Removed by mod
Please help me understand Hexbear.
Removed by modSo, since coming here, I've been accosted left and right by ML's calling me a Lib for not being a ML. Essentially that's what it's come down to.
My personal philosophy aligns with Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Bookchin. I consider myself an Anarcho-Communist or Communalist, depending on the situation, I suppose.
I firmly oppose fascism and authoritarianism. I believe in direct democracy and the inherent goodness of humanity.
I really thought that I had found a place where leftist thought was going to be welcomed, but so far I have not found it here. All I've found are hateful people who want me to leave.
Like I said elsewhere, it's almost as if they don't want new people to join their cause. Like they're actively pushing people away who could have the potential to learn, and who have explicitly come here to learn and to engage in good faith.
I just don't get it. I feel like our cause will never come to fruition because of these types of attitudes.
Then I would expect the comments to reflect that, and to point out how exactly it is propaganda, instead of just dismissing it. That would be interesting to me.
Please do not put words in my mouth.
I have not called other users red fash. I have said that red fascism is a thing.
I have not called other users tankies, but I have used the term pejoratively.
Stalin did make a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. That's a fact. In my book, that's Nazis collaboration, even moreso than Gandhi's nicely worded letters to Hitler imploring him to rethink his actions. But apparently Gandhi's the "nazi collaborator" because of his letters opposing Hitler, and Stalin isn't, even though Stalin literally shook hands with the Nazis.
:michael-laugh:
I would call pol pot red fash tbh
You probably know more than me about pol pot tbh, so I'm open to that. I know about the glasses thing, and that apparently the Khmer Rouge is what no theory does to a mf. I've seen you posting good takes for a while, so generally take you more seriously than Guy_ "I am so sad and concerned that these red fash tankies are rejecting my state department propaganda" Dudeman lmao
Oh, it's not a thing? I guess Volin was a secret Nazi?
State disliking anarchists is not mark of fascism, it’s a mark of state.
the red fash are coming for us all, just look at this report by professor zenz
That guy's a douche.
Hell yeah.
Best comment you've made yet
Dude I would describe my ideology exactly the same as yours(ancom/communalist/democratic confederalist) but you are repeating capitalist propaganda uncritically, for example the only reason the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed is that the western powers refused to agree to an earlier anti Nazi pact proposed by Stalin https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
Yeah, but you STILL don't shake hands with fucking Nazis. I don't give a flying fuck. You know?
You don't, but you also don't have the fate of millions of people on your shoulders, regardless of any moral judgement you care to pass presenting one side of the story without the other pushes certain narratives and is disingenuous. You know?
not to mention who killed the fucking nazis in the end
:this: Who killed the nazis versus who smuggled them out and gave them new jobs
👁️
True.
I suppose I can see how someone could interpret it that way. That wasn't my intention.
deleted by creator
Look - if someone told me that the US was a fascist state, I would agree with them. I wouldn't take it personally. Neither should any Chinese user.
Exactly. I'm with you there.
I agree.
But there is a reason why party made a pact with nazis, and it’s very simple one :shrug-outta-hecks:
You can’t make your own book of collaboration, and then be surprised when you definition gets you angry reactions :shrug-outta-hecks:
I don't agree with having double standards. Either you shake hands with Nazis or you don't. Period. I'm not sure how anyone can be "nuanced" about this.
There is a moral premium in suicidal charge, sure. I for one don’t see value in it despite the purity.
No, you see, Stalin should have thrown even more Soviet Citizens into the blender in a move that absolutely would not have achieved anything positive. Strategy and practical politics are worthless, everything can and should be done from the comfort of a nice, plush armchair.
In any case, this isn't the place to discuss this, so I'm going to be going. :mao-wave:
Can you rephrase that for a dummy like me?
I don’t think you are a dummy :meow-hug:
Ussr had expected battle readiness of 1942-43, this was known, pff, in 36-38 to party. After unsuccessful shenanigans in spain, they’ve tried to approach france/uk to make an alliance against hitler, possibly over sudetenland annexation (?don’t remember exact time table). As they were tod to jog on, and Britain signed non aggression pact of their own, what choice did they have to stall for war? They’ve made amends/stalled, made ridiculous propaganda at international, and inside the country to appear going along
Divided poland, blah blah. They have hoped for invasion in 1942, as in 1941 prime invasion time was in april, Germany missed it, and ussr thought great, we have a year, just according to plan. Alas hitler was not very rational :vivian-shrug:
Also when they "Divided" Poland, Russia just took back it's own territory
Meh, poland russian border always was a mess, I for one don’t think “it’s own territory” is particularly strong argument for any leftist
A much better argument is that the USSR rolled into Polish territory weeks after the Nazi invasion and actually pushed the Nazis back (without combat) to the agreed-upon border. Would it have been better to let the fascists have all of Poland?
Sure, it is better argument
Thank you so much for elaborating. I really appreciate it.
internet is not conductive to good faith discussion without at least similar plane of expectations/terms :meow-hug:
I agree. Thank you for being a real person.
Also, as a small tidbit of thinking about fascism part:
Red fascism comes from fundamental disagreement over fascism nature with marxists: if your thinking is repressive state is fascism, sure, but that’s not all that fascism is though
state enemies are all authoritarian, therefore fascistic. It’s the product of 50s conservative thinking, and not very good one (to me).
Thank you for actually engaging with me in good faith instead of insulting me. I have some questions:
I agree. In my view, Fascism also involves the means of production and exploitation of labor and nationalism.
Interesting. I can see that line of thinking. In my view, Monarchism is a form of Fascism. So, breaking away from Monarchism to a more democratic way of doing things, one could say is moving beyond fascism.
But what we moved into (Capitalism) is worse than Feudalism because it blurs the class lines, giving false hope to the common people, convincing them that if they just play the game they too can one day be kings too.
I may be misunderstanding your comment. But I really do appreciate you taking the time to engage me in good faith.
I think you just have to have idea which users have some reactions lol.
Main underscoring point is claiming country that killed most amount of fascist is fascist itself is very unpopular opinion, so you’ll get pushback on it always (I think a deserved one). It’s not like you have to use that term exactly.
But monarchism isn’t fascism, like wtf. fascism is internal process of expropriation by rebelling petit bourgeoisie, lumpen and proles, but expropriation along ethnic lines, instead of class ones. By defining ethnic lines, it has to involve national myth-making, and dehumanization of others, it doesn’t have to have a single leader (although all of them did).
Monarchism is not fascism, however ethnic violence with the goal of appropriation is very close to fascism. America got there with settler colonialism against indians very explicitly. Like imagine hitler in 1810-70, what would he do differently in usa? What would be different in the end state?
Oh, I definitely get that now. Any criticism of Stalin or any of the other authoritarian regimes is NOT welcome at Hexbear, apparently.
I guess the issue is that that's using the academic definition of Fascism, rather than the colloquial definition.
The colloquial definition would be something like:
This is why many say that Capitalism IS Fascism, I believe.
I've gone a step further and said that Capitalism is Feudalism, and Feudalism is Fascism.
Well, seeing as how Hitler got his ideas FROM the United States' treatment of the Native Americans and Chinese, he wouldn't have done anything differently.
I would be lying if I say it would be super welcome by some parts, but it wouldn’t get people angry. And also, stalin is kinda irrelevant, he is dead. unless you are having a peasant country in need of rapid industrialization, and you don’t want to make same mistakes/successes, either defending or attacking him is, largely, meaningless.
Also, your definition of fascism is very peculiar, I think even some anarchists would be surprised by it.
Colloquial definition of fascism is bunch of bullshit (“it’s what hitler did(tm)”), despite hitler being nazi, and much better case studies for fascism being rise of mussolini and persistence of salazar and franco in late 70s.
It’s not an academic definition, lol, it’s kinda trotsky/marxism influenced one, which I subscribe too, but not some divine truth from academia.
Re your 4 points: every corporation fits your definition of fascism, why do you think they don’t exhibit same outward projections?
again, you are using terms with very specific definitions for marxists (and historians) like feudalism/monarchism/capitalism and then get surprised when people with different frameworks think it’s strange. Capitalism is not fascistic by itself (neither is feudalism), it’s horrible in all the ways, but fascism represents a very particular solution to some capitalism ills, in my view.
How is feudalism is fascism, I’m actually curious?
Also, small note with hitler inspiration: germany had its own colonies, it was perfectly able to make their own horrible decisions without usa know-how, as they have made them already in other places
I'm not sure what you mean by "exhibit the same outward projections"?
It's all about money/resource accumulation and distribution. Capitalism, if left to its own devices, inevitably devolves back into Feudalism, and Capitalism's hierarchy is almost identical to Feudalism's.. Company Towns have been a thing forever, and the ideal state of an anarcho-capitalist system (or lack thereof) is a Feudal society by another name.
Makes sense, if your definition of fascism is what you said it was. Makes total sense.
Feudalism is fascism (according to my definition of fascism) - authoritarian rule, nationalism, suppression of dissent, etc.
This reply made me make an account after a long time lurking.
How old are you? The way you type gives off major vibes of either being extremely immature or being a wrecker.
You need to do a lot more research before you comment the way you do friend, even in this latest reply you show evidence of having no clue what you're saying. How does feudalism display nationalism if the nation state didn't exist during the feudal epoch?
You're asking a community to give you a level of respect that your behavior so far doesn't command, might seem harsh friend but you need to realise this.
I'm 40.
LOL. Why is it always the same old shit? Kids accusing their elders of being kids?
In fact, I'm willing to bet that the ONLY people who use this line of ad-hominem are under 35. How old are YOU, kid?
Sigh. Again, you guys are using academic definitions for words - as if words can only have a single meaning at all times throughout all ages.
What is called a "nation" today was called a "kingdom" or "fiefdom" back then. Words change, but meanings remain the same.
The United Kingdom is actually a perfect example of this. It's a kingdom that we call a Nation now, because that's the meaning of both words.
Nation-states are a recent invention, like Anglo-saxon kingdom was not a nation, I implore you to read history of feudalism
LOL. Again, you're hung up on dictionary definitions of words and not what the words actually mean.
A kingdom IS a nation. It is a geographical area within which a governing body has authority and sovereignty.
What authority? They didn’t use same coins, the law was the dictate of local lord, not some codex, judiciary was the lord. Borders? What borders? Common language? Common identity? They don’t know who the king was, outside of seeing new shiny coins, languages were unintelligible in some places 100 miles from each other. There were no taxes to nation, all your interaction was confined to your lord and maybe church taxation.
What exactly nation-like characteristic they’ve shown?
THE FUCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITION IS WHAT WORDS ACTUALLY MEAN! THATS WHAT A DEFINITION IS! You can't be perscriptivist with language to the point that others have no fucking clue what you're talking about. That's stupid, you might as well just speak gibberish. You'll never be able to communicate if you just make up what words mean and expect people to take you seriously.
Ok cool, then if you're using that definition what does it mean for feudal "nation" to be nationalistic. And from that, how is a feudal "nations" nationalism an indication of fascism?
Hmm see how you get nowhere when you use words differently to how they're used in a context like a forum without defining what you actually mean without reference to anything else?
Cool, was just asking your age because of the possibility that you were a younger person not aware enough of the background of some of the topics you're talking about. Obviously I touched a nerve.
Your take on semiotics is interesting and completely wrong in this case. Yes words can change and meanings stay the same, but you are not using the meaning of these things correctly.
Any lexicographer would disagree with you.
deleted by creator
I mean paramilitary violence coupled with political goals, the corporations don’t exactly do that, not in the imperial core.
Capitalism doesn’t evolve into feudalism, because it’s much more broader than feudalism ever hoped to be. As a feudal lord, the only way to increase your fortunes is land, because productivity is low, then it became take over sphere of trade (mercantilism), then it became owning means of production. Capitalism achieving its ultimate monopoly equilibrium is nothing like feudalism. I think you have very simplistic perception of feudalism (no offense). It was much freer than cyberpunk hellhole of capital totality.
Actually in the article/essay I linked to you (as it’s anarchist), they use very similar thought process (authoritarianism, blah-blah), even they don’t go to declare everything on earth fascism lol.
:sleepi: now, so good luck with your hot takes (?) or catch some sleep as well
Oh, they don't?
There is no such thing as "equilibrium" in Capitalism/Neo-Feudalism. It's all just a big chess match to see who can launch their dicks into space first.
Sure. That may be the case.
Sure. That may also be the case.
I mean there are militias, but there are no amazon strikebreaker blue shirts, not yet. I specifically said in imperial core as well, as in global south they usually do exhibit this behavior, but still they hire mercenaries outside, instead of grass-roots brownshirts typically.
Equilibrium is monopoly, it is just stopped/frozen for a time due to popular pressure in the 20-30s with trusbusting/social democracy stuff. Don’t mistake random shenanigans with competition: if given free reign, companies will have cartels and buyouts in 10 years
Less than that, if the Trump Administration is any indication.
You're just making up meanings for words. We're not using our own personal definition for words and expecting others to know what we're talking about, we are using words based on what they mean in order to facilitate communication, y'know, like how language works.
Not true, we shit on the USA literally all the time.
LOL
I constantly criticize Stalin. People disagree but it's definitely allowed. There's a difference between criticism and calling people literal fascists.
Ok, makes sense. Thanks.
I'm glad you're getting more positive responses out of this thread. Most of the time you get back what you put in here, so if you start off harsh, then it's gonna get harsh. If you're chill, then you're gonna get chill.
One of the ways everyone kind of flags trolls / wreckers is that they act sort of normal for a little while before flipping out and being huge assholes. When we see new users that start matching that pattern a little, people notice.
That said, sometimes a post gets shitty, at which point I just log off for a while or find a different post.
Makes sense. I appreciate it.
Interesting. Sorry if I gave off that smell.