global world of decentralized, interconnected anarchist cells, we need to grapple with how the geographical division of labor and resources will impact this mutual aid, or if it will eventually give way to competition and the resurgance of capitalism. Marxism's analysis of the continual growth in scale, complexity, and interconnectedness of production fits nicely with humanity taking a conscious role in this development and direct it towards satisfying needs rather than profits.
Anarcocapitalism can very well be one of those communities as long as it doesn't extinguish the freedom of choice of communities that don't want to partake in that and respects their choice and their living space.
People can figure it out, we are just not ready as a species our greed is too big and Marxisms is another proof of that greed.
That depends on capital being constrained by humanity, which has never been the case until socialists have overtaken the state and collectivized the principle aspects of the economy. Capitalism itself cannot exist without a state. This in turn overtakes and subsumes the surrounding communities. Anarcho-capitalism cannot last for more than an instant.
This is how I think about my own anarchism.
I don't disagree with you that class distinctions would naturally arise from the systems of production and distribution, but I don't see that as a problem really. There are some features of human society that feel analogous to gravity, in that they exist as functionally immutable forces that we must learn to navigate around and through. Even if we somehow achieved what we would consider to be a utopia, it's realistically not going to stay that way — there would inevitably be some event or new development that would disrupt the balance of things. Such change isn't necessarily bad, especially if we respond to it properly. It is inevitable though, which is why I find it useful to think of it as a process. I can't remember who I heard this from, but a phrase I like is "my goal isn't to make anarchism, but to make more anarchists"
I don't consider myself a communist, but I like your comment because it highlights how much we have in common. A communist society wouldn't necessarily be non-anarchist, and vice versa.
For now though, I find myself happy to shelve most ideological disputes with communists, because we're so far away from either an anarchist or communist society that it seems more productive to use our common ground to strive towards a world that both of us would agree is better.
One thing I want to clarify, communists do wish to work towards the full collectivization of production and distribution to suit the needs of all. Our stance is that the transition to such a society will be long, but that transitional state is also good. We want to be the droplets of rock that bore through mountains, through persistence and the carried weight of generations. I do agree that anarchists and communists should work together, especially in combatting the US Empire as the world's hegemon.
My problem is that this is an unsustainable, unmaintainable ideal rather than a plan. It is nothing more than liberalism in infancy. We’re stuck playing Monopoly and this is a desire to start the game over rather changing it fundamentally. The outcome will be the same no matter how many times you start over.
the precolonial societies that eliminated their hierarchies have a very consistent pattern of continuing to train military practices while also practicing pacificism. i'm not saying that's the answer for a post colonial society, just that humanity has escaped from hierachy before and people living within the three empires probably need to do an uptick in listening, and that distributed access to violence amongst pacifists is likely part of it
Uh... I don't know about that, buddy. I'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist IRL who doesn't do class analysis and doesn't have as a goal the abolition of capitalism.
What kind of 24 upvotes did you get? Are Lemmy anarchists abandoning class analysis, or is it that you're just arguing against @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and people will upvote anything smart-sounding against comrade Cowbee?
To their credit, anarchism is far more diverse in tendency than Marxism is, and as a consequence there are legitimately anarchists that reject class analysis. I don't think they are common, but they exist.
they exist and they smell weird (probably, idk, this is intentional slander)
Of course anarchists "do class analysis" and want to abolish capitalism. But that's just because those are examples of oppression in our everyday lives. What I mean is that it is secondary to the actual goal of creating anarchic spaces which will could eventually replace both class and capitalism. Class analysis really isn't useful for that because the only thing it offers is a vague "The bourgeoisie are the enemy". Until someone points a gun at me or punches me I don't have any enemies.
And like I said this is just my version of anarchism. A combination of Pluralism, Pacifism, Apolity and being sooo fucking tired of the endless discussions that lead nowhere.
The piece I struggle with, is how do you deal with power? I'm a commie, but I'm the kind who actually believes in an endless struggle against oppression. As long as there is injustice, there will always be struggle, so I'm not looking to create a socialist state and then my job is done. My job is to create the party, then criticize it and develop it through struggle. After that, the goal is internationalism, not a socialist state. The state can only be transitional, a socialist state is at best, a way to keep power out of the hands of rulers and build power for the masses, a historical phase of society committed to liberation.
But power is material, tangible, and objective. It always centralizes. Leninists have a strategy of Democratic Centralism, where the natural tendency of centralizing power is balanced by democratic mass participation. This takes different forms based on historical necessity, sometimes more authoritarian measures, still beholden to the democratic authority of the masses, are necessary, such as the dreaded "war communism," but communists should always fight for more internal democracy, while preserving the centralized nature of organization. In fact what makes war communism such a blight is that it creates unwinnable dilemmas, such as the unmitigated tragedy at Kronstadt.
But without centralization, a more powerfully centralized force can easily break up our democratic movement and destroy the historic potential to liberate the masses, taking the power away from the masses to centralize in the hands of a new ruling class. This is exactly what happened with the Stalinist bureaucracy that formed after the Russian civil war, state bureaucrats filled the positions of power in the revolutionary government, and the power centralized in the hands of the state bureaucrats replacing the soviets who empowered the first popular revolution in Feb 1917. The civil war created the conditions for the basis, as it destroyed the entire productive capacity of the country, decimating the working class as a class, leaving only the peasantry, the bureaucracy, and only a few genuine revolutionaries.
But what caused the failure of the revolution wasnt ideology it was the loss of democracy that disappeared when the basis for worker power, and hence worker democracy, was smashed by the invaders and white armies, and replaced with a more centralized, more oppressive and authoritarian basis for power.
The other side of this, is that even when power is not formally centralized, such as within a state or government, it is still informally centralized, so that a group or individual can claim that power is being distributed, and maybe it is to a certain degree, but it is being distributed in a way that further centralizes that power. In this instance the tyranny takes the form of de-centralization but its substance is still centralized. In these instances a formal democratic centralized structure is much less authoritarian, because it reveals to the masses the true form of its authority, allowing itself to be properly reckoned with, shaped and improved, rather than the informal authoritarianism that claims to be decentralized but is in fact the opposite.
Please don't read this as a sweeping dismissal of anarchism, I am very fond of anarchism and anarchists, but the discourse between our traditions is bad for reasons that are completely outside of our control. While I cringe violently watching commies quote "On Authority" at anarchists as if it means a damn thing in this day and age, I think that the democratic centralist model of organizing, while fraught and vulnerable, is much more transparent and practical than decentralization. I acknowledge that anarchists are not a singularity, as you've already mentioned ITT, and I'm aware of different anarchist approaches to these issues thanks to my libsoc comrades, even if I don't fully understand them.
I think the difference is somewhere in the way that the anarchist truly concretizes and celebrates the individual, which unfortunately somehow gets disappeared in much Marxist analysis. I study Malatesta to try and compensate for this shortcoming of our tradition, but the big practical structural questions still nags me.
I think that power will always be a problem that we need to be mindful of. Even on the small scale, power imbalances can arise and lead to harm if we don't proactively manage them. I find it useful to think of anarchism as an ongoing process rather than a goal, which means that the task will never be completed.
Regarding democracy, I've really enjoyed Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau's writings. They propose a sort of radical democracy. I think it's "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" that I've read some of. It's pretty dense, but I found it rewarding, and it reshaped how I think about democracy. In particular, I was far more pessimistic about the possibility of democracy at all before I read it.
I think the YouTube channel Think That Through was what led me to go read Mouffe and Laclau, if you're a video enjoying person. It wasthis video on Hegemony
Definitely an interesting video, I already see where I need to go back throught and take a few more notes. I thought he put forward an interesting if a bit simplistic view of coalition building.
But it has a few problematic areas. For one, this should not be considered an even glancingly accurate depiction of Marxism. And I'm not complaining about his unwillingness to engage with any historical subjects, only theoretical ones. And I won't say that some of his criticisms might apply to certain vulgar Marxist tendencies. But as far as Marxism being out of date, he is fundamentally a pre-marxist, not a post Marxist. The fundamental insight of Marxism, that material analysis should be human-centered, conceiving of a unified subject and object rather than separate categories of analysis, is completely lost. For all his talk of "the people," any strip of humanity is sacrificed for engagement with a method. As Marx said of Feuerbach, he can conceive of "single individuals and civil society" but can't place the individual in society, nor society in the individual. His early idea that change starts with the individual is sort of correct, but he doesnt advance a step beyond this insight, and instead engages with theory instead of "the people." As such, he's an idealist, even if he is the kind to imagine a better world he won't be able to change himself or anything else.
Other limitations that I noticed, is that he spends a lot of time talking about Gramsci's theories of hegemony superficially, then spends a lot of time talking about language and post - structuralism. But the fundamental insight of Gramsci, the whole basis of his theory of hegemony is language. His theory of hegemony is based on the risorgiamento period in Italy, which allowed Gramsci to concretely develop his theory by paying close attention to the way that the Florentine dialect spread across Italy, replacing local dialects with The Florentine one, which is what we now know as the Italian language. Through analysis of the spread of language he was able to trace the spread of the ruling class superstructure, which included other things like politics, culture, and finally, power.
The fact that he avoided concrete analysis in order to talk about postmodern theories is pretty glaring imo. As an organizer I'm a bit at a loss for what to do with these theories, but like I said, I wanna go back and review. Its def a perspective I haven't heard before, and maybe if Marx's fundamental insights were included, then the method could have some practical application. But as it is described by him, I think its impractical and idealistic.
Otherwise, its a good video, very informative, but if he bothered to actually understand Marx then it could be so much better. Instead, he'll be stuck using very advanced forms of flawed bourgeois reasoning, which leads nowhere.
Thanks for the share!
Thanks for this response! I'm a little familiar with Gramsci's formulations on hegemony, so I'll check this out!