cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8181688
undefined
Ukraine Free Territory
Literally bandit kingdom under an absolute leader
Stalin vs Spanish Leftists
The USSR was the only nation to provide any support to the Republic, and it was the anarchists that fucked up by being unable to organize any kind of national army and just letting the fascists roll up their 'independent' cities one by one. Saying "it was Stalin's fault" is the anarchist stab-in-the-back myth.
Mao
I've never heard of the 'Manchurian communes' and neither has wikipedia (which would never miss the chance to play up a supposed communist atrocity) and ah yes, that famous leftist tendency "intellectuals". Not saying the Cultural Revolution was correct, but you also can't just blame one person for it.
Hungarian Worker's Councils
A fascist counterrevolution, Hungary was an Axis power and it was a mere eleven years after WW2 - for """worker's councils""" they sure lynched a lot of Jewish people! Read this.
Futhermore, did even a single one of these leaders claim to support an abstract "left unity"? Lenin sure didn't:
“Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.”
Nor did all the millions and millions of workers who supported each of these leaders. How unfathomably arrogant to think that the millions of committed revolutionaries that worked tirelessly to build socialism in these places were too fucking stupid to see they were working for the 'wrong' ideology, that they should have rejected their leadership organization and just slotted in your preferred coterie of "libertarian socialists & anarchists" and that would have simply solved all their murderous authoritarian ways. A nice horizontal, non-hierarchical, non-coercive network of free-organizing collectives would definitely have stood up in the face of the Wehrmacht, wouldn't it!
Now, ironically the "tankie" instances in this federation actually have rules about sectarianism so I wouldn't post this on there, but I have no qualms saying it here (you can feel free to ban me though, if you want to indulge in the ultimate irony). So I can say that I am sectarian, because revolution is a problem that has a correct answer - there's the answer that saved hundreds of millions of lives from fascism, and then there's the 'answer' that lets online """leftists""" living eighty years after the fact feel smugly superior to the people who actually fought and bled for a better world. Further reading on this matter:
- “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder - Lenin
- A Critical Read of Animal Farm - Jones Manoel
- Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism - Michael Parenti (<- especially this)
Edit: I was kinda pissed off when I wrote this so my dismissals of those points were definitely sloppy - though in hindsight with this guy "more nuance" would probably have been a waste - but I absolutely can't tolerate such ignorant attacks against the projects that actually came the closest to human emancipation anywhere in history. Regardless, I don't want any anarchist comrades to feel like I'm attacking them, and although I obviously believe MLism (and the collected work of its offshoot branches) is the best basis for the theory and practice of revolution, the good work of anarchist groups that were able to keep fighting in the imperial core when Marxist groups were stamped out can't be ignored. If you punched a fascist then you're a comrade of mine.
I've never heard of the 'Manchurian communes' and neither has wikipedia...
I think they might be referring to these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_in_Manchuria https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francesco-dalessandro-the-forgotten-anarchist-commune-in-manchuria
I don't have enough intimate knowledge to be able to comment though, apart from my natural suspicion that once again, as usual, the anarchists will paint their lack of political efficacy as moral virtue and communist nefariousness, though I'm happy to be corrected.
Wait, did they seriously confuse Chinese and Korean? I guess I shouldn't have expect much from a comic that depicts Mao with slanty eyes.
i mean it was located in Manchuria if you want to be charitable, but it was fuckall to do with Mao in any case--he was busy getting encircled by the nationalists at the time
You'd be opening an can of ethnic worms over the technical historical ownership of North-East China / Manchuria / Dergi Ilan Golo / (the northern part of ) Goguryeo (who's legacy is claimed by South Korea to further justify shitting on China because they got little dog syndrome)
Online "leftist" losers love to pretend that they can discard the past in favor of their stupid orientalist gamer view of politics and act like they've done something
Marxist Leninists stay winning
and ah yes, that famous leftist tendency "intellectuals". Not saying the Cultural Revolution was correct, but you also can't just blame one person for it.
I would assume this is referring to the aftermath of the Hundred Flowers Campaign, but those intellectuals were pretty much all rightists
“Nor did all the millions and millions of workers who supported each of these leaders. How unfathomably arrogant to think that the millions of committed revolutionaries that worked tirelessly to build socialism in these places were too fucking stupid to see they were working for the 'wrong' ideology, that they should have rejected their leadership organization and just slotted in your preferred coterie of "libertarian socialists & anarchists" and that would have simply solved all their murderous authoritarian ways. A nice horizontal, non-hierarchical, non-coercive network of free-organizing collectives would definitely have stood up in the face of the Wehrmacht, wouldn't it!“
Well fucking said Comrade. This part right here is the thing that always clinches it for me. Whatever can be said in anarchisms favor as an ideology, it all dissolves once the question is asked “how does Anarchism defend itself from a fascist state?”
I don’t have a single issue with anarchists that have the humility and intellectual honesty to accept the clear and obvious shortcomings of Anarchism in regards to revolutionary defense. In fact I admire them for wanting to reconcile those contradictions. It’s not an easy task and that’s what accounts for their rarity more than anything else IMO.
If you call yourself an Anarchist because you have aversion to hierarchy, violence, and big books, you’re just a child, or more likely, an American with the political understanding of a child.
Fucking heroic post o7
I'm assuming.you're just ignorant of Makhno, and not intentionally spouting century old propaganda but here. From the article "Makhno's anarchism, however, was not confined to verbal propaganda, important though this was to win new adherents. On the contrary, Makhno was a man of action who, even while occupied with military campaigns, sought to put his anarchist theories into practice. His first act on entering a town -- after throwing open the prisons -- was to dispel any impression that he had come to introduce a new form of political rule. Announcements were posted informing the inhabitants that they were now free to organize their lives as they saw fit, that his Insurgent Army would not "dictate to them or order them to do anything." Free speech, press, and assembly were proclaimed, although Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees, instructing their members to "take up some honest trade.'" Does that sound like a bandit king?
The USSR absolutely betrayed the Spanish Anarchists, this isn't controversial at all. Here's a well sourced thread from someone who wrote a research paper on the topic breaking it down.
I don't know enough about Hungary to have an opinion on the matter and can't be bothered to do all the reading for it right now. Based on your characterizations of previous libertarian left movements I'm going to assume you're full of shit though.
Hard agree on "left unity". Authoritarians and libertarians shouldn't waste their time on trying to get along, it's counter productive.
Further reading/listening for anyone interested:
The State is Counter Revolutionary is a theory and history series covering the Russian and Chinese revolutions. The Maoist one may be of particular interest to you.
Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth
Authoritarians and libertarians
I don't give a shit what you say, if your politics is "authoritarian bad and libertarian good" you're a fucking idiot.
Oh look, a leftist "enlightened centrist". Please, provide us your grand left unifying theory that will bring about peace and prosperity for two mutually exclusive schools of thought. Authoritarians and libertarians got lumped together a long time ago and it's been made abundantly clear that that was a mistake. We should stop trying to force it. It's counterproductive
Who said I was pro-left unity? Im a Marxist Leninist. Did the name not say "stalinism" loudly enough?
although ill take a real anarchist to work side by side with over your illiterate ass any day. Your ilk are charlatans and failures, always have been, always will be. Stop wasting our time with your illiteracy.
So you're a Marist lenninist who's against left unity and thinks that people who are either only pro authoritarian or pro libertarian are fucking idiots? Do I need to spell that out more or are you aware of how stupid you sound right now? Are you sure I'm the illiterate one in this exchange?
bitch I actually read theory, i don't ascribe to "authoritarian" or "libertarian" as political movements. Its not a word used by any Marxist movement nor theorist that has actually accomplished something besides never getting past local party level.
you don't even understand the world well enough to be mad at me properly. Do I have to spell it out for you or do you want to continue to roll in the mud with your ignorant pig friends?
Stay mad. Your politics are shit and no amount of theory is going to change the oppressive nature of the world you want to create. Dress up the attrocities your ideology represents in all the $5 words you want. It won't change the fact that at the end of the day you'll be another reactionary supporting a new generation of bourgeois pigs ruining life for the rest of us. I read state and revolution too, it was mid. Find a different Russian dipshit to base your life around, there's better ones out there.
They are saying the lense of authoritarian/libertarian as a system of values is stupid
Yes, I spoke in anger and I don't really know that much about Makhno, I also don't care because he's an irrelevant footnote. The proletarian masses spoke, they chose who to give their energy and strength to and their choice was the Bolsheviks. Those Bolsheviks safeguarded the Soviet people against the capitalists literally turning out the bowels of hell upon them. Without the Red Army, the genocidal colonial expedition of Nazi Germany would have exterminated every single person between Ukraine and Siberia. And the Red Army was ONLY built through the absolutely tireless work of millions upon millions of workers building socialist industry under the guidance of the Communist Party. Communist Parties! Each region had its own branch! Each nation had its representation guaranteed! Soviet linguists helped invent alphabets for languages that had never been written down before, so they could record their oral histories and partake in the creation of culture on an equal basis with other nations! Truly the actions of a totalitarian dictatorship.
Ah, but it's much easier to talk about "authoritarians and libertarians" and read the opinions of a bunch of white westerners who know better, than read the words of the people who built socialism under constant siege from the world empire. Hypocritically (?), I'm not interested in reading anything you have to link because I've already passed through the phase of anarchism I had before stumbling across The State and Revolution. I'm pressed because I used to be you until I got schooled, and had the humility and intellectual honesty to actually try and learn more. So go and read Blackshirts and Reds, S&R, Losurdo's Stalin, Vijay Prashad's Red Star Over the Third World and Washington Bullets and then come back and tell me whether or not you followed my footsteps or just bounced off back into "western-left" arrogance.
Makhno
Imagine stanning a guy who armed and trained pogromists on an oopsie, and then in exile didn't have the spine to support a much better anarchist seeking to kill a notorious leader of pogroms. Makhnovists are people who look at Trotsky and say "we need someone even less dignified, someone who accomplished still less and was spiteful and shit-flinging to even more people" and old Nestor comes to their rescue. Go follow his example and publish a newspaper that no one reads except to disparage it while alienating every leftist in your life even despite having the common enemy of the boogeyman tankies, and then die alone.
So correcting a patently false characterization = stanning makhno? K lol. Are you trying to out trivia me or something? Keep spouting whatever little bits and pieces of history you've managed to warp to fit your own preconceptions and leave the real conversation for people who don't need to have their politics spoonfed to them from a bunch of state capitalist dictators that have been dead for decades
I've only referenced things that Makhnovists agree to, it's hardly the Bolshevik history of him. You can be extremely charitable in sourcing and still come to the conclusion that Makhno was mainly pathetic and harmful (though platformism is interesting). I also think that enabling actual genocide is a little more than "trivia", but it's not owning the tankies, so I can see why you would be uninterested in it.
Makhno did, in reaction to a rather brutal set of evidence that you can't just toss out arms and training everywhere and tell people to sort themselves out, fight at least some of the fascists he equipped and made a more pointed effort of helping the surviving Jewish people with community defense, but the underlying problem of him overwhelmingly serving to spread violent chaos in a state that had already been war-torn twice over remained, and that's part of the "banditry" accusation.
freedom under Makhno has been overstated.
https://isreview.org/issues/53/makhno/
click here to expand, it's a long excerpt
When occupying cities or towns, Makhno’s troops would post notices on walls that read:
This Army does not serve any political party, any power, any dictatorship. On the contrary, it seeks to free the region of all political power, of all dictatorship. It strives to protect the freedom of action, the free life of the workers against all exploitation and domination. The Makhno Army does not therefore represent any authority. It will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever. Its role is confined to defending the freedom of the workers. The freedom of the peasants and the workers belongs to themselves, and should not suffer any restriction.61
But left in control of territory that they wanted to secure, the Makhnovists ended up forming what most would call a state. The Makhnovists set monetary policy.62 They regulated the press.63 They redistributed land according to specific laws they passed. They organized regional legislative conferences.64 They controlled armed detachments to enforce their policies.65 To combat epidemics, they promulgated mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health.66 Except for the Makhnovists, parties were banned from organizing for election to regional bodies. They banned authority with which they disagreed to “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves.”67 They delegated broad authority to a “Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.” The Makhnovists used their military authority to suppress rival political ideas and organizations.68 The anarchist historian Paul Avrich notes, “the Military-Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Guliai-Pole.”69
[...] skipping a paragraph and a quote for brevity
Anarchist attacks on the Bolsheviks’ civil war policies often focus on the severe military discipline, conscription, grain requisitioning, and creation of a secret police. Yet, under the same conditions of civil war, Makhno’s army adopted all these measures, albeit with different names.
military discipline and conscription:In his army, Makhno claimed that units had the right to elect their commanders. However, he retained veto power over any decisions.71 He increasingly relied on a close group of friends for his senior command.72 As Darch notes, “Although some of Makhno’s aides attempted to introduce more conventional structures into the army, [Makhno]’s control remained absolute, arbitrary and impulsive.”73 One regiment found it necessary to pass a resolution that “all orders must be obeyed provided that the commanding officer was sober at the time of giving it.”74 As the war went on, his forces moved from voting on their orders to carrying out executions ordered by Makhno to enforce discipline.75
The pressures of war forced Makhno to move to compulsory military service, a far cry from the free association of individuals extolled in anarchist theory. Tellingly, all the anarchist histories call it a “voluntary” mobilization (complete with quotation marks).76 Historian David Footman describes the linguistic back-flips:
Accordingly, at Makhno’s insistence, the second Congress passed a resolution in favor of “general, voluntary and egalitarian mobilization.” The orthodox Anarchist line, expressed at an Anarchist gathering of this period, was that “no compulsory army…can be regarded as a true defender of the social revolution,” and debate ranged round the issue as to whether enlistment could be described as “voluntary” (whatever the feelings of individuals) if it took place as the result of a resolution voluntarily passed by representatives of the community as a whole.77
Just in case people did not understand the meaning of “voluntary,” the Makhnovists issued a clarifying bulletin:
Some groups have understood voluntary mobilization as mobilization only for those who wish to enter the Insurrectionary Army, and that anyone who for any reason wishes to stay at home is not liable…. This is not correct…. The voluntary mobilization has been called because the peasants, workers and insurgents themselves decided to mobilize themselves without awaiting the arrival of instructions from the central authorities.78
The Makhnovists needed conscription for the same reason the Bolsheviks did: the bulk of the peasantry was sick of fighting. The difference between the two is that the Bolsheviks had a political outlook that saw conscription as part of a transitional period with the future depending on world revolution, when the productive power of humanity first unleashed by capitalism could be brought to bear on all spheres of life, in the interest of the vast majority. The peasants of Russia and the Ukraine were still using wooden ploughs and harvesting by hand. They stood to gain immensely from an increase in both productivity and leisure time. In contrast, Makhno had no similar perspective and had no generalized plan or vision for the future.
food requisitioning:An army needs to eat. As they moved through the Ukraine, locals would point out the kulaks who would “agree” to provide food.79 Despite orders to the contrary, Makhnovists would loot town after town, adding to the workers’ misery. One witness recalled:
Food supply was primitive, on the traditional insurgent pattern: the bratishki—the Makhnovists’ name for each other—would scatter to the peasant huts on entering a village, and eat what God sent; there was thus no shortage, although plundering and thoughtless damage to peasant stock did occur; I saw them shoot peasant cattle for fun more than once, amid the howls of women and children.80
From their earliest days, they took the equipment they needed from those who had it.81 As they passed through towns and villages, they required the populace to quarter them.82
secret police:While condemning the Soviet Cheka as an authoritarian betrayal, Makhno created two secret police forces that carried out numerous acts of terror.83 After a battle in one village, they shot a villager suspected of treachery with no trial. They summarily executed many of their prisoners of war.84 Their secret police were tasked with getting rid of “opponents within or outwith [sic] the movement.”85 Their activities led to one anarchist Congress asking Makhno to explain his activities:
It has been reported to us that there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik Cheka. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported.86
This is an excerpt from a longer article. I added the three headings for readability
turns out that, regardless of ideology, the material situation of a revolution drives how groups act
Literally bandit kingdom under an absolute leader
Classic imperialist shite of "spreading freedom" no better than any other imperialist. DOobetter.
The USSR was the only nation to provide any support to the Republic, and it was the anarchists that fucked up by being unable to organize any kind of national army and just letting the fascists roll up their ‘independent’ cities one by one. Saying “it was Stalin’s fault” is the anarchist stab-in-the-back myth.
You can lie to yourselves all you want. Anarchists remember the backstabbing very well and the real reason why they couldn;t fight back efficiently. I'm not here to discuss with tankies though. Plenty has been written about this stalinist revisionism already.
A fascist counterrevolution, Hungary was an Axis power and it was a mere eleven years after WW2 - for “”“worker’s councils”“” they sure lynched a lot of Jewish people! Read this.
Ah yes, everything USSR wanted to conquer or quiesce is "counterevolution". Kronstadt too. Same exact bullshit every imperialist nation cooked up to invade and take over. Y'all ain't foolin' anyone you know.
So I can say that I am sectarian, because revolution is a problem that has a correct answer - there’s the answer that saved hundreds of millions of lives from fascism,
Lol, where? Show me one ML nation which is not totalitarian right now, or didn't fall back into capitalism and fascism as soon as it inevitably collapsed from the mortally defective ideology of leninism.
You can lie to yourselves all you want. Anarchists remember the backstabbing very well and the real reason why they couldn;t fight back efficiently. I'm not here to discuss with tankies though. Plenty has been written about this stalinist revisionism already.
My dude, the vast majority of Republican tanks were provided by the Soviet Union. Let's take a look at the Wikipedia article about tanks in the Spanish Civil War shall we: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tanks_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War#Tanks_supplied_by_foreign_powers
Locally produced tanks: 24-32
Soviet tanks: 331
French/Polish tanks: 64
Paraguayan tanks: 1
So out of the 420-428 tanks deployed by the Republicans, more than 75% came from the Soviet Union. This is not "backstabbing." If the Republicans didn't want the Soviet Union to "interfere" with their civil war, they could have fun with their 89 tanks versus the Francoists' 280 tanks. Yes, when you accept material aid from another country, that country has a say in the trajectory of your political project. That's literally how all aid works. The Soviet Union was not a charity. If the Republicans did not want the Soviet Union to interfere with their political project, they could've just rejected the material aid. But to accept the substantial material aid and then cry about Soviet interference is called being ungracious. It's called biting the hand that feeds you.
So out of the 420-428 tanks deployed by the Republicans, more than 75% came from the Soviet Union.
Stop the fight!
I haven't even gone over how some of the colonized Moroccans sided with the Francoists while none of them sided with the Republicans. You would think that the side with the socialists and anarchists would be on board with decolonization, but I guess it's horizontally organized society for white people, brutal colonial regime for brown people. The white people can own the means of production while the brown people can labor with them.
this is a ridiculous mischaracterization, the Moroccans didn't 'side' with Franco, the only Moroccans left with guns were the comprador regiments after 7 years of slaughtering the independence movement. it was still militarized and patrolled by those fuckers. You wanna talk about Popular Fronts being pro-colonial, look at France's not supporting decolonization, the Spanish one had no grasp or opportunity. if they'd somehow dropped some rifles into Morocco, if the people had the spirit to rise up at all the French would've bombed them to keep it from getting into their bit of Morocco
Lol the soviets are not a charity. Omg the fact that you post that imperialist drivel unironically is just the cherry on top. I don't have to add anything here.
The pattern is that you grandstand about being above arguing to avoid needing to engage with their actual positions
You are making grievous accusations and then just saying "nah, I don't need to substantiate anything". Let me tell you, anti-intellectual wreckers and slanderers are much worse than people who want to argue against the cold war consensus.
You are making grievous accusations
Mate, it's a meme on an obscure forum on the internet...You need to touch some grass...
What are you saying? "It's just a meme on an obscure forum" is absolutely failing to own the claims you are making in the post.
Debate bro is when literally anyone asks me to back up literally any of the shit I talk
If replies are a measure of rage, you must be apoplectic
Hey It's my Op, and I have a dozen Hexbears mad as hell. What's the your excuse?
Japanese fascists were a far bigger threat to the Soviet Union than the Nazis during the 1930s. Japan already sacked Nanjing. In one city, the Japanese fascists butchered the same amount of people as the Francoists did for the entire civil war. This is how brutal the Japanese fascists were relative to the Francoists. And unlike the Francoists, the Empire of Japan actually tried to invade the Soviet Union but got owned before venturing too far. Why should the Soviet Union send those 400+ tanks to Republican Spain without expecting something in return? If anything, the Soviet Union shouldn't have wasted material with a lost cause that is Republican Spain and shipped those tanks to the Republic of China instead where they wouldn't be squandered. One tank to Spain is one less tank to China. Frankly, Stalin bet on the wrong horse.
That's the kind of unfiltered tankie logic I so enjoy see expressed for all the leftists to see.
I don't think a racist comic is a good look for anarchism, but you do you.
are you saying it was an IMF style financial imperialism dirty loan?
Genuine question!
I am saying that the soviets were never about emancipating the working class. They were always about making them a satellite state
when the soviets were first formed, they were the working class, so what do you mean? at what point in the degeneration of the workers state are you discussing?
Right, right, sorry, forgot where this started for a sec.
emancipating the working class. They were always about making them a satellite state
so the working class of spain, and making spain into a satellite state, is what you meant? Gotcha
emancipating the working class. They were always about making them a satellite state
"Totalitarian" is a totally made-up, meaningless distinction. There is no conceivable metric by which you could call any socialist state "totalitarian" that wouldn't apply a hundredfold to the US Empire. Seriously, this conversation cannot continue unless you read Blackshirts and Reds, it sums up every point I could make to argue with you with much more depth and eloquence. If you have the slightest pretention to intellectual seriousness, go and read that. Then, once you have, message me and I'll send you a link to season 3 of a podcast called Blowback, covering the Korean war. I think you'll find it informative.
I've taken a harsh tone with you, because you need to be jolted out of this fundamentally incorrect mindset. But if you read what I've suggested and actually process the information, if you try to understand the societies you harshly criticize in the depth and richness of their actual existence and not the literal Saturday morning cartoon evil version you've had ingrained in you by a multi-trillion dollar propaganda campaign, you'll arrive at the same opinions I have now - including feeling the way I do about people espousing the views you have done. Until you understand that no "western" country has EVER come closer to socialism than the USSR, China, Cuba or the DPRK (or even had the merest potential to) you are not only useless to the international cause of the workers but an active detriment, a stooge of the Empire that is currently enslaving humanity. That might only manifest as irritating, trivial anticommunist memes on a backwater internet forum, but it still might as well be fought against, and if there's the slightest chance you can be educated into a helpful comrade then I might as well try.
No I'm not going to go do homework just to argue to you. Just because I disagree with tankie talking points doesn't mean I'm ignorant.
In any case you've missed the point that the "closest to socialism" doesn't count for shit. It will never be socialism. In fact it's just state Capitalism and always devolves into Capitalism. That's what ML always leads to when left to it's own designs. This is undeniable by now.
In fact it's just state Capitalism and always devolves into Capitalism
I will reply with a meme
Show
I'm not going to go do homework just to argue to you
Then that's the end of our conversation. I've pointed out a direction in which you can expand your knowledge, even if it's just knowledge of what your "enemy" thinks - you can have some intellectual curiosity, or you can not, but in the latter case there's no reason for me to spend further effort trying to force it upon you.
you've not read shit, the only thing you've won is the ability to be the smuggest idiot ever
Just because I disagree with tankie talking points doesn't mean I'm ignorant.
That is true! What have you read about the Spanish civil war or the ukrainian anarchist movement from an ML perspective? I've read a fair amount of critique of the situations from an anarchist perspective and I still broadly agree with the ML take on the situation.
Goddamn! People, please! Posting a meme is not an invitation to invite me to a debate on the historical context of the Spanish Revolution. Cheezus. There's dedicated anarchist forums for that!
You complain when people take your post seriously, you complain when people dismiss it, you complain when people "put words in your mouth" and whine about straw men but do exactly those things to others, you write pages of comments but suddenly refuse to elaborate when pressed on an inconvenient point.
What are you doing here besides sectarianism and acting like a horse's ass?
Look mate, I don't owe you shit. Not even an explanation. But I'll tell you this, seeing tankies evolve into their "debate me bro" forms is amusing to me. Seeing them get more and more upset because I refuse to play their game is amusing to me. Seeing them think I'm very upset is amusing to me.
This is all the more amusing because I didn't even try to annoy tankies but they came over here to be annoyed.
Look into your heart, you know this to be true.
Y'all are buzzing around an anarchist community as if I personally kicked your hornet's nest for posting this one meme. This is amusing to me.
Y'all are good peeps when dunking on libs, but fucking hell, choose your battles, eh?
liberals aren't leftists
you... do know that? Right?
You have to at least know that, right?
Oh my god
You can't be for real, you just can't
You do know liberals are not part of the left? Answer the question, please.
I love how condescending you are. Please do explain liberalism to me and then do continue to explain how all anarchist are immature liberals. I guarantee you I am paying attention
Maybe they could stand to have tried to have a discussion instead of a shitflinging fest, one they were doomed to lose at that.
although I think I won't entertain this keyboard masher "leftist" for much longer, they're very boring. At least @anarchost@lemm.ee had some flavor compared to the average CIAnarchist.
I don't think anyone really "wins" or " loses" shitflinging fests. It's better to just get out before you are covered in shit.
Ok thats a good analogy, 10/10. I have better uses of my time anyway. See ya.
You make a post directly attacking "online tankies," then act all
when said group responds to it. You brought this on yourself lmao.fucking hell, choose your battles, eh?
Maybe you should have considered this advice before making this post to begin with.
Yes you had to remind us four times in a single comment that you find this amusing, which is definitely something that people who totally aren't upset do all the time.
I mean, y'all seem to be incapable of understanding this simple fact, so you blame me for having to remind you all the time? I guess I didn't state it dialecticaly enough
Goddamn! People, please! Posting a meme is not an invitation to invite me to a debate on the historical context of the Spanish Revolution
Why don't you be a good little authoritarian and lock the thread then, or is that M next to your name just there to show you like taking Ls after Ls like a Masochist.
Alright, you do you.
Keep posting memes like these and you'll aways be our little pain piggy
Okay, would you prefer to instead talk about the lack of anarchist purges in China and how in the meme you shared, everyone has eyes except for Mao who has slits instead? Can we talk about how that is in inappropriate way to depict Asian people?
No I'm not going to go do homework just to argue to you. Just because I disagree with tankie talking points doesn't mean I'm ignorant.
"leftists" actually knowing what they're talking about and reading theory challenge (impossible if you did it you would be a tankie)
Show me one ML nation which is not totalitarian right now, or didn't fall back into capitalism and fascism as soon as it inevitably collapsed
Show me one anarchist nation ever that has survived more than a couple of years or is not just a tiny commune somewhere isolated.
Damn. This shit is depressing. Self proclaimed “leftists” still out there complaining about “tankies” in 2023. Truly embarrassing for everyone.
If your action is to punch left, your output is to move the current situation rightwards.
This goes for both anarchists and lemmygrad types, who equally harm the collective movement by punching left at one another.
If the marxist brigades, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine(DFLP), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC)) in Palestine can prioritise the need for cooperation even with hamas in order to put up a resistance against oppression, we can all do the same when we have fewer reasons to fight.
https://youtu.be/90AAcSvJAl0
Sure, but there's a reason the anarchist presence on Hexbear haa dramatically waned over the years. Like how much is anyone actually valuing left unity while federating with an instance that memes about killing anarchists? A lot of the early drama came out of specifically ML's harassing people associated with anarchists, like that John Kerry shit, including accusations of an "anarchist cabal" (which to be fair remains extremely funny to this day).
And this exists alongside an attitude that left unity in fact is a waste of time, that communists and anarchists want fundamentally different things. And when you combine that with memes about anarchists being reactionaries and feds (oh, but not our anarchists!) and glorification of figures that killed a lot of anarchists and the occasional "anarchists get the wall" memes, like you can't be comrades with people who fundamentally see you as a problem to one day violently remove. There cannot be useful criticism without mutual trust, and I don't think there has been that trust in quite a while.
Sure. But this is, frankly, a pretty idealist take imo that ignores not only the fact that in actual practice there is frequent tension and conflict which has real basis, but real and deeper theoretical differences as well as ones of praxis and organization. We can wish for this form of left unity you are describing all we like, but it doesn't erase the deal differences between communists and anarchists.
In my personal experience, Communists have been far more eager, happy or willing to work with anarchists when it comes to practice on the ground than vice-versa, and I think it's important to note that these forums are not representative of the actual relations between Communists and Anarchists on the ground, which are frequently tense because Marxists will often spend months agitating and entering workplaces, doing the grunt work, only for reformists and anarchists to show up at the end at points of more intense political struggle and gain political credibility for their 'participation'. Another related issue here is that, in practice, anarchist circles are on average more liberal, individualist and identitarian than Marxist orgs interested in forming parties. The emphasis on decentralized, distributed organization, justified by whatever post-structural idealist nonsense is currently in fashion, is not conducive to working with actual Communist (read: Leninist) orgs.
Not to mention that - and this is again to indicate that these forums like Hexbear are in no way indicative of actual relationships between Communists and Anarchists - that most anarchists despise Communists, most obviously Leninists, and would despise Lemmygrad and Hexbear types most of all. Like the view of us as 'Red Fash' is close to the mainstream view among most Anarchists, and it's frankly ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
Poster gives very reasonable and logical arguments for avoiding left infighting;
Debate pervert OP: "I'm the one true leftist"
"I'm not punching left, I'm just drawing the borders of the left to neatly exclude you"
I honestly find this behaviour incredibly disrespectful to the people that are currently dying as they do real resistance. Are you opposed to the Palestinians too then? The leftist brigades of Palestine are all "tankies" and Hamas are considerably worse (but resistance is more important than broaching the issues with them). Do you wage sectarian bullshit against them too from your comfortable room while they fight and die for the cause? Serious question.
You think posting on online forums make a lick of a difference for those who "do real resistance"? You're in the left shitposter heaven and you come here to judge me? Seriously?
The vast majority of the people here found their way into the left through learning in the online posting grounds before eventually joining orgs. Anyone that thinks what we do online doesn't matter is not really thinking straight.
You didn't really answer the question though and it concerns me. Are you opposed to the Palestinian resistance currently fighting for freedom?
Oh come off of it. There's a pretty big difference between such struggles and the impact of arguing online.
I also don't answer because I don't like to be interrogated like this.
No. There fundamentally is not.
This space is not "pretend" while the offline world is "real". The people here are real people (I hope lmao) and the emotions people have here are real.
One day we will all be thrown into our own very real resistance. Are you willing to die for it? I am. I've said many times that I will die in bed an old lady in a currently non-existent socialist state or I will die in the fighting to bring it about.
We post here and have some fun and argue and do all sorts of shit in our off time. But in our on time? A lot of us are genuinely active in political orgs. Here in the UK it might be resisting landlord evictions through Acorn, performing party work or shutting down weapons factories through Palestine Action. Do you think sectarianism would benefit orgs like Palestine Action shutting down zionist weapons factories? Whose principle need is BODIES willing to get on rooftops and smash up these buildings and get arrested? Does reducing the pool of people that would join that org benefit them in any way by being sectarians? Does it matter whether someone on the roof of an israeli weapons factory waves a black flag or a red flag? Of course it doesn't. And the people who try to flare up sectarian bullshit anywhere are rightfully shouted down or expelled because all they are functionally doing by punching left is weakening those orgs and their ability to do praxis.
That doesn't change online. The number of people who actually transfer from the online space to offline organising is directly tied to the sectarian bullshit that occurs. There are dumbass marxists that refuse to take part at certain orgs because of some anarchist sectarian bullshit and there are dumbass anarchists that refuse to take part in some socialist led things because of sectarian bullshit.
If I saw anyone at the march in London this weekend say a single fucking word about sectarian shit I would have punched them in the face.
This shit hurts the left. There is no case for it benefiting the left in any way.
One day we will all be in an existential armed struggle ourselves. Really consider the priorities. There is no benefit to any of this shit, and in fact it risks harming support for Palestine. I assume you're not anti-Palestine, even though you won't state it. If you can support Palestinian resistance despite Hamas, you can support marxist-leninists despite sectarian disagreement, and you already are doing just that by supporting Palestine. Not to mention that almost every single fucking pro Palestine march currently happening is being organised by the "tankies" you're currently railing against.
Oh and just in case - anyone that doesn't support Palestine deserves a brick to the back of the head.
We've spoken about this before, you and me, iirc. So long as y'all keep doing anarchist direct action for mutual aid, we can be allies. Once you start trying to seize hierarchical control like some illuminated vanguard, is where it gets difficult.
This meme is about exactly this difficulty.
Let's be serious for a moment, y'all descended on me shit-posting about well known problems anarchists had with MLs. Y'all don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. You had the counter-arguments ready to post. But I'm not here to debate with you and we won't solve these disagreements here. You know what you know, I know what I know. We can agree to disagree.
But then y'all got mad that I didn't debate 12 people at a time, as if I have nothing better to do with my life on the comments of a shitpost. You can't handle one single anarchist making one single meme in an obscure anarchist sub.
This all has nothing about us being able to collaborate on things that matter. When we do those actions, nobody is going to say "Aha, I remember what you wrote in lemmy.dbzer0.com that one time about leftist unity". This is all about 1) the ego of those hexbear tankies who couldn't handle not being debated and 2) The shitposters of hexbear who just came here to have flamewars because the mods of hexbear apparently don't control anything anymore and your "left unity" only goes so much as someone disagreeing with your takes and then they're a "liberal" and therefore fair game.
I am honestly not upset. I'm am however just disappointed at the greater hexbear behaviour..
I think the problem here is that this "shitposting" comes off as... Completely anti collaboration?
That's why it's a problem. Maybe you're in favour of collaboration. But do younger anarchists realise that? Does the general bulk of the numbers realise that? Or is this kind of posting actually working entirely against the left overall because it splits us? Because a significant portion of people genuinely take it to heart and believe it. How many spaces actively purge marxists now because of "aaaaaa tankies"? That's occurring because of this kind of propaganda. Is it helping anyone? Fuck no it's not. Look at every single lemmy community where we've been purged, are they better? They're far right shit holes even if there's a handful of people trying to change that, they're utterly dominated by the worst people.
If the right split like the left does we'd be in power in half of europe.
The right does split like the left. Hell, sometimes they're straight up shooting each other.
Look, everyone has their own experiences. I know plenty of anarchists who won't even go near MLs because of how extremely traitorous they are right now. You don't come where I come from. You don't know my experiences. Some anarchists mistrusts MLs with very good reasons and that's fine. And it's also fine to shitpost about it in an anarchist forum without having half of hexbear come in like a rampage of sealions.
And given how quickly hexbears were to close ranks and piledive me from orbit, and then gaslight me on top, well, let's just say my impression has not improved.
The right does split like the left. Hell, sometimes they're straight up shooting each other.
Extremely rarely, although that is what is occurring in Spain right now.
Look, everyone has their own experiences. I know plenty of anarchists who won't even go near MLs because of how extremely traitorous they are right now. You don't come where I come from. You don't know my experiences. Some anarchists mistrusts MLs with very good reasons and that's fine. And it's also fine to shitpost about it in an anarchist forum without having half of hexbear come in like a rampage of sealions.
The people for left-unity are going to feel attacked by anti-left-unity posting. This is just a fact.
When people feel attacked the result of that shouldn't really be that surprising, should it? Especially when the spread of that rhetoric would actively harm hexbear. People are going to be protective of something they see as integral to the only space on the internet that they feel safe.
When people feel attacked the result of that shouldn’t really be that surprising, should it? Especially when the spread of that rhetoric would actively harm hexbear. People are going to be protective of something they see as integral to the only space on the internet that they feel safe.
Hexbears going over to an anarchist space, and showing their asses to the world as either sealions or toxic trolls is fairly counter-productive.
Or do you think this has been a good showing has had a positive result for hexbear in any sense?
I think everyone looks fucking ridiculous. You, me, everyone. There is never and there has never been a single sectarian argument where everyone involved did not look like a clown.
Which is precisely why people should not even start that shit.
(Some) Anarchist, will continue not believing in Left Unity. Sorry, but I don't ascribe to this ML position on "anti-sectarianism". People are going to continue starting this shit. It's up to hexbear to not make it end up...well, like this.
It's not just an "ML position", in fact it's not an ML position at all and there is no ML party with that position. Your attempts to frame it as one are sus.
People are going to continue starting this shit. It's up to hexbear to not make it end up...well, like this.
You. You're the "people". You are saying "I'm going to do this more".
Really don't be surprised when this completely derails into hostility and destroys any kind of positive relationship you attempted to build. Anyway I'm disengaging now. Please don't call me back in here.
Mate what part of trying to disengage do you not fucking understand? I'm not reading that shit, fuck off and stop.
Once you start trying to seize hierarchical control like some illuminated vanguard
You have a completely distorted view of the historical projects of MLs. The point of a vanguard is not unilateral command, it is to be a body that is entirely concerned with political organization and engagement while other people have other jobs that take up more of their effort. That does not mean the vanguard dictates to everyone else, but rather that it seeks to find ways to put the feedback from everyone else into practical action.
I swear, just read a single fucking book.
- the ego of those hexbear tankies who couldn't handle not being debated and 2) The shitposters of hexbear who just came here to have flamewars because the mods of hexbear apparently don't control anything anymore and your "left unity" only goes so much as someone disagreeing with your takes and then they're a "liberal" and therefore fair game.
You're a two-faced prick, the people trying to engage are bad and the people being lazy like you are are also bad. What is there to do that is good? Oh right, capitulate. Meanwhile you yourself whine about "left unity" and how unfair it is that the mean tankies call you a liberal when you've been here sneering the whole fucking time about how "dae tankies don't fall under left unity because state capitalism is rightist". Fuck off.
You’re a two-faced prick,
No, I just don't have any more patience for you gaslighters.
the people trying to engage are bad and the people being lazy like you are are also bad.
I.just.posted.a.meme. I don't owe you a fucking debate. And I don't owe you to be your punching bag either. Fuck off with your entitlement.
Meanwhile you yourself whine about “left unity” and how unfair it is that the mean tankies call you a liberal when you’ve been here sneering the whole fucking time about how “dae tankies don’t fall under left unity because state capitalism is rightist”. Fuck off.
No mate, I'm just pointing out your hypocricy
Again, there is no correct way to disagree, because you are operating from a "tankies bad" orthodoxy. Whatever story you tell is just some bullshit because any other approach to disagreeing would also be met with the same pathologizing and accusation.
I.just.posted.a.meme. I don't owe you a fucking debate. And I don't owe you to be your punching bag either. Fuck off with your entitlement.
All you have is radlib indignation plus a routine that was tired on 4chan well over a decade ago: "It's just a joke bro. Yeah, I support everything it says, but it's just a joke bro, so you can't object. Jester's privilege or some shit"
No mate, I'm just pointing out your hypocricy
There is no left unity with someone who calls your ideology one of wanton murder. You are plainly the one who started the dispute since none of those dang tankies posted here before you made the post calling them butchers. There are lots of good anarchists -- like Nakoichi (elsewhere in the thread, being ignored by you) -- you're a radlib shitstain who wants to at all times be aggrieved while also standing smugly above it all. Just go back to whatever fucking liberal party mama and papa are telling you to support, you'll fit in better there.
Again, there is no correct way to disagree,
You can just...fuck off? You don't have to tell me you disagree 100 times.
All you have is radlib indignation plus a routine that was tired on 4chan well over a decade ago: “It’s just a joke bro. Yeah, I support everything it says, but it’s just a joke bro, so you can’t object. Jester’s privilege or some shit”
Oh no, the meme is right. It's not a joke. The point is, I don't owe you a debate. I don't owe you shit.
There is no left unity with someone who calls your ideology one of wanton murder.
You're goddamn right right there's no left unity. What there is, is MLs using anarchists before disposing them in a ditch.
You are plainly the one who started the dispute since none of those dang tankies posted here before you made the post calling them butchers.
So what. What kind of entitlement do you think you have that you deserve a debate every time?
you’re a radlib shitstain who wants to at all times be aggrieved while also standing smugly above it all. Just go back to whatever fucking liberal party mama and papa are telling you to support, you’ll fit in better there.
And you're a typical sealion. Just classic entitled behaviour, backed by your toxic mates as a mob, and then insults when the others don't play your game.
I'm not appealing to a sense of debt [i.e. "owing"], I'm appealing to the idea of intellectual integrity, though it is plain that you have none. My point is that your endless fucking whining about people being rude to you is completely worthless considering the OP. You allow no avenue for healthy disagreement and characterize all disagreement as somehow evil or pathological as though the specific content of the disagreement matters, but you'd be saying basically the same thing no matter what because you are starting from a red scare orthodoxy. You're just sticking your head in the ground like an ostrich.
I told you from the start I don't want to debate. I told you civilly. I told you less civily. I told you trollishly. I. don't. owe. You. A. Debate.
I never stopped you from disagreeing with me. I never stopped you from having a fucking platform in my own space. I just didn't debate.
Why the fuck can you sealions not get this through your skull? You can't force people to debate either with civility or with a pack of toxic hexbears. All you did today display hexbear scumbuggery when you didn't get your way.
I think you just decided you get off on feeling persecuted, just like the OP suggests
I struggle to think of a better explanation when you complain so fucking much about it
If you believe that, you should really not be giving me any more attention.
I also don't answer because I don't like to be interrogated like this.
No, it's because you don't have a leg to stand on and you're an intellectually dishonest coward who wants to fling shit and then cry when people push back
I didn't fling anything, y'all came to my place, remember? Also stop acting like a "debate me, bro" already! You won't goad me 😁
It's just despicable playing these precious little rhetorical games while using historical deaths (and one or two inventions) as props for your atrocity propaganda, all to fear monger about people who generally have a common interest with the rest of the left in a social context where the right wing is overwhelmingly more powerful. Just textbook wrecker behavior.
are you going to do self criticism or just keep shitting your brain and posting ass memes
Ah ok, so nothing could possibly go wrong if you keep pushing this. You won't lose any allies cuz they're already secret right wingers. Do they know that?
If the marxist brigades, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine(DFLP), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC)) in Palestine can prioritise the need for cooperation even with hamas in order to put up a resistance against oppression, we can all do the same when we have fewer reasons to fight.
Anarcho-bidenists have this weird habit of talking about themselves like they are Jewish or something in the sense of having a history of brutal persecution, even if the speaker in question is just some white guy from a liberal family with absolutely no connection to those historical anarchists except for that they now also call themselves an anarchist. Is really weird and LARPy.
In the crosspost, a comrade added:
Its a way for boring people who hate reading to tap into that "the communists KILLED my PEOPLE" narrative, its like a politcal personality starter pack. You get an underdog "subversive" ideology, a formative tragedy and an eternal enemy!
Slapping informal fallacy names on sentiments you dislike is not, in fact, a very good approach to almost anything.
That's the only response I can do to you putting words in my mouth. Don't know why you're complaining
you putting words in my mouth
You posted a meme. Use your words if you don't want people misconstruing whatever you're trying to say.
Posts words
words are read
"DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH TANKIE"
"okay then use your words to explain why me reading what you wrote misrepresents you"
No :3
I think OP is just a genuine fucking idiot and the reason they can't answer seriously in a single conversation in this thread is because there's just nothing behind their eyes to respond with
Don't argue with us idiots, we'll drag you down to our level and beat you with experience
The guy who needs to reply to every single comment but only to be snarky and obstinate
That's the guy who isn't angry
Isn't.
I'm not particularly putting words in your mouth, I am giving an opinion on what you said (or, rather, the subgenre of statement). You could explain, if you were so inclined, how this characterization is inaccurate rather than merely saying that it is inaccurate, but then that would require something other than a listicle on Wikipedia.
Why should I argue "I'm not an elephant" as we say in my country? This is patently absurd. You erected a strawman and I called you out. As far as I'm concerned, case closed, unless you can point where in my words I acted like a marginalized class because of historical anarchists.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. "oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don't stop them!"
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn't a counterargument anymore than saying "you're wrong" is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
I applaud your Quixotic efforts to get them to argue about the topic instead of arguing about the meta argument in the most self aggrieved way.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn't be like "Erm, guys, you haven't sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren't you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?" I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
There's a difference between opposing lesser evilism in the context of Western capitalist electoral politics between two bourgeois parties, and like, being anti-ML or anti-anarchist in actual revolutionary situations (and not stupid fucking hypothetical internet arguments) because "it's not doing communism right." Unless there were like, REALLY fucking big problems with what the group is doing, I would just shut up and not weaken the overall movement. As Awoo stated, this is literally what ML groups are doing in Palestine as we speak.
Would it be a better idea to join the anarchists, or form a Marxist Leninist and Anarchist coalition?
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn’t be like “Erm, guys, you haven’t sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren’t you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?” I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
That's exactly what happened in Spain though. The revolution was an anarchist affair, and while MLs fought with, they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.
they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.
Stalin literally gave them hundreds of tanks
To whom, under what conditions. We have plenty of evidence that Stalin wanted to crush the anarchists in spain. Again, I don't go into the debate here. There's plenty of other people who will happily debate you on this
They did the same thing in supporting the Kuomintang from the Japanese conquest of China right up until the Maoists pushed them out of the mainland. Do you think that perhaps inferior methods of military and industrial organization could have played a part in this, or should Mao have called Stalin red fash and given up?
It's very convenient when Stalinists betray anarchists and then blame them for the results of that betrayal. Every situation is not the same mate. China vs Japan is not half of spain VS Franco and Hitler.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. “oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don’t stop them!”
No, it means "Don't trust tankies, don't believe their tales in leftist unity". Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it's still nowhere near claiming we're a marginalized class. That's just a very uncharitable reading of this meme.
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn’t a counterargument anymore than saying “you’re wrong” is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Yes it fucking is! I don't have the patience to argue every inane claim people are throwing in here. I got shit to do.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick
I wouldn't call them "counter-revolutionary" as there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
We also agree. But typically it's the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they're not led by MLs hierarchically.
Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it's still nowhere near claiming we're a marginalized class.
"Sure, it claims anarchists were historically marginalized and will be marginalized in the future if we don't learn from lessons of the past, but your saying we are claiming to be marginalized is uncharitable."
Yes it fucking is!
"Nuh-uh" "Yuh-huh" "Nuh-uh" -- an argument, I guess
I wouldn't call them "counter-revolutionary" as there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
We also agree. But typically it's the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they're not led by MLs hierarchically.
I'll keep it simple since you're such a busy bee. You remember Mao-era China? You know, the thing you represent in the meme with a racial caricature killing Manchurian commune people and "intellectuals"? The PRC of that era was, every day, developing and bringing healthcare, land rights (mainly for food), and education to hundreds of millions of people. The CPC under Mao did more to uplift the poor and oppressed than every single little syndicate in the history of the fucking world combined, but here all it gets is to be tarred as butchers on the basis of some obscure commune project and the plight of actual fucking rightists arguing against socialism (or so I must conclude from history I am familiar with, since the accusation is very vague), over a claim that I am pretty sure Mao never actually made.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be -- at its most pointed -- on a maoist basis. But instead you're absorbed in this inexplicable factionalism over communes that has completely warped your historical perspective to the point that you don't seem to understand the absurd error of scale in your claims.
“Sure,
Nah mate. (No I am not going to argue uncharitable interpretations made up to make gotchas)
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
I accept that you understand tautologies.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be – at its most pointed – on a maoist basis.
Yawn. This shit is the same arguments Capitalists make every day about "the benefits of capitalism."
You are conflating generic progress and science with your chosen system. All that would have happened anyway whether they were State Capitalist as they are, or straight up Capitalist as they're becoming.
And now you are, in order to conflate me with capitalists, yourself regurgitating capitalist propaganda! Remember, I'm not talking about Deng and the "Chinese Miracle" (which I think is a mischaracterization by liberals), I am specifically talking about Mao-era China, where the use of things like agricultural collectives was a major element in the reduction of poverty that liberal economists had no interest in accounting for.
But to consider the progress that China has made merely the inevitable motion of science and capitalism is literally liberal revisionism! Inventions serve mainly to impoverish if the people who own and control those inventions are not the workers! Just look at the cotton gin if you need an easy example, and perhaps see that the Luddites had a point in their angle of economic self-defense (though this should by no means be conflated with primitivism).
People were fed who were not fed before, people could read who could not read before, peasants no longer had to surrender 90% of their harvest to landlords, childhood mortality plummeted. These are things you can say about China under Mao (and, to a more limited extent, later iterations as well) that you cannot say about, for example, nearby India because control is imperative and there is not some nebulous specter of "progress" overhanging the world like we live in a Real Time Strategy title, as much as modern "syndicalists" seem to think so. The people of China stood up while the people of India and many other countries were held down, and your liberal modernism has no way to account for that while preserving your philippics about the dang tankies.
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway. I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better and not devolved into capitalism and the massive capitalist exploitation chinese workers are suffering right now.
There's no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way. It's fucking racist to claim that China wouldn't have done it if it weren't for that one guy
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway.
This is such a bizarre claim, since many people in many places (India is the easiest example, but you can look at any third world country) still don't have what China achieved in a couple of decades. Even if your speed characterization wasn't absurd modernism, that doesn't make a speck of difference to the people dying in the meantime, but again societal change is not a linear scalar from "bad" to "good," the specific forms of society matter a great deal and, contrary to what you say, liberal systems demand a brutally exploited underclass. You are literally (however clumsily) making liberal arguments to own the tankies, some fucking "anarchist" you turned out to be.
I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better
I can imagine that Lenin is actually just working on dragging heaven down to Earth and he'll be back any second, but like you, I would just be playing pretend based on information that I don't have.
There's no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way
No it fucking didn't, and it still hasn't! Society is not an RTS game, development is a complex and highly-varied thing and imposing this sort of one-dimensional teleology on it is ridiculous. Please, read a single book about history that isn't about owning the tankies.
It's fucking racist
Rich coming from the guy who posted a squinting Mao . . .
to claim that China wouldn't have done it if it weren't for that one guy
Aside from this being a pathetic, pathetic deflection, look back again at what I actually said and you'll notice that I wasn't attributing things solely to him but merely used him as a marker for time, it was the party and the people who made these advancements, and he certainly helped but he couldn't have killed all those landlords on his own.
You are literally reaching for anything you can to say "tankie bad", it doesn't matter if it's anarchist or neoliberal, and I'm sure you'd have lots of fascist lies to tell me too if I had the stomach to discuss the USSR with you. You still haven't even explained about the "Manchurian communes" or the "intellectuals". I think that I generally know red scare myths better than you do, but I am not familiar with those stories.
This is such a bizarre claim, since many people in many places (India is the easiest example, but you can look at any third world country) still don’t have what China achieved in a couple of decades. Even if your speed characterization wasn’t absurd modernism, that doesn’t make a speck of difference to the people dying in the meantime, but again societal change is not a linear scalar from “bad” to “good,” the specific forms of society matter a great deal and, contrary to what you say, liberal systems demand a brutally exploited underclass.
And in some other countries it was faster. And China also demands a "demand a brutally exploited underclass.", or do you think that Capitalist systems turned to Chinese workers because they were less exploited?
You are literally (however clumsily) making liberal arguments to own the tankies, some fucking “anarchist” you turned out to be.
Lol, it's not liberal arguments mate. I counter the same arguments from libertarians all the time. I am not saying the Chinese would be better with (non-state) Capitalism. I am saying that Maoism isn't necessarily the only way they would have progressed. The only alternative to Maoism, isn't capitalism.
I can imagine that Lenin is actually just working on dragging heaven down to Earth and he’ll be back any second, but like you, I would just be playing pretend based on information that I don’t have.
So we agree, that to claim that the Chinese people would have turned necessarily worse if Mao wasn't there, is just fiction.
Aside from this being a pathetic, pathetic deflection, look back again at what I actually said and you’ll notice that I wasn’t attributing things solely to him but merely used him as a marker for time, it was the party and the people who made these advancements, and he certainly helped but he couldn’t have killed all those landlords on his own.
I think I hit a nerve. Anyway, you're clearly not agreeing that without Mao and Maoism, things would have progressed roughly the same way, so I don't know what you're whining about.
And in some other countries it was faster
Where and when?
And China also demands a "demand a brutally exploited underclass.", or do you think that Capitalist systems turned to Chinese workers because they were less exploited?
Remember that I am talking about Mao-era China, not post-Reform China. Under Mao, with the notable exception of the period of the Great Famine, the quality of life by every conceivable metric was improving every day on a scale not seen before in the history of the world (yes, including the USSR and company, though the USSR helped China accomplish this).
Lol, it's not liberal arguments mate. I counter the same arguments from libertarians all the time. I am not saying the Chinese would be better with (non-state) Capitalism. I am saying that Maoism isn't necessarily the only way they would have progressed. The only alternative to Maoism, isn't capitalism.
You are such a moron. You are clearly saying that they would have gotten there just fine with liberalism, because that was typically the system of the countries you are nebulously comparing it against.
So we agree, that to claim that the Chinese people would have turned necessarily worse if Mao wasn't there, is just fiction.
It's a difficult question, because you one can trace very specific accomplishments Mao made in developing Party ideology prior to 1949, and those developments were critical to the success of the PRC. There is also the fact that we have observed that right opportunists were just waiting in the wings for him to croak and then swooped in under Deng and caused a catastrophic degree of mass-impoverishment through their forced privatization campaigns.
I think there had to be a Mao or a collective that did the work that he historically actually did prior to 49, but that even if Mao had a heart attack in like 1952, there were other competent Party members who might have filled in his role as head of state and done just fine.
It is conspicuous that you talk in an extremely nebulous way because you know nothing of the history.
I think I hit a nerve. Anyway, you're clearly not agreeing that without Mao and Maoism, things would have progressed roughly the same way, so I don't know what you're whining about.
That's the thing, you know nothing about Maoism because you are just equating it to "a cult of personality around Mao" instead of a historical permutation of communist ideology that was primarily authored by Mao, just as Leninism is not the worship of Lenin and Marxism is not the worship of Marx.
Without Mao-ism, though it would obviously be called something else had Mao not been the helm of it, there absolutely would be no new China. Without a clear Marxist analysis that guided the Party away from both liberalism and being a satellite of the Soviets, the PRC would not have succeeded as it did. It did not need to be written by nor named after Mao, but Mao did write it and it accordingly was named for him, so that is in large part why he gets credit for it.
ten bucks this moron hasn't even read your effortposts
Eh, it's for onlookers anyway. This piece of shit has no inclination to process what others say on a basic level, so obviously their mind won't change from its sordid state.
i haven't seen someone this blank in the brain since the SJW struggle sessions
I hope to god these people are at the very bottom of the ladder at most if any revolution happens, they will kill it with their own ineptitude immediately
It's fucking racist to claim that China wouldn't have done it if it weren't for that one guy
The CPC was massive, it is racist of you to claim it was all one guy
Also your meme literally depicts mao as a slanty eyed Asian.
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later).
Those who did either did it on the back of the rest of the world and by plundering and colonizing billions (west and western protectorates) with China still managed to catch up with that in half a century or they just havent yet and wont in the forseeable future (most of the third world) and their progress marely amounts to the most generalized side effects of world wide medical and tech progress. China is bringing to 1.5 billion people the progress, QoL and modernity the former group achieved (and then some) without colonizing, imperializing or impovershing any other nation or people and in 1/5th of the time.No one else did that, no one else is doing that. Other than you know, the USSR (relative to era)
you haven't done anything but bitch and moan at things you don't understand. No wonder you hate tankies! You have zero political literacy!
If the anarchists in the soviet union were allowed power, general plan Ost would have come to fruition. Anarchists have historically not been able to lead mass industrialization in a coordinated way, and have not been able to lead successful military campaigns across territories as large as the USSR. If the soviet leadership didn't protect the revolution from anarchists, part of my family would have died in a death camp instead of being liberated from one by red army soldiers.
But the tankies stabbed the pure hearted anarchists in the back! Okay, maybe the anarchists shouldn't have been idealists who cared more about coops than actually prosecuting a successful socialist transition. Literally read Lenin's interaction with the anarchist prince.
Anarchists have historically not been able to lead mass industrialization in a coordinated way
Because its not anarchists job to do that but worker's job, and they are very good at self-organizing.
have not been able to lead successful military campaigns across territories as large as the USSR
You say this as if they had multiple chances to do so lol.
Because its not anarchists job to do that but worker's job, and they are very good at self-organizing.
The anarchist workers didn't do a good job. The popular front workers did a better job, the Soviet workers did a better job.
You say this as if they had multiple chances to do so lol.
They had a chance in Catalonia, a much smaller field, and couldnt coordinate there.
Ah, at least we come to the crux of the disagreement. "Anarchists, babies! MLs, strong!". It always comes down to that, but it's refreshing to see you just straight up say it sometimes, so that people can see it.
Anyway, please take your historic fiction in the appropriate places. I can pull stories out of my ass as well, but that convinces no-one.
PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!
Have you read anything about the failures of coordination among the anarchist militias in Catalonia? Or their failures of economic coordination beyond the local level?
Have you even absorbed the critiques enough that you are in a place to argue against them?
Because this is serious stuff that you should be educated about before you make judgements about it.
I'm very sympathetic to anarcho syndicalism, but it showed its weaknesses in Spain and sectarian anarchists blame it on the USSR instead of learning from it.
PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!
It is not socially well adapted to declare "appeal to emotion" when someone is communicating why something is personally important to them. What I'm doing is expressing myself in a normal human way, and you consider that manipulative?
Have you read anything about the failures of coordination among the anarchist militias in Catalonia? Or their failures of economic coordination beyond the local level?
Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War. Why don't you go to the places where there's anarchists up for that sort of thing?
What I’m doing is expressing myself in a normal human way, and you consider that manipulative?
You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it's pretty manipulative.
Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War.
I asked you if you've even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.
You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it's pretty manipulative.
It isnt manipulative to point out that my family would have been killed if the anarchists won, it is giving you an explanation for why I have little sympathy for complaints by anarchists repeating the "stabbed in the back" myth instead of actually digging into the history of their project and learning from its failures to do better next time.
I asked you if you’ve even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.
That's how they get you! taps forehead
It isnt manipulative to point out that my family would have been killed if the anarchists won,
lol, yea it is. You don't have any idea what would have happened if the anarchists won. Maybe they Spanish revolution would have worked without the backstab and Hitler would have expended himself. Who the fuck knows. It's pretty manipulative to posit a major historical event going completely differently would have worked out the same way except that it would have led this one really horrible thing which everyone has an emotional reaction to. Cmon...
That's how they get you! taps forehead
If the goal is to get you to read yes, that is the secret tankie plot, to make you a better anarchist who is able to grow from previous failures instead of acting like an aggrieved post ww1 german soldier.
It's pretty manipulative to posit a major historical event going completely differently would have worked out the same way except that it would have led this one really horrible thing. Cmon...
Were any anarchists talking about the need for massive industrialization at any cost in the late 1920s early 1930s in the soviet union? No? Then if the anarchists were in charge, yes, the nazis would have won and been able to implement plan ost.
Were any anarchists talking about the need for massive industrialization at any cost in the late 1920s early 1930s in the soviet union? No? Then if the anarchists were in charge, yes, the nazis would have won and been able to implement plan ost.
Tell me when the novel comes out.
Asking you if something crucially needed to defeat the nazis was even documented as on the radar of contemporary anarchists isnt writing a novel.
That's how they get you! taps forehead
If you masturbate any more furiously in this thread you might faint from dehydration.
Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War.
Only about everything else, one-handedly.
Show
- I'm not going to debate you, I'm just going to talk shit.
The difference is that I shit my pants and cry when you respond to me
Apparently shitting my pants is enough to have two dozen hexbears hopping mad to the point that they're trolling through the comments days later trying to dunk on me. Stay mad, bby!
Everybody who calls me on my behavior is mad and no that's not a transparent coping mechanism
Oh sorry I didn't know "you shit your pants" and similar terms was your collective hexbest at a call out.
In that case I do apologize for thinking the random shitposts on random comments were due to anger. You're clearly trying.
Not sure where you think you have the standing to call other people out for not putting effort into their posts when that is exactly the criticism being directed at you that you're choosing to wallow in rather than address.
You are shitting your doo doo pants trying to maintain your smug sense of self all over this thread. You can't engage in good faith so you're pulling boomer quotes about pigeons playing chess and mugging at the crowd like they're on your side to begin with.
You want to be treated respectfully, you seem to be implying. Deserve it first. Stop acting like a smirking piece of shit and you'll be taken seriously. Or as seriously as you deserve to be taken when you're in the barrel for posting something extremely stupid in the first place.
I'm not doing that though. I'm just saying y'all just insulting me randomly doesn't constitute a call out l. It's just you all letting collective steam, because you're kinda upset.
No one is insulting you randomly. Not a single person. not a single insult.
Erasing context and intent from everything people say to you is the most pathetic, juvenile coping mechanism I've ever seen.
Why not address the specific criticism I made of you in that parody dialogue of your actions? When you cried like a angry child about people putting words in your mouth for reading the words you wrote? And then asked you to clarify and you petulantly refused?
That's a specific criticism you could choose to remember right now. Why not take a swing at it? Why not be honest instead of dishonest? Why not act smart instead of stupid?
Why are you choosing to be a worse person and putting more effort into it than you would have if you just acted like a reasonable adult?
Simple , because nobody can engage in good faith with patronizing blowhards like you. I had no trouble engaging with other people, feel free to check. But until I now you're only deserving of ridicule from me. Start engaging like an equal, of you want respectful discussion next time.
Absolutely delusional. Your interactions with others is what you're being judged for. I had an entire day of watching you acting like a child to make my impression. It's not like it wasn't pointed out to you over and over again. So it's not like you aren't aware when you say this shit. You know you're being a dishonest, smirking piece of shit. So fuck you trying to reverse your responsibility onto others.
Not mad at all. No siree.
Mate, I've been responding to y'all how you deserve. You want to be patronizing? you're gonna get ridicule back. You wanna sealion? you gonna get trolling back.
Hexbears have been sniffing their own farts way to long I think.
The way I know you're upset at what I've been saying to you is the way you're now trying to reverse the attack back on me.
Here's the difference, stupid: I haven't spent this entire time refusing to engage in good faith by whining about how I've been treated.
You wanna sealion?
Read: someone criticized your post on specific factual basis and you instantly shut down and started a two day long tantrum by shrieking the names of logical fallacies like they were yugioh trap cards.
That's when people really started making fun of you and you 100% deserved it at that point.
You're going to have to start deleting comments to pretend that's not what happened
I've been "having a tantrum" cause y'all are very very easy to ridicule. So I have to respond to some of your nonsense now and then.
Y'all think you're doing the master dunkers but hundreds of hexbears showing their asses to the world is telling a different story. I don't have to delete comments. Anyone who's not smelling hexbear farts all day can clearly see what's going on and have expressed it clearly.
If you want yo believe I'm in tears over here, go right ahead, baby.
Read: someone criticized your post on specific factual basis and you instantly shut down
Lol at least make up stories to third parties mate, I was there 😁
More reasonable to say the person showing their ass is the one who cries "strawman" and refuses to elaborate when engaged in good faith while making separate posts crying about this post.
Do you not remember being there for that?
More reasonable to say the person showing their ass is the one who cries “strawman” and refuses to elaborate when engaged in good faith while making separate posts crying about this post.
It was a stawman, my guy. Why would I elaborate in good faith when the opening argument was in bad faith?
You would have used any excuse to avoid good faith debate just like you used 'brigading' and 'sea lioning' elsewhere and every single time you were challenged. There was no strawman. You were a bad faith actor from the second you posted the meme. That's what attracted the 'brigade' in the first place.
Not that any of this will sink in with someone with such an amazing ability to "I was there" delude themselves
Yep that's me. A clear visit on my history on Lemmy will clearly corroborate that.
Not that any of this will sink in with someone with such an amazing ability to "I was there" delude themselves
PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!
Go back to Reddit.
PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!
I like it
I love it
It's funny that
It's ironic that
It's interesting that
Reddit-brained smug enlightened centrist liberals like yourself try to mask your rage with tedious "totally not mad" sentence openers.
Show
Ah, at least we come to the crux of the disagreement. "Anarchists, babies! MLs, strong!". It always comes down to that, but it's refreshing to see you just straight up say it sometimes, so that people can see it.
Anyone paying attention to what they actually said and not your petulant response will notice how far your characterization is off from the actual source. You're putting on a shameful display.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com hey why not this specific criticism?
Remember when you acted like I was only insulting you and not making valid criticisms? Why don't you reply to the valid criticisms instead of the insults you deserved when it became clear you refused to engage in good faith?
Because you're patronizing. Y'all are patronizing af. So You don't deserve nothing else but the ridicule and sarcasm I've been giving.
Y'all can insult me all you want. Don't worry, I can take it. There's a reason my comments are still open to y'all.
Oh wow you actually responded.
So are you going to apologize for lying, or is it just onto this new latest excuse?
Again, you're being treated the way you deserve to be treated. It's not happening in a vacuum. If you had acted like an adult in the first place no one would be treating you like a child.
I am incapable of lying. So I have nothing to apologize for.
But do keep up the patronizing attitude. It's a winner for sure.
You force people to explain things to you like a child when you lie like this.
Listen dummy: you acted like you were only getting insulted and that there was an absence of genuine criticism. So then I pointed out the criticism you lied and pretended didn't exist.
Then like the child you are, you changed your story and decided all of a sudden you weren't responding because you didn't like being treated like a child. Not even acknowledging your previous lie or the effort you forced others to go through to get past it.
Such is the manner you act like a child.
No I said a hexbear pile-on doesn't count as callout. There were some patronizing arguments and one sealing who couldn't accept that I won't analyze the Spanish revolution on the spot. And awoo to which I replied earnestly. The rest was low quality shit posting
who couldn't accept that I won't analyze the Spanish revolution
How brave you are to stand up to those assholes trying to make you learn the correct history about the thing you lied about.
lied
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I never stopped any of you from posting any evidence and arguments you want in my thread. I just said I won't debate.
wow le epic bacon 30 year old movie reference meme instead of talking like a human being
Yeah. You lied. And then you acted like a fucking victim when people pointed it out. I love repeating myself to stubborn children.
I love repeating myself like a stubborn child
Ftfy
There's no point talking to patronizing blow hards like a "normal human being". You get all the respect you give
You calling me patronizing? How many times have you called me a child now again?
Yeah I don't know where that link is sending you. Doesn't sound like the comment I intended.
You pulled a 'no U' on me so I thought it would be funny to link you bitching about that kind of behavior. Since why not add being a hypocrite to being a liar.
You literally cannot understand how hypocrisy works either. Brilliant!
Not knowing what hypocrisy means and confidently declaring that someone else used the word incorrectly is exactly how stupid I think you are.
And it really does look like that's exactly what just happened.
Great. I guess our business is concluded then. You may have the last word.
Here's a screenshot. Looks like you're playing "reverse mirror" with me
*removed externally hosted image*
"we won't let you shoot anyone."
-Liberals standing proudly in front of nazis while captain america music plays
lol tankies in real life protect the status quo from popular movements every chance they get. Fuck outta here.
Yes, the canadian parliament, that famous hive of anarchist ideologues...
you are also just incoherent, on top of stupid
You're not an anarchist, you're a liberal who wants to wear torn up clothes and dye their hair
you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far in this thread.
And is it larping if we actually do something with our lives, unlike your teenage ass?
I work in environmentalism and help rebuild ancient Hawaiian fishponds with Native Hawaiians
and all you can do is pretend to resist authority by ignoring your parents telling you to clean your room
I work in environmentalism and help rebuild ancient Hawaiian fishponds with Native Hawaiians
Tell me you're mad without telling me you're mad.
and all you can do is pretend to resist authority by ignoring your parents telling you to clean your room
Yep, that's who I am! That's definitely the sharp deduction only a well-honed tankie could make. The fact that you were so accurate humbles me
Tell me you're mad without telling me you're mad.
how does regularly going outside and improving the community make me mad?
I don't do it to own you insignificant little children who've done nothing but complain about "tankies", i do it to help people. Is helping people foreign to you?
Yep, that's who I am! That's definitely the sharp deduction only a well-honed tankie could make. The fact that you were so accurate humbles me
I don't think you realize how infantile you sound saying "tankie" over and over again like a chant in a political context
CIAnarchists aren't sending their best, you're easy meat lol
*removed externally hosted image*
Hmmm, yes, we clearly can see here who has their back to the cops.
we can't, the image is removed you fucking idiot
Or you have shit hosting
Show
It's already back up, FYI. But stop leaking internal details of your reverse proxy in error messages.
We already clarified hexbear is blocking it. Keep up. And this is an internal url. Good luck connecting to it. But ye, thanks for attacking my hosting capabilities. Very cool y'all are.
We already clarified hexbear is blocking it
And I accessed it directly and was kindly trying to tell you you have a hosting issue.
And this is an internal url
It's exactly my point you nincompoop: you publicly advertise that you have a "pictrs" local hostname and that your pictrs instance runs on it on port 8080. Do you think this is useless to an attacker ? do you even care about opsec ?
Look mate, I am hosting what the lemmy devs provided. I don't think this is particularly useful to an attacker since this is an internal url not accessible outside of the internal network and all this is plainly open in the ansible code that deploys everything. Every lemmy is setup the same way. But do feel free to raise the security concern about it since practicallyt every lemmy server has a "pictrs" DNS.
I realize you're probably pretty angry right now since you were getting piled on a bit and I should've taken that into account, sorry for calling you a nincompoop.
But to be clear: every single information about your server matters. Security flaws that might not look exploitable can suddenly thrive due to internal information leaked by badly obfuscated hosting. It is a small issue, admittedly.
And no, not every lemmy is set up the same way. If you're serious about hosting an online forum that can potentially host activist-adjacent content (might not be the case ? but you do host a lot of piracy content at least), you need to think about opsec more. Starting with not just running ansible as-is to "deploy everything".
There's not enough time in the world to do all the opsec right and I'm not skilled enough anyway. I rely on the tools provided and hope they're sufficient. I'm sorry this is not the best answer, but I'm only one guy and I have a life as well. One can only do so much.
That's fair enough, but if you're really alone I suggest trying to find volunteers among your own instance. I say that kindly, you have 11k users already, you'll either burn out or screw up eventually.
sure you will. you all have historically always succeeded in suppressing 'tankies'.
4/10 Can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not. Work on your trolling more.
its hard to joke with someone that has no clue what the historical context is
I have no doubt you'll turn us over to the freikorps at the first opportunity.
I'm sorry to be the fun police, and this isn't particularly related to everyone else's arguing in this thread, but I've always been kind of bothered by the, like, pink wojak, you know? Especially given the origins of wojaks and who popularized them, the idea of using "and he was shaking inconsolably, speaking irrationally, gnashing his teeth to smithereens, with a red face and blood-shot eyes with tears like waterfalls" as a punchline... Well, that makes it sound like that's something to point and laugh at, doesn't it? So I worry that things like that end up reinforcing the sort of civility culture in general, and anti-autistic sentiment in particular.
Just, my two kopeks, as it were.
"Well, that post from yesterday has probably cooled off by now, it was fun while it laste-"
200 new comments
spoiler
It's a good day to be a communist online
If you tried to show this meme to someone irl at like a political rally they'd just squint their eyes in confusion and walk away because this kind of adolescent drama is only meaningful to like a couple of hundred people total, half of whom can't vote and all of whom have 2k+ hours logged in multiple paradox games.
Can HBs just not ignore this slop? This happens like every 2 months, someone shows up says some bad faith shit, we post and dunk all over it, they take what we said and make more posts out of it in bad faith, we post and dunk again, over and over. Can't we realize that this is just narcissism being narcissism, ignore and block? This post would have had like 4 responses if we hadn't engaged. Instead we are just running a fucking wrecker training camp. Don't give them any oxygen and let them crawl back to
idk not trying to be unfair it just seems kind of obvious what is going onHexbear comes here to be the debate bros they try so hard to dunk on. They are dying looking for just one little morsel of dunk. Not a good showing, not a leftist unity moment lmao
"Tankie" was a term used to describe those that supported Khrushchev sending tanks to hungaria during that whole thing. Now, it's been swallowed by western "leftists" and spit out to mean, in summary, "i can't imagine anyone being more left than me, so they must be secret fake leftists that are actually fascists and golly gee i'm so smart." comrade brain_in_a_box said it very well that it's just the lib/soccdem/anarchist version of "woke:" just a random buzzword to refer to anything they don't like.
This is the third iteration of this post i see and the third one where the MLs who on hexbear are like "yeah we love our anarchist comrades" are not practicing the smallest crumb of self crit. Also very encouraging to see that the brainrot about 56 hungary is still spreading.
