I feel like we’ve been doing pretty great lately with leftist unity on Lemmy; this is disappointing to see
I think things are mostly settled down. There’s the odd jab or two, but Lemmy.ml mods have taken a harder stance against provocation of anarchists. At the same time, dbzer0 has taken a softer stance against “tankies.” The ones on dbzer0 that find that unacceptable have generally left already to the more liberal-aligned instances.
Changing a system is an evolutive process through generations and education, no one of revolutions. Revolutions can change the system but not the mindset of the people, because of this it’s corrupted and betrayed in a short time, always. See history. Human society is very young, with the equivalence of a child in puberty (current human behavior with wars and conflicts shows it). An anarchic society requires a mature population with self-responsibility to work, if you don’t want that it is turned in an opressive dictatorship (result of a lot revolutions before). The society is converging towards to more freedom and autosovereighn, but not through revolutions, but generations.
Peoples mindsets change gradually to align with changes in the way they live, produce, and distribute, because our ideas come from out material conditions. Revolution changes the mode of production and distribution, it changes which class controls society, but people’s mindsets change gradually after this. There is no way to this without revolution.
Secondly, socialist revolutions have not turned into “oppressive dictatorships” except from the perspective of the former ruling classes. Capitalists always see worker control as despotic.
damn MLs apparently really need to constantly find new strawmen to dunk on anarchism with. to cope with the cognitive dissonance of ignoring valid criticism of their perfect and infallible ideology maybe?
What valid criticism do you have of Marxism-Leninism?
🤡
Strawman - most anarchists acknowledge that it takes a transitional period to get from capitalism to communism. Any ML who claims that (all) anarchists refuse to accept that just didn’t bother engaging in anarchist theory.
The main difference to authoritaian socialists (as opposed to libertarian socialists) when it comes to the transitionary period is that they take means-ends-unity into account.
Marxists take means-ends-unity into account as well, though. The Marxist concept of the withering of the state isn’t the fantasy of a strong central body willingly decided to abolish itself, this actually goes against how Marxists understand social class and administration under socialism. The withering of the state is a process that coexists with the gradual collectivization of all production and distribution, and because anarchists often see hierarchy as synonymous with class, they think this administration forms its own class. In reality, administrators in socialism are not a distinct class from the working class, but a subclass of them, with class interests aligned with the rest of their class.
I would not dismiss the concern of an administration being seen as a class onto itself, with its own discretionary powers and interests, out of hand. This isn’t too distant from clerics that were/are the law, and acted in their own interests in times present/past. They speak for their gods, so of course they must be right in their righteousness.
By using definitions to declare that an administrator or other principle executive of an organ of power, as being a member of the working class (therefore: you see comrade, they cannot possibly be a class on to themself as they are part of the working class) skirts around the concern of the anarchist.
It seems to trivialise the notion that others can act in their own interest, in the interest of their office, or even in the perception of their office, or that responsibilities and powers given to those bodies, and the corruptibility of those powers, and the entrenchment of those bodies against the perceived enemies of those offices, can never be used against the interests of that of the working class as naïvety is itself naïve.
Okay I feel like the more basic question of “who washes the diapers at the assisted living home” in anarchism is more the thing, less about the “upend the system” stuff with every other revolutionary philosophy.
Believe it or not but actually a fair number of people enjoy taking care of other people.
The issue is not the job in itself but how it is devalued by the current society, ensuring low status and poor working conditions.
Just go talk to some nurses, they’ll tell you the bad part of the job isn’t changing diapers but rather how management keeps shortening the time they have per patient or how their family wishes they’d been a doctor instead.
Well, there is also logistics.
People, like nurses and doctors, do enjoy helping and taking care of people.
But to do that you need a pretty robust logistics system just to get those people to the people in need, and the supplies needed to help.
You got to get the doctor, with the medicine, to the mountain or you got get the person off the mountain, to the doctor and the medicine.
Now you need all kinds of infrastructure, not to mention what it takes to produce the medicine, or educate the doctors and nurses so they’re not just doing bloodletting and snake bites.
When my neighbor was dying at the nursing home, he frequently was urine soaked. They won’t let visitors help either, “liability reasons.”
The parent company will dump a bunch of money on sign on bonuses, over work and under pay, firing any for violations that are actually caught, and see who is desperate or compassionate enough to stay and throw then when the inevitable violation is caught, throw them under the bus, too. This also results in the revocation of the employees’ credentialing, and they are blacklisted from ever working in their field, again. So yeah, that’s why care homes call the fire departments to lift a fallen resident.
This. What’s to stop society devolving into a bunch of mafias? They’d stabillize into an oligarchy and then you’d eventually get to where we are anyway.
Yeah it’s much better to directly go to the oligarchs stage with an ml society
What do you mean by “oligarch stage,” and what does that have to do with Marxism-Leninism?
Salient.
Ahahah, anarchist are stupid, right?
Come on, I am no anarchist, but you should give them credit they have worked out how an anarchist society could work a bit more in depth than the writers of that sketch.
i wonder how fast you would get banned if you posted this on dbzer0. lol
You probably wouldn’t. We’re pretty reasonable over here and don’t really censor people unless there is a victim of your behavior. I just reread our rules and this post doesn’t seem to violate any of them.
Communists projecting their insecurities into anarchists isn’t something new
From what I remember from readin the literature at punk shows (I know, I know) socialism and even hardline ML is the same transitional state that anarchism would use if it were to succeed past faction/warlordism on the first day after revolution. So ye as fun as it is to sling shit we are kinda all on the same team.
In practice, all explicitly anarchist revolutions, such as in Catalonia, have either created states or dissolved. In Catalonia, towards the end of the war, the anarchists began to adopt more hierarchical structures of workers. They willingly conceded their ideals for the practical advantages in combat that they needed, but it was unfortunately too little too late.
That isn’t to say that no anarchist has ever done good work, to the contrary, anarchists have been very progressive at many times. However, I do think that experience of anarchist practice does lend more credence to the Marxist interpretation of the world than anarchist.
Bingo. As always, beautiful explanation of something I’m too tired (and stupid) to put into historical context 😂😅
Nah, you’re not stupid at all! But I can relate to being tired, haha.
If we’re talking political philosophy, we have some similarities, but if we’re talking about lemmy rules between ML and DB0 (which we are), we have different approaches.
Fortunafors generalized it to communists and anarchists, not just lemmy.ml and dbzer0.
I see how you’re reading it now. Since it was in a reply about to comment on DB0 rules, I had originally interpreted it as being about the two communities.
For the record, I see the communists as allied to us politically and I see ML as federated to us socially, so I apologize if my last reply seemed like an endorsement of any one philosophy over the other. In my opinion, we’re all friends here.
Please don’t ban me, love y’all, I’ll see myself out.
Yea, it’s a bit of both here IMO. The instance debate was the original part, then it was broadened into communists vs. anarchists. I see how you read it originally, though!
And tbh you don’t need to worry about being banned so much. Lemmy.ml has a bit of a reputation from the loud squeeky wheels that get banned for bigotry, chauvanism, Zionism, etc, who then frame it as “criticizing xyz socialist state.” In reality, Lemmy.ml doesn’t really overstep rules, and most bans are temporary, with short sentences.
