Cowbee

How though? Just internet words? That means practically less than nothing. In practice you would be at opposing ends if as you say, your ideal society would include a hierarchical state as the anarchist define it, which is basically anathema.

Most people are flexible, and if in the event there was mass success along Marxist lines or Anarchist lines, would join the successful movement.

I don't see how it does. All I see is people writing and interacting in a very peculiar way. Anarchists I've interacted from hexbear say practically the same things as hexbear MLs.

And I am telling you that you can understand this "peculiarity" by reading Imperialism.

Even if these two factions somehow managed to put the irreconcilable differences of praxis aside in order to discuss some issues like trans-rights, or genocide and whatnot, it doesn't seem much of a "unity" at all to me as that requires common action. From what I'm seeing, it's more of a common culture than any sort of actual left unity.

This is the most correct thing you've said. Hexbear isn't an org, it was described by one user as "not the Communist meeting room, but the bar they hang out at after the meeting." There are members of various orgs like PSL, FRSO, Food Not Bombs, etc. on Hexbear alike.

Fascism is described as both "Capitalism in decay" and as "Imperialism turned inward." It served and serves the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat, and historically arises when the Petite Bourgeoisie is facing proletarianization. That's why the most violently MAGA are small business owners and the like, and why they think immigrants are the ones proletarianizing them.

I highly recommend reading the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti, which covers the material conditions surrounding fascism and who it served.

Then as a student of history, are you saying the Tsars, Kuomintang, Batista regime, and so forth were better for their citizenry than the Communists? It's very well-recorded just how bad the previous regimes were and how dramatically material conditions improved post-revolution.

This feels like arguing with a Jehovah's witness. To your credit, you're not getting annoyed or abusive in the face of my contradiction. But then that's also a hallmark of religious people: absolute certitude, which provides a certain peace of mind.

The fact that I have carefully cited multiple different sources from multiple periods and patiently responded to your bold-faced attacks makes me a "Jehovah's Witness?" What about those supposed "much better alternatives to Capitalism?" Where are those? I have responded to every point you've made, and your response has been to belittle me and take the high-ground without responding in kind. That's rude.

Do you not think your remarks have a bit of a religious flavor to them? Quoting a couple of eccentric academics from 150 years ago as if transmitting their divine revelation. Defending your interpretation of their holy words as if you were a lawyer or a priest. Why not just look to first principles instead, to the values you considerate important, rather than citing a gospel like this?

I quoted both Marx and Engels, while linking modern analysis and theory at the end. Marxism has a long history with numerous writers, when you say the PRC has "reverted to Capitalism" it's important to point out that they have more accurately reverted to Socialism. Marxism isn't a religion, it's a method of analysis.

I don't know what you mean by "look to principles instead." I have values and principles, I desire humanity to move beyond Capitalism and onto Socialism because Capitalism reaches a dead-end when it gets to the stage it is at today: dying Imperialism and Monopolist Syndicates devoid of competition. Socialism is how we move beyond.

There are much better ideas for how to replace capitalism, though - spoiler - none of them involve a bloody revolution

I have yet to see anything succeed in replacing Capitalism without a revolution, so I'm curious what you are referring to.

This doesn't mean that Marx had nothing interesting to say. Of course he did. His description of society was revolutionary. But the prescription was disastrous and I feel we would do well to just move on from it at last

Again, post-revolution, Marxism has dramatically improved conditions compared to previous squalor. It isn't correct to say AES states have been disastrous, especially when comparing to the horrendous pre-Socialist conditions. AES isn't a utopian paradise either, but to call them "disastrous" is a bit outside of reality. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti.

My biggest issue is with these two statements:

But the fact is that capitalism won the economic battle, for better and (I agree) for worse.

Attempts to replace it completely, in an interconnected world, invariably end in disaster or (China) in a reversion to capitalism.

For the former, I disagree because AES states still exist, and Marx's analysis has retained it's usefulness at full capacity.

For the latter, most AES states were and are dramatic improvements on previous conditions, such as the fascist slaver Batista regime in Cuba compared to now, where life expectancy is 50% higher than under Batista and disparity is far lower.

As for the PRC, it isn't correct to say it "reverted to Capitalism." It's more correct to say that Mao failed to jump to Communism, and Deng reverted back to a more Marxist form of Socialism, compatible with China's existing level of development. The Private Sector is a minority of the economy in the PRC, the majority is in the public sector. Here's an excerpt from Engels in The Principles of Communism:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

Mao tried to skip the necessary developmental stage. Marx wasn't a Utopian, he didn't believe Socialism was good because it was more moral, but because Capitalism creates the conditions for Socialism, ie public ownership and central planning, through formation of monopolist syndicates. Marx says as much himself in Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

The PRC increases ownership of and eventually folds into the Public Sector companies and industries that form these monopolist syndicates.

For further reading re: China, Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good modern essay. For elaboration on Marx and the transition to Socialism, I recommend Why Public Property?

The reason I didn't want to have this conversation on Lemmy.world is that I have had similar comments to this one removed for "misinformation."

"Actually Existing Socialism"

I don't think this is a good place to have this convo, but I firmly disagree with what you've said here. I understand if you don't want to, but if you want to discuss this further you can shoot me a DM.

I tend to recommend their posts because they are written in modern lingo and in the last decade, so there's specifically modern analysis there. I recommend Marx, Engels, etc. frequently as well, but a lot of their writing is several times longer and as such several times less likely to be read by people I recommend them to, perhaps with the exception of Engels' The Principles of Communism, which is a great and to-the-point intro to Marxism.

Feel free to DM me if you have any questions!

Obviously defederation is too large scale. Ideally, there would be an option for people to block users from the instance when blocking an instance, or something like that.

I agree with this most out of what you said. This gives users the most power to curate what they see, and lessens the likelyhood of troll accounts.

Hm, from what I'm hearing the "left unity" of anarchists and marxists-leninists only works if said anarchists actually accept the marxist-leninist theory instead of, you know, anarchist one.

Lenin's analysis of Imperialism is in no way incompatible with Anarchist theory. I'm not telling you that Anarchists are supporting forming vanguard parties, or gradually transitioning to a world Socialist republic through revolution, I am specifically citing Lenin's analysis of Imperialism, which I see as the uniting factor on Hexbear.

Isn't that supposed to be true for MLs as well?

Anarchism isn't my ideal, no. That doesn't mean Anarchists do bad work or that they aren't good comrades, especially if we are aligned on Imperialism.

I am honestly struggling to understand how does one distinguish between hexbear anarchists and hexbear MLs when they both accept Leninist theory. We all know (most) anarchists and MLs want the same theoretical end-goal of communism, but differ in praxis. Do hexbear anarchists actually agree with hexbear MLs on praxis?

Lenin's analysis of Imperialism is hugely significant but not the entirety of Marxism-Leninism. Additionally, Anarchists and Marxists don't have the same idea of Communism. The Anarchist theory of what is considered stateless is a hierarchy-less network similar to a spiderweb, while Marxists have no issue at all with hierarchy, but with classes. Anarchists have similar goals and are anticapitalist, but Marxists and Anarchists do not want the same thing. Marxism vs Anarchism is a good article from the perspective of a Marxist debunking someone's claims that Marx was "basically an Anarchist," which again I don't expect you to agree with, but should better understand the position Marxists actually take, which is important given your present familiarity with Anarchism.

Note: I am not trying to "convince you." I am trying to highlight differences and explain where Anarchists on Hexbear are coming from.

Isn't that kinda circular? Hexbear proves left unity works because it has anarchists who already believe in left unity.

Yes? I never said it wasn't. Grad has Marxists that don't agree with Left-Unity and dunks on Anarchist takes regularly, Hexbear is unique in that it unites both.