Cowbee [he/him]

So, Anarchists are allowed to exist in ML societies so long as they become or pretend to be MLs. Gotcha.

No, and that’s clearly a bad-faith reading. If the Anarchists refuse to work with the Marxists, to the point of directing the revolution against itself, then that’s an issue.

So you join a anarchist movement which has momentum, and along with direct action, you try to set up vanguard parties and shit?

I don’t see why you think Marxist analysis driving decision making requires the use of strategies like Vanguard parties. Vanguardism is a strategy, not the practice of Marxism.

Not at all. But I do think you’re trying to avoid the thrust of my argument by simply restating your position as a fact and taking us 4 replies back.

I disagree.

Without common praxis, there is no unity. This is why anarchists are in unity with each other even though syndicalists do syndicalist stuff, and mutualists do mutualist stuff etc. Because our multitude of direct action complement each other in prefiguring the system. You know what doesn’t complement anarchist praxis and more often than not, counters it? ML praxis!

Hexbear Anarchists would disagree, though I won’t speak for them.

Because cultists prefer to not venture out of their communities, and discourage interacting with people who don’t already share the same worldview.

You’re guilty of the same, you’ve cultivated a community generally hostile towards Marxists while outwardly saying you don’t have a problem with them. I think it’s better to own up to your biases and how they have impacted your community, rather than try to present dbzer0 as uniquely open to discussion.

On that note, I don’t think there’s any real discussion to be had going forward with this convo, we clearly aren’t seeing eye to eye on what constitutes what type of praxis nor what left-unity looks like, and therefore I don’t think it makes sense to continue wasting what I assume is a nice Sunday for the both of us.

You too!

Very big subject and I doubt I have time to expand here. But to put it short: Aligned goals. You claim anarchists are part of the left, then their alternative positions are just dissent from your viewpoint, so according to your left unity, you need to afford them dissent. If you actually claim, that no, they don’t share goals so we need to silence their free speech and suppress their actions, then don’t prattle about “left unity” either.

Wrong reading here. Anarchists aren’t “dissent,” what becomes dissent is splitting and factionalism.

Again, praxis. What praxis are they doing! Anarchist or ML? Your Marxist analysis is irrelevant.

Both.

So? How is some Hexbear not taking part in FNB showing “left unity” to those who do?

I think you’re just trying to argue semantics here. Hexbear is made up of different leftists all pursuing similar goals through different strains.

You suggested I should talk to them. If you have someone who’s willing to do the effort, they are free to step outside of the hexbear compound and talk.

I’ll refrain, I am uninterested in being accused of brigading.

And again, kinda cultish, but you do you.

How?

To be fair, the only people who consider Social Democrats to be “left” are Social Democrats and the people to the right of them. Most people use “left” to refer to anti-capitalism, be it Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, etc, and not to refer to Capitalism but with large safety nets.

That’s why I call out my comrades from time to time. I don’t think the right way to do that is to strong-arm people into doing so.

Hah I knew it. No, dissent is not the same as platforming.

So then where is the line between reasonable dissent and platforming?

Really? So doing anarchist praxis is not anarchism?

It’s semantics. If a Marxist uses Marxist analysis to side with Anarchists, they are still acting as a Marxist.

Supports how? With thoughts and prayers? That’s not unity. That’s just vibes.

As I already stated, many members of Hexbear are also members of PSL, FRSO, Food Not Bombs, or local leftist parties and groups.

Because I think it’s fruitless if they don’t even bother to take part in completely neutral topics which have nothing to do with AES.

So then why ask me to send them your way?

The only explicit rule we have regarding MLs is “no tankie communities”. And of course I’m not going to remove comments just to fit your sensibilities about Lenin.

Never said you should remove the anti-Lenin comments, but that your moderators have bias. The “no tankie” bit is a good example, “tankie” is ill-defined and as such can be used to target whatever the moderator wishes.

But in any case I was not talking about you specifically, I was countering your point about Hexbear anarchists being too precious to venture outside a space where ML-style “AES” is not the accepted paradigm, which for real is an utterly an absurd thing for an anarchist to be hung upon.

It isn’t about HB Anarchists being “precious,” Hexbear is already active enough and has its own Anarchist communities. Jumping to dbzer0s isn’t exactly the first choice for most people.

No. It never makes sense to “enforce unity”.

For clarity, does this extend to Capitalists? Fascists?

No, but it means you’re doing anarchism. I.e. it’s not “left unity”. It’s just anarchism.

I’m gonna disagree on the semantics there.

Again, a movement doesn’t gain traction on its own. Its unity of praxis that makes it so, which is explicitly what your “left unity” is not doing, since it waits and see if someone else has traction to join it. It’s nonsense!

On the contrary, it supports leftists to do what they believe is most effective and learn from other tendencies.

Sure, tell them to come over to /c/anarchism!

Why don’t you make a thread inviting them? I’m not wanting to get accused of “brigading” like Hexbear always is.

dbzer0 is not hexbear. We don’t ban people who are misguided about “AES”, like hexbear would. As such, there’s not problem in coming over to talk to us.

I’ve run into issues with dbzer0 as an instance regarding this, your rules surrounding MLs are deliberately written in a manner that limits discussion. If you change the rules to be more free-speech then I’ll consider it, I used to do so until it became clear that I had to watch what I said, while takes like “Lenin wasn’t a Marxist” stay up and even get postively upvoted.

If his comments aren’t breaking the rules and can stay up, I don’t see why you feel the need to strong-arm me into submission for “proof of good faith.” I have called out comrades before, I don’t do it every time, especially when I clarified my position on that thread already.

I agreed with the message, not the tone nor how it was delivered. You can see me elaborate in my own words on that thread.

If you have a problem with what I say, engage it directly.

My point is that the division is very much black and white. The anarchists which joined the Bolsheviks got disillusioned, purged or killed. The anarchists of Spain learned similar lessons. Disagreements are allowed to happen in anarchist revolutions, sure, sometimes too much for their own good. But we’ve seen that in ML ones, persistent anarchist disagreement is an eventual path towards the front of a firing squad for being “counter-revolutionary”.

At what point does dissent become counter-revolutionary? Never? Or is there a point where it makes sense to enforce unity?

No, when you join an succesful Anarchist movement and don’t act like an anarchist, it’s entryism. When you act as an anarchist, it’s just anarchism.

So if I ideologically think the movement is flawed but materially support it I am considered by you an Anarchist? I disagree, to an extent. If a movement gains traction, it is more important to effectively support that movement, however it manifests, to the best of your abilities.

Again, it’s all about the praxis. How one larps on a web forum is irrelevant

If a Marxist believes in Democratic Centralism and therefore joins the Anarchists in a united movement, rather than fracturing it, despite their disagreements, they are a Marxist.

So long as it anarchist theory which suppresses the largest anarchist lessons learned painfully in the 20th century, which is that left unity doesn’t exist 🤷

That’s your opinion, of course, and Hexbear’s Anarchists clearly disagree. I suggest talking to them about it.

Starting to sound like a cult here, buddy…

I don’t see that at all. If dbzer0 as an instance is generally hostile to support of AES, it isn’t always useful nor fun to engage if you do support AES. I don’t think it’s “cult-like,” neither instance is truly neutral ground.

Hexbear has Marxists and Anarchists, it’s a non-sectarian “left-unity” instance. Lemmy.ml is admin’d and moderated by Marxists and some Anarchists. Similar, but different.

First of all, that’s ahistorical. Bolsheviks infamously denied a revolution was happening and tried to wait for better material conditions, while a revolution was happening. This kind of things happens all the time.

It is historical. Many Anarchists joined the Bolsheviks to support the mass movement, and the Bolsheviks also supported the Anarchists in Spain for a time. Disagreements are allowed to happen as well, my point is that the division isn’t black and white.

Anyway, you just rephrased yourself. How would a movement “pick up steam” with two factions pulling in different directions? Or do you claim that MLs would join a purely anarchist movement? If so, that’s not an example of left unity. It’s an argument for entryism or something. And we already know what happened when anarchists joined ML movements picking up steam…

You call it “entryism,” I call it left-unity. Even then, coalitions have their place as well. Secondly, many Anarchists joined the ML movements, the ones who did not were the ones too opposed to work with them. That doesn’t mean the Marxists were innocent, of course, just that it isn’t black and white. Many Anarchists joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks.

No I’m talking about the site culture. I think that’s the primary reason people put aside their core differences to hang out, either that, or LARPing as the other faction to give credence to “left unity” 🤷

The former is more of a point than the latter, there are clearly Anarchists on Hexbear and Anarchist theory is often talked about and encouraged.

If any non-toxic anarchists venture out of Hexbear, sure I can ask them. !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com is right there but I never see any hexbear anarchists commenting (except for the times they brigaded)

Hexbear’s Anarchists aren’t likely to participate in an Anarchist community that fundamentally disagrees on analysis of AES.

A movement is only successful through unity of praxis. How would one succeed when MLs and Anarchists are pulling into two different directions?

I literally just stated that if either movement started to truly pick up steam, most would join the one picking up steam.

(I’m going to put aside for now the many things I have to say about historical lessons anarchists have learned and why to avoid this)

You should talk to the Anarchists on Hexbear about what they think of with respect to this topic, obviously I am biased but it’s worth noting that what I said previously, most would join the successful movement, has historical basis.

I doubt Lenin had much to say about the peculiar way leftist nerds spam emojis in an online forum :D

I thought we were speaking about geopolitical positions, not just site culture. Lemmygradders don’t speak the same as Hexbear either, Hexbear has a unique site culture, that’s true

That doesn’t describe unity. It describes people who are OK with suppressing themselves in order to hang out in a common space to talk about other matters. I hung out in plenty of ML parties in my days. I was still never united with them.

Again, I suggest asking Hexbear users directly.

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.

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.

The question is, can an anarchist which doesn’t accept any AES remain a member of hexbear for long, or do they get eventually punted for “sectarianism”?

You can be critical of AES when not on a Hexbear account. “Left-Unity” doesn’t mean “all leftist ideas are valid,” rather, it’s about coalition building. Again, understanding Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism is helpful, as both the Marxists and Anarchists on Hexbear see what Lenin outlines as “Imperialism” as the greatest enemy of all Leftist movements.

In fact, just how many anarchists who don’t accept AES states do you actually have in good standing

Unsure, I’m not a mod nor an admin. I think it’s self-evident when identifying as an Anarchist that AES isn’t your ideal, Hexbear’s Anarchists usually just see it as a dramatic improvement on Capitalism.

How many who don’t believe in left-unity?

Not many, I imagine, otherwise they would be on a different instance most likely.

Would it make me understand why hexbears are dogpiling anarchists who reject “left-unity”?

I believe it would help, yes. Hexbear’s Anarchists are generally supportive of AES because they agree with Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism, though I don’t claim to speak for all of them. Like I said, you don’t have to agree with Lenin here, I just think your personal understanding of Hexbear and Marxism-Leninism in general, and thus your ability to “deal” or interact with them, would be much better if you read that specific work.

That being said, obviously I don’t expect you to read an entire book just to understand political viewpoints you disagree with, I just wanted to point it out to you in case it hadn’t been already.

For some definitions of “work”, maybe. From my perspective it “works” the same way “unity” works in /r/politicalcompassmemes.

As someone who, back in my ultraleft liberal days (before I actually started reading theory and taking it seriously), participated in r/politicalcompassmemes, it’s entirely different IMO. I think a good exercise if you want to see what Hexbear actually functions like is to scroll the News Megathread and see some of the conversations had there.

Again, though, you don’t have to do any of this. I just think that if you for some reason decided to make “understanding Hexbear’s Anarchists” a goal, then this is the quickest way to do so.

If you do decide to read Imperialism, you can DM me if you have any questions.

I know you don’t agree with Lenin, but I think reading Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism may help you with understanding Marxist-Leninists. And, for what it’s worth, Hexbear seems to be making ML/Anarchist unity work.

Without knowing what got you dog-piled, you say it yourself, you broke the anti-sectarian rule. I do think that expecting to be treated with kindness when breaking instance rules directly is a bit of a tall order, especially if you use the term “tankie,” which these days just means “Marxist.”

As a Marxist, I’ve never had a problem on Hexbear, but many problems on Lemmy.world. I know you’re not a Marxist, but generally Anarchists are also treated well. The only time it doesn’t work out is if you have an anti-Anarchist Marxist or an anti-Marxist Anarchist, in my experience, and it seems lije you’re more of the latter than not.

On the internet, there are few genuinely pro-Marxist spaces. Calling it an echo-chamber is also pretty one-note, dontcha think? As a Marxist, it’s fantastic to not have constant struggle sessions with liberals that haven’t read a word of Marx acting like they know him intimately, which personally is my experience on my Lemmy.ml account.

Going on Hexbear is relaxing, on the contrary. There are struggle sessions every once in a while, but I learn far more there and argue far less.