Arguably the dupes.

I kinda got excited about redneck revolt but their website says they disbanded in 2019.

Or left it entirely over a decade ago.

there’s also difference between being correct and being effective. right wing propaganda machines program people to exist in binaries and young leftists, new initiates i mean, have to break out of that. they have to learn to listen to the problems people are experiencing and talk about how to address those problems rather than fixating on an us/them dichotomy

Have you considered that if leftists are correct, conservatives are too, and that it’s merely a matter of perspective? It seems as though your consideration of libs being bothered may be a case of projection as it bothers you that other perspectives may be worthy of consideration as well.

Everyone has limited resources, especially when your source is cut off.

Yeah, the number one issue is military capabilities, and what I fear, since I can’t and won’t teach them violence. I just hope there will be enough backlash if they are disturbed.

The point isn’t just to be a tough, individualist badass. The idea is that you can only have fair relationships, if there is nothing for others to leverage over you. The moment there’s power dynamics, you introduce corruption. But if someone has to respect you, they can choose to leave the relationship, or compromise with you.

Then you can trade all the surplus, make all the relationships your heart desires, from a clean slate. What they have to figure out, is how to organize and fight themselves if needed.

nono it’s BETTER: https://youtu.be/ktNgVmySQ5k

maaaaan can’t make it right …

And great example that just because you were born to riches, does not mean you have to remain an inegalitarian maintaining the power imbalance keeping the little people down.

Well done Kropotkin.

How is a voluntary, non-hierarchical network for sharing resources (non-material included) with the goal of community building and creating alternative governance structures, the same but less effective as using state power to regulate capitalism and provide universal social welfare founded by taxes. Those things are hardly even connected.

Varies.

I can think of a few notable differences.

Nobody would expect it!

Hryhoriv kinda poisoned the well for any vestige of the ataman system to have survived revolution.

you pretend to agree with me yet you’re the one posting FUD…

I think you misread, the idea here is that this same decentralization provides the germ of capitalism again. Collectivizing globally stops this process.

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.

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.

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.

Anarchy is not about […] class

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?

Trust me bro, the state will go away any day. Just one more expansion of power. Come on bro just one more political purge and we’ll give it up before we die.

The state in AES exists as one that cannot help but wither, as economic compulsion towards continued collectivization of production and distribution, and thus the erasure of class and thus the state. However, in the context of a worldwide system dominated by capitalist countries like the US Empire, the state cannot really progress beyond that point to a fully withered status. What’s necessary is the achievement of global socialism, and then a gradual period of further collectivization of all production and distribution, and eventually the state will complete its withering.

The state in AES countries has brought democratization and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the working classes. The working classes, by controlling the state, wield it against fascists, capitalists, landlords, etc domestically, and protect themselves from imperialists internationally. Every single AES country has had to deal with western countries sanctioning, bombing, torturing, slaughtering, even committing genocide in some cases, but it is through the strength of the working classes and the systems they built that they last through this.

Meanwhile anarchists can’t even seem to establish anything…

Unironically this is the Marxist argument for veganism. Humanity’s distinction is that it is aware of its own place within nature, nature turned self-aware, but this doesn’t set us apart from nature. We are nature, just like trees, birds, insects, etc. We do have a qualitatively different level of intelligence, but it isn’t an insurmountable difference in the grand scheme of evolutionary biology.

Marxist-Leninists believe in socialism in one country, but that communism must be global. This is entirely in line with Marx. The argument against socialism in one country was the idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary and erode socialism from within, which ended up not being the case. This was because the peasantry were seen to have a more communal consciousness than collectivist. However, practice shows that the proletariat and peasantry can form joint alliances and successfully work to build socialism together.

Yes but that’s fear-based

I don’t think it’s a psyop. Leftism as an ideology values diversity and reconciling a diversity of views and life experiences is hard. The only bus fit to leave is intersectionalist. If it’s not, you’re asking people to get on a bus where you’re better off but they aren’t.

You leftists sure are a contentious people.

Anarcho-carceralism the only valid ideology.

We must spontaneously organize maximally restrictive non-hierarchal prisons and maintain/enforce them in a vicious but egalitarian manner.