119
Blahaj admin defending a blatant transphobe (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
305 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 3 years ago (81 children)

As a person who feels anarchist principles would be the most benificial way to organize a society, I don't personally feel like its possible to be harder left.

I always feel trepidatious engaging in hexbear threads. I can't tell if many of the takes on here are sincere or trolling, and the immediate mass response to guessing wrong is a dissincentive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 81 child comments
    •
  • [–] 69 points 3 years ago (67 children)

    Hexbear has some anarchists but more MLs. The mods delete more blatant sectarianism, but it's not always perfect.

    The main point of friction always ends up being US foreign policy. MLs see you criticizing a socialist state like China and think you're an anti, when of course it's still evil because all states are evil. But on the other hand, we're having this conversation in English. The biggest influence we'd have on Chinese politics from over here would be to convince other English speakers to support anti-China foreign policy in their own governments. That's state intervention, not anarchism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 67 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (66 children)

    Yeah, thats fair. The biggest thought trap I see people going in to is "the enemy of my enemy". As I see it, capital impiaralism must be dismantled, and countered, but state capitalism with socialist characteristics doesn't look like an ultimately fruitful path for enhanced liberty, so I think its important to be critical but not dismissive. I haven't found that to be a minority stance amongst anarchsts. Ultimately, the idea of "foriegn policy" itself is statist and true solidarity means standing up for everyone regardless of who the oppressor is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 66 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    I mean, I'm a pretty hard ML-type (the marx-hi reader) and I want to work towards a hegelian end of the state. I think the primary difference is that I see a tactical use of the state in that process. Honestly, until US imperialism and the broader capitalist structures are thrown down, I don't see much point in arguing with anarchist comrades who agree with me on nearly all the meaningful diagnoses of society's problems. It's entirely a tactics/future oriented disagreement, which we can have without fucking purging each other and generally come away (ideally) both better for it.

    left-unity-4

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Idk your fancy oversized hexbear emotes, but please imagine I have selected a few choice ones to signal my agreement

    we fight with tools, and sometimes those tools were built by the state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 25 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    My least favorite is the feudalisn-with-extra-markets crowd who keep doing a fascist recuperation on anarchism. They ruined "libertarian" and now they keep trying to make "anarcho-capitalist" a thing, as if political compass was a real and healthy thing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 28 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (47 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (16 children)

    European colonialism brought hundreds of millions out of poverty. I don't personally think chinese socialism has been nearly as damaging, but bringing people out of poverty is not, to my mind, a sufficient metric.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Colonialism plunged entire continents into poverty? And weavers in europe certainly did not get rich either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    European colonialism brought hundreds of millions out of poverty.

    Uhhh... I dont think so and I'd like to know why you believe this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (12 children)

    The colonialist powers in Europe, North America, and East Asia have a population in the hundreds of millions and general access to wealth and utilities greater than most of the world. Even in the worst parts of the US, clean water is more accessible than in much of the world.

    Like, the global capital machine works on a three part extraction:

    • extract wealth from colonies (de facto or dejure) through resource transfer
    • extract raw wealth from labor through manufactor of goods out of resources
    • re-extract wealth from from both parties through sales of manufactured goods

    if we are looking purely at distribution of stuff and money, I feel its not terribley controversial to suggest that a representative person in the colonial core has more than one in a colony.

    Now, at what level does having more stuff rise to "not being in poverty" is a topic that I would find a lot more debatable, but even the UN's self congradulatory and pitiful "2 dollars a day" shows more people hitting that in the imperial core than outside it

    Edit to note: I'm not saying "CHINA BAD" here, I'm saying "lifted out of poverty" is not a good metric. Its an inherently capitalist metric. Measuring if people have enough stuff is a losing game against capitalist wealth extraction. Measure instead how good a life is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    No way boss, capitalism pushed hundreds of millions of people into poverty. Prior to capitalism, most people in the world, and for the past 10s of thousands of years, have lived collectively or subsistence farmed, and lived well. When capitalism pushed people away from being able to survive in these systems and dependent on money and wages, poverty emerged.

    And they didn't transfer laterally the wealth to Europe - they pushed as many people in Europe into poverty too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (8 replies)
    • load more comments (30 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    but state capitalism with socialist characteristics

    How much have you actually investigated this claim?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    The characterization of china as state capitalism? You know, I hadn't ever gatten a first hand source for it, so you did inspire me to check my understanding.

    Its a central tenant and a core part of Xi Jiping thought. It was unanimously affirmed at the 20th party constitution convention. Some key highlights:

    • the system under which public ownership is the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership develop together
    • the socialist market economy
    • efforts to foster a new pattern of development that is focused on the domestic economy and features positive interplay between domestic and international economic flows

    you can read it yourself in the resolution on Party Constitution amendment

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    That's something. Now, what do you mean by "state capitalist"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (9 children)

    My understanding of it is a system of ownership and direction of enterprizes, where the state participates as a capitalist and as managenent, either wholely or in concert with private ownership.

    You know, like Lennin meant

    edit to add: Lennin was certainly against any private participation in capitalism, but the soviet party did loosen that with parastroika, and the Chinese Communist party started with, I believe, Deng Xiaping Thought, tho I would have to double chetk that it didn't start earlier

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Worth a read, this is from Vijay Prashad's organisation: https://thetricontinental.org/wenhua-zongheng-2023-2-socialism-3-in-china/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Thanks, that did help deepen my understanding. Its good to see that the current thought remains commited to socialism and recognizes the miss-steps of the past, and is continuing to iterate towards a more equitable future.

    Perhaps one day they will achieve it. I certainly hope they do. As of yet, the state capitalism approach to building socialism has had a number of mistakes and limited success, such that I still remain skeptical of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I think the important element here is simply to understand that the DOTP is secure, arguably much more secure than it has ever been in the past. As long as it remains secure I think incremental improvements are always going to occur.

    I do not agree with using this term "state capitalism" and think it was a mistake for it to have ever been used in the past to describe anything within a socialist state. Capitalism is, by definition, a state controlled by the capitalists. Socialism is, by definition, a state that is not controlled by the capitalists but by the people, working towards the goal of communism. All states under a DOTP are socialist regardless of the current economic mode of production, what percentage is marketised, etc etc.

    Ultimately we probably won't agree on this point though. Just please be wary that it's a contentious and likely sectarian point of disagreement that is liable to blow up into a struggle session whenever it's raised. I don't really mind so much whether we disagree on it though just so long as you're not actively trying to destroy these states, which would only help the capitalists at the end of the day, not to mention ruin the lives of 1.7billion people with a 1990s-like collapse on a terrifying scale.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I mean, I think their reading of Lenin is correct but they are just applying it carelessly. This is why I always say "liberalism" to describe the political system is more useful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah it's not so bad. I just think that Lenin was in the wrong using the phrase to begin with, and that we seem to all acknowledge it's a shit phrase by not using it, and instead using "socialism" or "AES" to describe states doing this.

    In my experience people that want to adhere to Lenin's term are usually doing so because they want to imply that these states aren't socialism and that they are just capitalism. This is where we can easily get into conflicts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    listen to season 2 of Blowback on Cuba. American policy radicalized the revolution and forced them from a more reformist stance, into ML orthodoxy, and they've achieved a tremendous amount while under seige from the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago*

    You are correct on what state capitalism is, but that flies in the face of the cases discussed. Perestroika USSR is not Lenin's USSR, but one that suffered from decades of revisionist rot that started before Stalin's corpse was even cold.

    Normal-ass private citizen capitalists are anathema to Lenin's state capitalist model, the whole point was for the state to take that mantle in order to remove the existence of an independent capitalist class. I don't think this was correct, and in fact a pretty catastrophic failure of grasping counterfactual class antagonism, but it is what it is.

    China's model is officially called (among other things) "state socialism", so named because the primary role of the state is not to nullify and supplant the capitalist class but rather to subjugate it at the direction of the proletariat. We can say in a looser sense that things like it's public enterprise in oil are "state capitalist", but the PRC overall is not a state capitalist entity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

    i cant speak much for the rest of hexbear but at /c/traa (im the mod there) we intend on whacking people that mess with trans solidarity too much with sectarianism. also @Nakoichi@hexbear.net is our resident always online anarchist so maybe they can provide more insight for you. also pretty sure we have a tranarchist or two on our mod team

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    our resident always online anarchist

    Hey fuck you! But also thanks for the shoutout lol rat-salute-2

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    It depends on the user. I've noticed many are just chill and having a laugh at the depressing existence of living under capitalism. I'm enjoying interacting here after lurking without an account.

    Just don't threaten our hexbear cheese wheel stockpile and I won't throw you in the castle jail! soviet-huff

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Depends on the user is sort of the problem tho. sometimes they have a laugh with poe-level sarcasm, which I can identify in my friends, but not with internet strangers. So its scary

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Jesus, I know what you mean. I've been on this site from the beginning, off and on, but sometimes it's hard to tell what's sarcasm, or if it's a bit. For example:

    Definitely a bit: /u/NeeraTanden

    Still can't tell if it's a bit: /u/LiberalSocialist

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I always feel trepidatious engaging in hexbear threads. I can't tell if many of the takes on here are sincere or trolling, and the immediate mass response to guessing wrong is a dissincentive.

    You have to break through this.

    Engaging in having bad takes is a quick way to challenge yourself. And challenging yourself is good. Either you will come out with stronger confidence in the views that you have or you will learn new things and develop yourself as a person.

    Break through the fear of participation. There is never any end to learning, and never any end to developing our views. It is necessary to engage in challenging ourselves in order to advance.

    So you had a shit take? Who cares. Assuming you're not a shit who actively avoids admitting when wrong and developing, all will be fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    Naw, I don't mind much when someone points out that I had a shit take, and takes the time to help me understand it.

    An inbox-destroying number of messages about it is a different beast. At some point, a friendly correction or two changes in to a beast with no nuance or possibility of discussion.

    It results in a third outcome: the target stops learning or engaging at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent