Blåhaj is here! I don’t recall seeing a tankie with a blåhaj account, and also we have personalities outside of politics.
Comment on Absolutely nothing happened June 1989
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 1 week agoOr ml. Or Hexbear.
Why can’t we have a leftist instance that doesn’t suck CCP dick?
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you check the Blahaj rules it explicitly states being tankie adjacent is a bannable offence, I love it.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Marxists generally support AES, so instances that are pro-Marxism tend to be supportive of the CPC. I don’t think there are any Syndicalist instances or anything, so you’d have to go to an Anarchist server like dbzer0 or something.
MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 1 week ago
AES?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Yep! You got it. Cuba, PRC, the USSR (pre-dissolution), Vietnam, Laos, etc.
bi_tux@lemmy.world 1 week ago
most communities on ml are fine tho, also I got banned on hexbear because I called the CPC (their official name) CCP
barsquid@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The admins are tankies. It’s just better to avoid it. The smaller their communities the more of a joke it is getting banned for writing a fact.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I don’t have a problem with any of the communities but I regularly catch the instance ban hammer for asinine reasons.
bi_tux@lemmy.world 1 week ago
yeah, I mean you’re kinda right
PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
db0 is pretty neutral while being intentionally left.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I wouldn’t describe it as “neutral,” it’s definitely Anarchist dominant and the admins and users tend to be anti-Marxist. That’s fine for its audience, but if someone wants a Marxist instance dbzer0 isn’t really it.
PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
That’s fair. I find it comfortable, but I’m really weird politically.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
That’s fine, like I said! If someone wants an Anarchist server and doesn’t really want Marxists, dbzer0 is probably pretty comfy. Marxists tend to be on Lemmygrad.ml, Lemmy.ml, or Hexbear.net, which is also good. If someone wants to avoid Marxists, it’s better to be on a different instance, one that isn’t federated with them.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Malidak@lemmy.world 1 week ago
…medium.com/the-aes-doctrine-wrong-then-wrong-now…
This is a good read. There is a pretty large socialist movement that seems to have the idea that to reach global socialism we need to defend every self proclaimed socialist state without asking any questions at all and hope they’ll get better over time.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Ultraleftism, found in the author’s Maoist leanings, is also dogmatic. I really like the articles Socalism Developed China, Not Capitalism as well as Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as both help recontextualize AES from a materialist lens, specifically from the frame of Historical Materlaism.
Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic book, but the othet 2 articles are 20 minutes each and Blackshirts and Reds is a full book.
WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Doesn’t China advocate for a two state solution too? Even they aren’t arguing for Israel to not exist.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Sort of. The PRC constantly takes the least confrontational stance possible. The correct Marxist take is the One State Solution, but the PRC will always take diplomacy over conflict.
frezik@midwest.social 1 week ago
I love this article while also finding it frustrating. The author seems to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but also goes into detail about how all the ML states have devolved into capitalism. Maybe that should be taken as evidence that ML’s vanguard party is fatally flawed?
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
The idea that China was socialist under Mao but became capitalist under Deng is a common Maoist take and something that distinguishes them from Marxist-Leninists, it’s kind of right there in the name.
Sometimes when people call China capitalist, I half-jokingly ask if they’re a Maoist, or if they think the best policy is closer to Mao than what they’re currently doing. Of course, usually, the answer (when I get an answer at all) is no: they opposed what China was doing when it was more state-controlled and they opposed what China was doing when it did reforms and opened up to private investment, if they make moves to hold billionaires accountable to the law or to move more of the economy to the public sector, they’re bad, and if they did the opposite, that would also be bad, but if they stayed steady, that too would be bad.
Maoists and Capitalists are both at least coherent in what they think China should do, in opposite extremes: either undo the reforms and revert to how it was or liberalize further into a fully capitalist state. Marxist-Leninists tend to have more nuanced takes about adapting to changing conditions, in line with what they’ve done. But then you have this other category that’s super prevalent on Lemmy that wants to criticize China’s every move without ever offering any kind of coherent idea of what they actually want them to do, economically. I don’t even know what to call that position because it’s utterly incoherent.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Maoists are ultraleftists, they generally deviate from Marxism to an idealist, rather than a materislist degree. I recommend checking out my comment responding to them.
The Vanguard concept isn’t flawed, it has real basis in materialist understanding. The idea that AES states have “devolved into Capitalism” is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states). I recommend reading both Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The Dengist reforms were a reversion back towards Marxism, Mao had tried to achieve Communism through fiat without enough development of the productive forces and as such there were struggles and recessions.
Public Ownership and Central Planning works best on monopolist syndicates aquired by the State, that’s the entire reason why Marxists say Capitalism creates Socialism and that the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers first and foremost, this monopolization into internally planned syndicates makes Socialism a natural evolution on Capitalism, not a “better society” to force into existence.
frezik@midwest.social 1 week ago
The idea that AES states have “devolved into Capitalism” is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states).
TIL a country with 814 billionaires isn’t capitalist.
gregor@gregtech.eu 1 week ago
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
dbzer0 is another one. It’s an anarchist instance to be precise. @AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
lugal@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
From what I know, dbzer0 is libertarian left and therefore not tankie
rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 1 week ago
If I had to choose between a libertarian and a tankie I’d shoot myself with a rusty spork.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Maybe I should have said “anarchist left”. The term “Libertarian” is overtaken by the Right by now
BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Libertarian left is very different from “libertarian”
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
dbzer0 is anarchist, definitely not libertarian
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
DB0 and Solarpunk
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
A lot of bad actors on Slrpnk but overall the community is anarchist leaning, anti-dictatorship.
OpenStars@discuss.online 1 week ago
Genuinely there are a lot of people that would like that. Maybe start with a community first before an entire instance.
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
lemmy.world is basically that. You’ll get the most concentrated socdem/socialist engagements without traipsing into hunny-cum-shot territory.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Lemmy.world absolutely isn’t Leftist, it’s overwhelmingly liberal and the mods are anti-Marxist, even defederating from Marxist instances. Lemmy.world is allowed to be a liberal instance, but pretending it’s socialist is silly.
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I mean, depends on the day. I see tons of very socialist/leftist memes and content posted to world. That being said, how many times do you need to circle jerk about socialism in the comments section on Lemmy? It’s not like anyone is actually going to do a proletariat revolution. At this point, it would just be Marxists “ackshually”-ing each other. I’m super bored of the lack of progress made in the discussions.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Leftist messaging is increasingly popular as Capitalism decays, but that doesn’t mean everyone has read theory. Lemmy.world is largely populated by liberals sympathetic to an idealistic form of Socialism that is pure fantasy, and denounce AES as a betratal of Socialism. Blackshirts and Reds has an entire chapter dedicated to western “left” anticommunism.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I believe Marxism to be correct and try to get others to read theory. I get deep satisfaction whenever someone changes their mind or reads theory because of what I comment and post.
On what grounds do you say this? Revolution is happening all around the world every few years in different states, as Capitalism decays more people become sympathetic to leftism. It will likely happen latest in Imperialist countries like the US, where living standards are inflated by hyper-exploitation of the Global South, and happens all the time in the Global South. Trends exist, systems aren’t static, Capitalism cannot last forever. That would be like believing water could be continuously heated and never boil.
To be clear, most Marxists don’t need to “ackshually” each other, just towards liberals. Liberals often have the same misconceptions, that doesn’t mean they aren’t changing their minds individually.
RVGamer06@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
So those people calling it neoliberal are fucking liars
PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah, basically. ‘Neoliberal’ and ‘lib’ are just snarl words many tankies use to mean “Anyone less fascist than Mao”.
In general, .world is much less radical than many places on Lemmy. But they’re far from neoliberals. The average poster is slightly left of a Berniecrat, probably; that is to say, either a very strong SocDem or a very weak DemSoc.
Wogi@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Listen all I’m saying is that if we were so far left that Bernie was center right on policy the country would be a much better place for everyone.
shroomato@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Thanks for calling tankies what they are: fascist.
alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
The people who think .world is socialist also think socialism is when the government does things and that social democracy is a type of socialism and not a type of liberalism.
Lennny@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Socialism is when the CIA goes in and kills your leader right?
PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s funny that all the “AES” countries that are brought up are just authoritarian states, and sometimes, for that matter, authoritarian capitalist states. It’s almost like the people championing these supposedly socialist countries are just fascists painted red.
pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Eh, it’s a mixed bag. There’s a very high concentration of centrist, “vote blue, no matter who,” liberals in Political Memes. They’re not the whole instance, but they’ve made a nice little echo chamber that makes them a pretty loud minority.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
I still don’t get how the far leftists (the types who think soc dems are basically the same as any flavor of lib, including libertarian, neolib, etc) are so convinced that socialism is the answer when there hasn’t been a country that even comes close to making it work. I guess China works for certain values of working, but it’s pretty capitalist these days, and you’ve got an overbearing government that goes along with it.
Whereas countries like you see in Scandinavia, with strong soc dem policies under capitalism like high taxes on wealth and strong safety nets, seem to be doing pretty well. I get why socialism would be good in theory but implementing it is another story.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
The short answer is that Socialism does work, and continues to work, and that SocDem countries like the Nordics depend on heavy exploitation of the Global South to fund their safety nets and still see shrinking worker power.
The longer answer is that Marxists don’t believe Socialism is better than Capitalism for any moral reason, but because they are Dialectical and Historical Materialists. They track where Capitalism is necessarily heading, ie free competition gives way to monopolist syndicates with internal planning, socializing themselves and making them ripe for public ownership and central planning.
A good primer is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” an excellent article that goes over materialist examinations of AES states vs idealist examinations. Another good reference is Blackshirts and Reds. AES is by no means perfect, but it does and did work.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
The Nordics still fucking suck, trust me.
MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 1 week ago
Is there any country that doesn’t suck?