For clarity, I did read the link you sent. I've read it before.
Plus it isn't actually about convincing you, it's about leaving a record to let other people read and not just take your words at face value. You're too far gone
That's fine, I am doing the same for you. I doubt you'll be convinced, but it's important to correct blatant misconceptions about Marxism IMO.
The Hexbear Cowbee is a 4 month old account, the Lemmy.ml Cowbee is 9 months old. The Hexbear account is the alt that I go to for fun, the Lemmy.ml account is the one I go to to try to correct misconceptions surrounding Marxism. I usually avoid .world communities though, as they are more prone to censorship, I try to stick to Lemmy.ml or other instances unless I see something particularly egregious on .world.
A movement is only successful through unity of praxis. How would one succeed when MLs and Anarchists are pulling into two different directions?
I literally just stated that if either movement started to truly pick up steam, most would join the one picking up steam.
(I'm going to put aside for now the many things I have to say about historical lessons anarchists have learned and why to avoid this)
You should talk to the Anarchists on Hexbear about what they think of with respect to this topic, obviously I am biased but it's worth noting that what I said previously, most would join the successful movement, has historical basis.
I doubt Lenin had much to say about the peculiar way leftist nerds spam emojis in an online forum :D
I thought we were speaking about geopolitical positions, not just site culture. Lemmygradders don't speak the same as Hexbear either, Hexbear has a unique site culture, that's true
That doesn't describe unity. It describes people who are OK with suppressing themselves in order to hang out in a common space to talk about other matters. I hung out in plenty of ML parties in my days. I was still never united with them.
Again, I suggest asking Hexbear users directly.
Ah, I misread, I thought you said "explaining to Natsocs like you" and not "explaining Natsocs to you." My bad, I apologize.
That being said, you were the one coming in to dispute my claim that fascism is right-wing, and the second I pushed back you said it would be a waste of time to explain, I just think that's a bit silly. Did you expect me to fully agree with you instantaneously?
This is my main account, who do you think I am an alt of?
So, in other words, "I made it up."
I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim "stateless doesn't actually mean stateless," whatever, sounds like a you problem.
And I am telling you that 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.
What gives you the right to call me a Nazi for saying "fascism is right-wing?" That's incredibly rude, entirely uncalled for, and utterly unfounded in reality.
Sure, so can you explain what you disagree with about what I have said, and why you believe fascism to not be left nor right? I am aware of "Third Positionists," they serve Capitalists and arise from Capitalist decay.
I think I won both on agreeableness and reason, given that I responded to each of your points and you responded to none of them while calling me a religious fanatic.
Can you point to an example? I haven't seen any Marxist claim that Communism would be devoid of central planning and hierarchy. If you can point them out, I will be more than willing to correct them, though I am fairly certain you are misinterpreting their words given that you made the statement that "Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing."
You'll note that I did end up continuing the conversation publicly in this thread. I have only once actually taken a conversation into DMs, with Blaze, whom they can probably back me up on. When I say "feel free to DM if you have any questions" regarding theory I have linked, it's because I don't expect anyone to immediately buzz off and read a book or article and then get right back, it's an open offer to continue the conversation at any point in time.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by not actually answering questions? In this thread you can see it''s the exact opposite, I am curious what you mean by that.
Finally, when I make my arguments and leave links for supplemental reading, it isn't a requirement to continue conversation. It's supplemental, in case they have doubts or wish to learn more beyond a simple Lemmy thread. If it's necessary reading, I usually quote a relevant paragraph and link the main work.