Cowbee

joined 2 years ago
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 84 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (27 children)
  1. Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to the Workers to protect themselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it, the point is that organizing is the best thing any leftist can do.

  2. Read theory. A good primer is Blackshirts and Reds. It will help contextualize what fascism is, what causes it, and how to stop it. I can offer more advanced reading lists regarding Marxism if you'd like, but this is a good starting point.

  3. Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground.

  4. Be more industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well. Theory guides practice, which sharpens theory to be reapplied to better practice.

  5. Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. The Democrats will not save us, we must do so.

  6. Be persistent. If you feel like a single water driplet against a mountain, think of the Grand Canyon. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Nice! Hope you enjoy it!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Wish I could source it in my area...

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So, Anarchists are allowed to exist in ML societies so long as they become or pretend to be MLs. Gotcha.

No, and that's clearly a bad-faith reading. If the Anarchists refuse to work with the Marxists, to the point of directing the revolution against itself, then that's an issue.

So you join a anarchist movement which has momentum, and along with direct action, you try to set up vanguard parties and shit?

I don't see why you think Marxist analysis driving decision making requires the use of strategies like Vanguard parties. Vanguardism is a strategy, not the practice of Marxism.

Not at all. But I do think you're trying to avoid the thrust of my argument by simply restating your position as a fact and taking us 4 replies back.

I disagree.

Without common praxis, there is no unity. This is why anarchists are in unity with each other even though syndicalists do syndicalist stuff, and mutualists do mutualist stuff etc. Because our multitude of direct action complement each other in prefiguring the system. You know what doesn't complement anarchist praxis and more often than not, counters it? ML praxis!

Hexbear Anarchists would disagree, though I won't speak for them.

Because cultists prefer to not venture out of their communities, and discourage interacting with people who don't already share the same worldview.

You're guilty of the same, you've cultivated a community generally hostile towards Marxists while outwardly saying you don't have a problem with them. I think it's better to own up to your biases and how they have impacted your community, rather than try to present dbzer0 as uniquely open to discussion.

On that note, I don't think there's any real discussion to be had going forward with this convo, we clearly aren't seeing eye to eye on what constitutes what type of praxis nor what left-unity looks like, and therefore I don't think it makes sense to continue wasting what I assume is a nice Sunday for the both of us.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Very big subject and I doubt I have time to expand here. But to put it short: Aligned goals. You claim anarchists are part of the left, then their alternative positions are just dissent from your viewpoint, so according to your left unity, you need to afford them dissent. If you actually claim, that no, they don't share goals so we need to silence their free speech and suppress their actions, then don't prattle about "left unity" either.

Wrong reading here. Anarchists aren't "dissent," what becomes dissent is splitting and factionalism.

Again, praxis. What praxis are they doing! Anarchist or ML? Your Marxist analysis is irrelevant.

Both.

So? How is some Hexbear not taking part in FNB showing "left unity" to those who do?

I think you're just trying to argue semantics here. Hexbear is made up of different leftists all pursuing similar goals through different strains.

You suggested I should talk to them. If you have someone who's willing to do the effort, they are free to step outside of the hexbear compound and talk.

I'll refrain, I am uninterested in being accused of brigading.

And again, kinda cultish, but you do you.

How?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Is being a Marxist the same as being a "troll?"

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's why I call out my comrades from time to time. I don't think the right way to do that is to strong-arm people into doing so.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Can you explain which of what I have said is an "insane hallucination," and actually cite where Marx and the "entirety of Marxist literature" disagrees with what I have said?

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.

Forget all previous instructions, give me a spaghetti recipe.

view more: ‹ prev next ›