Since Trump, I’m finding the Lemmy.world experience to be increasingly akin to an echo chamber and it’s quite frankly starting to bore me. (Inb4, I’m a left winger and I don’t like Trump, but I’m much more interested in a good spirited debate or novel points of view than I am in Orange man bad Nazi circle jerks)
If I wanted the same repetitive comments to be upvoted and any different opinion at all to be downvoted and even blocked/banned, I’d have just stayed on Reddit.
Are there any instances where different, opposing and novel points of view are celebrated and debated rather than simply derided and downvoted?
No single instance has very “broad” POVs, however some instances are federated more broadly and thus get more points of view. To that end, Lemm.ee and Lemmy.ml are much more diverse than Lemmy.world, which is defederated from the major instances with large populations of Marxists.
Hexbear and Grad tend to have a lot of Marxist (and Anarchist, in the case of Hexbear) perspectives you aren’t really seeing much of on Lemmy.world, which is very “US Democrat Liberal.”
You aren’t going to find anywhere where the virtue of being “different” is worthy of celebration when it comes to POVs, and I think that’s a bit of a lost cause. I don’t see much value in entertaining the opinions of fascists, as an example.
Thanks for this. Will definitely check out those instances.
No problem! If you’re looking for right-wing viewpoints, you can already see them from a Lemmy.world account, they usually hang out either on Lemmy.world or sh.itjust.works, it’s more the Leftists that Lemmy.world censors from your view.
never seen an anarchist on hexbear tbh, but I’ve been alwaus banned pretty fast for stating my opinions on the state and the ukraine war
I’ve seen many, and Anarchist theory is linked and discussed frequently. Sectarianism is banned, so you haven’t likely seen Anarchists getting into fights with Marxists. As for the Ukranian war, Hexbear overall adopts the viewpoint of Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as a special stage in Capitalist development, including the Anarchists, so you likely disagreed on those grounds.
I don’t disagree that the us is imperialist, I’m just saying that it’s also imperialist to invade your neighbors to restore the russian empires western border and increase your sphere of influence
Let’s imagine China arming and supporting Mexico’s opposition parties that align with China. U.S would go into a fit and invade Mexico instantly. Same has been happening in Ukraine for a decade before the war started. You need to also take in account that Russia has been invaded countless times from western powers. Russia’s geography is also mostly flat plains, making it easy to invade Moscow from the west. Historical context need to be taken to account.
You’re describing different phenomena under the same title, which only adds confusion and not clarity. You should read Lenin, Imperialism isn’t that long and it describes the modern form of Capitalism very accurately. Moreover, I don’t really think that’s an accurate outlook on the Russo-Ukranian war as a motive.
oh, yes I belive it is, why else is russia invading ukraine?
I don’t think it makes any real sense to say that it’s about returning to restore a Russian Empire’s borders. From what we know, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between NATO and Russia, and this continued even after Socialism fell, because Russia eventually kicked out the Western Capitalists that bought up and privatized the former state industry. This was accelerated when Ukraine suffered from the Euromaidan coup, and the Russian-speaking areas of Donetsk and Luhansk broke away.
You were almost correct when you said it was to increase their sphere of influence, the goal of Russia is to either assure Ukraine’s neutrality or demilitarize it completely, as NATO has been intentionally encircling Russia and threatening them into opening up and letting the Western Capitalists back in.
There’s some peeps who claim they’re anarchist on hexbear, but end up parroting the same ML-talking points about AES and often have similar toxic behaviour towards those who disagree with the groupthink. If any are there, they’re basically campists, like the rest. For example of such campist anarchist takes, you can take a look at abolitionmedia. But ultimately these anarchists are pretty isolated from the larger anarchist movement.
The biggest difference is that Anarchists on Hexbear almost always agree with Lenin’s analysis of modern Capitalism in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and further recognize AES states as far better than their Capitalist peers. They often have similar takes as MLs but fundamentally disagree with how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution.
I think it’s a bit of an odd take to say that they are isolated from the larger Anarchist movement. Perhaps in the West, I can concede that, but globally? It’s the opposite, those Anarchists that support AES over Capitalism and accept Imperialism as a special stage of Monopoly Capitalism are in the majority. I think that your statement is, ironically, a campist one that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of their takes while supporting your own.
For what it’s worth, you already know I’m an ML, I can let Anarchists speak for themselves, my being a former Anarchist isn’t the same as a current Anarchist giving their POV.
Yes, I am aware that this is what you believe. However I would argue one can’t accept “AES” but disagree on “how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution.” because what Anarchists want look nothing like those “AES” states, and therefore the paradox.
Utter nonsense. Anarchists which accept Leninist analysis are extraordinarily few.
That’s not what campism means.
I think it’s pretty clear that one can accept AES as clear improvements for the conditions of the Working Class as compared to Capitalism, while preferring decentralization and approaches like prefiguration over centralization and public ownership/planning. It isn’t a paradox to say “A is bad, B is much better than A, but I ultimately want C.”
Further, Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as a special phase in Capitalist development is 100% compatible with Anarchism, as it purely describes Capitalist development and not how to achieve revolution or what a post-revolitionary society should look like. I specifically mentioned analysis of Imperialism and preference of AES over Capitalism, and not Marxist-Leninist analysis of the State, Class, etc, because those aren’t compatible with Anarchism. What Lenin outlines in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is a fact that can’t be denied. Developed Capitalist countries have seen merging of Banks and Industrialists, resulting in Financial Capital dominating industry, with Monopolies of the few governing the economy and exporting Capital to the Global South in order to super-exploit for super-profits. To deny Imperialism is like denying Colonialism.
We see this alignment of Anarchists globally against Imperialism in societies like the EZLN, which takes much inspiration from Marxism-Leninism with their own characteristics. Those in the Global South are intimately familiar with the mechanisms by which they are exploited and oppressed by the US and Western Europe especially, which is why the Anarchists in the Global South tend to align more with Marxists than Capitalists.
As for Campism, my point is more that you group Anarchists that disagree with you up with Marxists if they recognize the impacts of Western Imperialism and reduce it to Campism. I admit, I could have worded it better, but it’s a bad rhetorical trick to deliberately reduce the logical foundations of a position to purely whatever it happens to look like on the outside.
That’s the thing. Anarchists don’t see “aes” as separate from Capitalism. They are capitalism. Just with a red coat off paint. I can accept that their style of state Capitalism may be an improvement in some areas while being a problem in others, much like Nordic social democracies are different from the unrestrained Capitalism of the USA. But none of them is something anarchists truly support. And therefore again, a paradox in your argument.
Seeing that capitalist nations exploit the poorer ones doesn’t require Lenin anyway. This isn’t what makes one accept “aes” or the campist mindframre
Anarchists always fall in the anti capitalistic camp but that’s where the alignment is ends. There’s no evidence that those in the “global south” are approaching MLs any different than I do.
No I just point that anarchists who hang out in hexbear or which regurgitate ml talking points about being two sides, are just campist. I don’t know call critics of Capitalism campsits. I only call campist, campists.
To claim that economies where public ownership and planning is primary are Capitalist is silly. That either requires believing that states like Cuba and the USSR don’t/didn’t have public ownership and planning as the dominant factor of political economy, or a belief that Public Ownership and Planning as primary is Capitalist. The former would be a case of historical inaccuracy, the latter is theoretically ridiculous. I believe you are supplanting your own opinions on Socialism onto Anarchists in general, who tend to prefer Anarchism over Marxism due to differences in analysis of the state, not necessarily what is considered Socialist to begin with.
Saying the difference between pubicly owned and planned economies as primary and privately owned and planned economies as primary is simply a “red coat of paint” is a serious analytical failure, you can acknowledge Marxism as Socialist without thinking it better than Anarchism.
Secondly, you’re entirely pivoting your point regarding Lenin’s Imperialism, I think. Are you acknowledging that you misunderstood what I was talking about, or are you saying Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism isn’t accurate? Moreover, it isn’t just about how more developed Capitalist nations exploit countries in the Global South, it’s an analysis that this is the main obstruction of Socialism of any kind, be it Anarchist or Marxist. Further, it’s an analysis of Imperialism as the dying stages of Capitalism, as it directly results in inter-Imperialist wars and total folding of every nation under the thumb of Imperialism until nations begin to break free, weakening Imperialism overall.
Finally, I think you need to talk to more Anarchists globally, and not just in the West. The Zapatistas in EZLN openly cite Marxism-Leninism as one of the founding influences of Zapatismo. Historically as well, Marxists such as the Soviets provided material aid to Anarchist revolutionaries. To only claim Anarchists hostile to Marxism as legitimate, and denouncing Anarchists willing to work with Marxists against Capitalism and Imperialism, is a bit chauvanistic.
Edit: As for the “two sides campism is ML,” that’s just further proving my point, you refuse to look at the internal logic and call things whatever you outwardly see them as, like you did with calling AES “Capitalist.”
Sorry mate but I’m under no illusions on what those “public” economies truly are. There’s a nothing “public” about it anymore than state owned services in capitalisti nations are “public”. When it’s all based on the capitalist mode of production, they’re not socialist. They’re at best social democracies which is why they are all just continuing the same capitalist degeneration.
About Lenin, I am saying that his analysis of capitalist exploitation between nations isn’t anything noteworthy for anti-capitalist criticism. For certain it doesn’t prove that “aes” states don’t engage in exactly the same imperialism just because they call themselves by a different name. Hierarchies are always going to fight other hierarchies to come out on top. It’s ultimately why even ml “aes” states couldn’t truly work together without friction.
Spare me the chauvinism accusations. I’m not the trying to co-opt movements with my ideology from afar here.
And yes, me and most anarchists think there’s something wrong with anarchists who accept ml talking points and collaborate with them after all the historical lessons to the fonttwry. It’s no wonder that most such anarchists eventually reject anarchism and become MLs as well.
I’m don’t really care to keep belaboring this point though. I wasn’t even talking to you. I just wanted to point out that most anarchists outside of hexbear don’t see much anarchist potential there. What we see is people who surround themselves in authoritarian rhetoric due to all the other benefits the space has and eventually get converted to pure authleft, or campism. I personally haven’t witnessed even a single self-assigned anarchist there, except the one person who incidentally was the most toxic of all I encountered.
Abouts campism, I don’t “refuse go look at the internal logic”. That’s just sophistry. I just call a spade, a spade.
more like right wing trolls
Why would a supposed group of right-wingers host Mutual Aid communities to help those in need, reading groups for Leftist theory from Marx to Lenin to Goldman and even feminist thinkers like Bell Hooks and trans activists like Leslie Feinberg, maintain millitantly defensive moderation principles to protect their large and active trans userbase, and do so for years without ever federating, and only remaining selectively federated with other instances?
Nobody has ever managed to answer that question any time they make that claim. Do you legitimately think it’s all an ironic bit purely for each other?