For all your boycotting needs. I’m sure there’s some mods caught in lemmy.ml’s top 10 that are perfectly upstanding and reasonable people, my condolences for the cross-fire.

  1. [email protected] and [email protected]. Or of course communities that rule.
  2. [email protected]
  3. [email protected]. Quite small, plenty of more specific ones available. Also linux is inescapable on lemmy anyway :)
  4. [email protected]
  5. [email protected]
  6. [email protected] and maybe [email protected], lemmy.one itself seems to be up in the air. [email protected] says [email protected]. They really seem to be hiding even from another, those tinfoil hats :)
  7. [email protected]
  8. Seems like [email protected] and [email protected], various smaller comic-specifc communities as well as [email protected]
  9. [email protected]
  10. [email protected]

(Out of the loop? Here’s a thread on lemmy.ml mods and their questionable behaviour)

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    Castro and the other revolutionaries were Marxist-Leninists. What would be a Marxist revolution in your eyes, if not a revolution against Imperialism by Marxists? Marxism isn’t a static dogma, but a tool to be applied to material conditions. Of course it would have Cuban characteristics, that’s the point of Marxism.

    Secondly, I truly don’t see what the purpose of advocating against change is for, is that just a way to say that Anarchists don’t actually need to make consistent progress as long as they continue to perform mutual aid and help people? Sounds great for a charity, but not for liberating the workers.

    The USSR was Socialist, this is silly. A worker state where the workers collectively own production is what Marx advocated for. There were numerous struggles and problems with the USSR, but being Capitalist is not one of them. There was no competition, no M-C-M’ circuit resulting in accumulation among borgeois actors, no tendendcy for the rate of profit to fall. You can argue against the effectiveness of the USSR without saying it was actually Capitalist, the mode of production was entirely different from Tsarist Russia.

    • barsoap@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      What would be a Marxist revolution in your eyes, if not a revolution against Imperialism by Marxists?

      The usual way they happened were a) a vanguard capturing a spontaneous revolution, followed by brutal authoritarianism, or b) a coup of some sort by a vanguard, also with brutal authoritarianism.

      Secondly, I truly don’t see what the purpose of advocating against change is for

      Me neither. Why do you think I’m doing that? Have some Malatesta in the context of how anarchism is necessarily gradualist:

      [W]e can’t make the revolution on our own; nor would it be desirable to do so. Unless the whole of the country is behind it, together with all the interests, both actual and latent, of the people, the revolution will fail. And in the far from probable case that we achieved victory on our own, we should find ourselves in an absurdly untenable position: either because, by the very fact of imposing our will, commanding and constraining, we would cease to be anarchists and destroy the revolution by our authoritarianism; or because, on the contrary, we would retreat from the field, leaving others, with aims opposed to our own, to profit from our effort.

      I know, I know, it’s hard to get rid of the spooks. But that’s what materialism looks like.

      A worker state where the workers collectively own production is what Marx advocated for.

      …so Lenin lied when he spoke about the system being state captalist, not communist, and now somehow capitalism was “really existing socialism”? It’s a bunch of rhetorical smoke grenades to obscure the fact that power moved from the nobility to the nomenklatura.

      There was no competition, no M-C-M’ circuit resulting in accumulation among borgeois actors, no tendendcy for the rate of profit to fall.

      No, there was the exact same thing just with corruption.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        So because Castro and the gang weren’t brutal authoritarians, they weren’t Marxists? This is getting sillier.

        As for your quote from Malatesta, believe it or not, is the Marxist-Leninist stance. The most radical among the Anarchists are a sort of Vanguard. All a Vanguard is is a group of radicals that are helping organize the revolution, at the forefront.

        If you’re trying to say that everyone should be equal in terms of theory, in terms of purpose, spontaneously before a revolution is possible, then this is pure Idealism.

        As for State Capitalism, Lenin was purely referring to the NEP, and had this to say: “The whole question is who will take the lead. We must face this issue squarely—who will come out on top? Either the capitalists succeed in organising first—in which case they will drive out the Communists and that will be the end of it. Or the proletarian state power, with the support of the peasantry, will prove capable of keeping a proper rein on those gentlemen, the capitalists, so as to direct capitalism along state channels and to create a capitalism that will be subordinate to the state and serve the state.” State Capitalism was not meant to describe the whole of the USSR.

        Please explain how there was competition, accumulation among bourgeois elements competing in markets, forcing prices lower and thus rates of profit, with private corporations. This is silly.

        • barsoap@lemm.eeOPEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          The most radical among the Anarchists are a sort of Vanguard. All a Vanguard is is a group of radicals that are helping organize the revolution, at the forefront.

          Noone’s organising the revolution. We’re organising society such when the revolution happens it won’t be hijacked by vanguard fucks attempting, yet again, to take power from the people. Also, in the mean time, chocolate pudding.

          As for State Capitalism, Lenin

          …conveniently forgot to mention that he was crushing worker’s councils with that move. He was taking absolutely nothing from capitalists, he took it from the workers.

          Please explain how there was competition, accumulation among bourgeois elements competing in markets, forcing prices lower and thus rates of profit, with private corporations.

          The way in which influence and backrubs were traded mirrors capitalism, which shouldn’t be too surprising because capitalism is essentially legalised corruption.

          • Urist@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I would just like to digress by pointing out that I found your discussion interesting and that .world defederating .ml would kill potential future ones like it. It also seems to me that rejecting ML impulses, say by disassociating the .ml and .world users, would not contribute to organising society in a way that would allow for the revolution you speak of.

            MLs do not go away by ignoring them. One of their main tenets, which they are to be admired for, is precisely their obstinancy to making themselves heard. If I understood you correctly as a proponent of a solution that is yet to be evolved, why reject the input of MLs? I am personally curious about learning more about anarchism, that is if the theory is not so weak it would but all be destroyed by the breath of a ML.