Just saying. How’re yall doing, by the way?

  • wtypstanaccount04 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I just wanted to say that the Midwest is cool and not flyover country as some coastal liberals might believe. Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, all cool cities. The Midwest is the breadbasket (ok, cornbasket) of the country too, and keeps me full with cheap processed foods, so thank you.

  • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thanks! I had assumed that to be the case due to federation, but I suppose that may not always be a reasonable assumption. Doing pretty well. Mostly an average day of fighting with my ADHD so that I can effectively sell my labor. How about you lot?

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      an average day of fighting with my ADHD so that I can effectively sell my labor

      Posting is both the cause of and solution to so many problems

  • Bruja [she/her, love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    And while you’re here, think about going into settings and customising your displayname with pronouns. Makes the English lemmyverse a more welcoming and diverse place while also benefiting yourself in the form of extra upbears when people see you out and about!

    • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder what your thought is about not having the pronouns, not because I don’t want to be welcoming and supportive, but because I don’t want people to know. I use them irl (email, zoom, conferences, etc), but on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog. Would this be a case for they/them even if I don’t use these irl or is this disrespectful?

      • AcidSmiley [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        One of my favorite usernames here has always been that of @[email protected], so i can relate.

        In my opinion it’s perfectly fine if you pick a gender neutral option for the sake of anonymity. You should just go with something you’re comfortable with. I know people who’ve tried to adapt they / them as secondary pronouns to normalize that and quickly dropped the idea because it actually made them feel dysphoric. I went with they / them for a few months when i started questioning my gender because i needed something more open-ended before i was certain i’m a girl and could go with she / her, and i tried that out using the tag system on here because i was still in the closet back then. Ultimately, pronouns are about a very basic right - having autonomy over how people gender you. That means it’s up to you and nobody else to decide which pronouns you go with, and given how gender identity works, that can mean there’s options that just feel very, very off, alienating or even hurtful when they’re actually used on you. It’s perfectly ok to experiment a bit with pronoun options and see what fits both you and your opsec needs. Hexbear even has comrade / them pronoun tags. We also have pronoun options like none / use name, and i actually know a couple nonbinary people who prefer that over pronouns IRL, particularly because neopronouns are even less common in my 1st language than in English (although they / them or our localized variant dey / dem / deren is by now established in queer communities here in Germany).

        • GenderIsOpSec [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Since I was summoned, might as well share some. My favourite pronoun choice is “Undecided” I went from -> Undecided to They/Them/Undecided to They/Them and then finally She/Her as my transitioning process advanced.

          You’d think something as simple as clicking on a drop down menu wouldnt be a massive issue, but it forces you to confront yourself in ways that cis people just don’t think about.

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m startled by the specific shout-out to the instance i’m on, since:

    • I didn’t think midwest.social was particularly big and,
    • having grown up around a lot of liberal and extreme reactionary politics, I would not have expected there to be a lot of overlap between the midwest and an ML community

    I am happy to be experiencing a little discomfort by all the “new” ideology, as I am well aware of the limited social and political bubble that is constructed around me. Specific political stances aside, I can say I do feel right at home with the somewhat irreverent tone of the comrades here. Hopefully midwest.social and lemmy/kbin at large can adopt the emoji implementation you have here so I can join the fun.

    • JuneFall [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In addition to the discomfort here, we are a very varied group. We have some set of rules, but the opinions expressed are all over the field, that includes ongoing news events, but also older things.

      Those kind of differences are completely good and acceptable in a social space in which we try to create a community in which differences can remain. If we would act differently we would lose quite a bit of diversity and quite a few users that often are representing voices and perspectives that you don’t hear often in the west/imperial core outside of marginalized groups.

      Think how various groups come together for anti fascist actions, there you will have a ton of groups with ideological differences, and how sometimes we celebrate afterwards together.

      I for one am happy to have you here :)

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hexbears can correct me if I’m incorrect but, my understanding is that the instance is not necessarily M-L but more “leftist and anti-capitalist unity” (M-L, anarchists, etc.).

      • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hexbear is explicitly left unity, but by tendency it’s mostly Marxist-Leninists. People still cop bans for sectarianism towards anarchists

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Glad to hear it. Not that the sectarianism is happening but that it is being stomped out. Keeping othering from happening is vital for both successful social change and preventing repeats of past tragedies.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not from midwest.social, but I did happen upon that thread that blew up. Is it ok if I ask some questions? I’d like to better understand the hexbear instance, so I understand how to consume the content that shows up in my feed. Before I go on, please note that I definitely do not mind seeing content from hexbear and you guys commenting on other instances. My instance is not planning on de-federating (AFAIK) and I am completely fine with that. I lean left myself.

    • Users on other instances say you guys are “tankies”, and from what I understand, that’s essentially the authoritarian version of the left; instead of being the more moderate-ish(?) leftists/communists. Which one do you guys identify under?

    • I see a lot of shitposts and edgy humor, which is fine; so I initially thought the instance was more of a shitposting community rather than a serious one advocating communism. Or is it?

    • Many comments I see from other instances are mainly complaining of you guys being the former (tankies) on the first bullet, saying you are basically just like the far-right, just on the opposite side. The other complaint is that all they see when they engage with you guys are memes and shitpost gifs, and that it doesn’t contribute to the conversation. I know that’s not everything, as I do see serious discussions on my feed from time to time, but is the shitposting and trolling done on purpose to antagonize other instances?

    I’m happy to be educated/enlightened. Thank you!

    Edit: I’m getting a ton of well thought-out responses and I need time to process them before I can respond. Thanks again! And please feel free to continue commenting if you have something more to say.

    • happyandhappy [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. We are officially a left-unity community. Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists etc. all welcome, but we don’t tolerate right-wing/liberal ideology that contributes to the suffering of the exploited workers of the world.

      2. It’s more so a place for leftists to hang out and chat and spread news/content. A bit of both ig.

      3. The people calling us tankies and nazis simultaneously are mostly doing so out of a disingenuous liberal attempt to position anybody to the left of them as being on the right of them, while they are the truly enlightened ones. The shitposting is only ever a response to people who are being disingenuous with their arguments and refusing to have genuine discourse.

    • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Which one do you guys identify under?

      Most Hexbears support a state that works for the interests of the people, referred to as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat that would be established after a revolution, as described by Marx. Then there are some anarchists who also support a revolution but not a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The rest ideologies are far too minimal to notice

      so I initially thought the instance was more of a shitposting community rather than a serious one advocating communism

      It’s a shitposting community. Probably the most well read and informed shitposting community you’ve ever come across though I bet (not that that bar is particularly high). lemmygrad.ml is the serious and educational instance though only for Marxism Leninism and no other ideology

      but is the shitposting and trolling done on purpose to antagonize other instances

      Many people have stated they only shitpost and troll response to people who are bigoted, or commenting in bad faith and not looking to have an honest discussion or learn, unlike you

    • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Users on other instances say you guys are “tankies”, and from what I understand, that’s essentially the authoritarian version of the left; instead of being the more moderate-ish(?) lefties/communists. Which one do you guys identify under?

      Hexbear is explicitly non-sectarian. There are leftists here from across the spectrum, and sometimes there are disagreements among us. There are Marxists-Leninists, anarchists, and people who simply believe that capitalism isn’t going to lead to good outcomes for people. The word ‘tankie’ has lost a lot of meaning in recent times, so it’s hard to say whether there are tankies here or not.

      As an aside on this issue, the concept of “authoritarianism” is poorly defined and generally not that useful, imo. There are people in “free” countries being imprisoned, forced out of their homes, forced to work, forced to abandon their culture, forced to accept certain legal and cultural norms, prevented from organizing or protesting, etc. And there are people in “authoritarian” countries who have mechanisms other than representative democracy to engage in politics in ways that are materially more effective and representative of their interests. Authoritarianism, if only viewed from the lens of liberal democracy, is largely meaningless in a practical sense.

      I see a lot of shitposts and edgy humor, which is fine; so I initially thought the instance was more of a shitposting community rather than a serious one advocating communism. Or is it?

      I’m not trying to be clever when I say “it’s both.” Most people here are actually pretty well-studied in history, politcal theory, economics, etc., and they are also terminally irony poisoned and extremely online. It’s what it is.

      Many comments I see from other instances are mainly complaining of you guys being the former (tankies) on the first bullet, saying you are basically just like the far-right, just on the opposite side.

      Thinking that the far left and far right can be the same thing is called horseshoe theory, and it’s nonsense. There are numerous real, tangible, entirely understandable differences between the left and the right. Saying that they are both he same because both dislike the status quo is an example of a thought-terminating cliche. The left wants fundamentally the opposite of what the right wants, and the only way they’re similar is that there are people who believe that some amount of violence and coercion will be required to achieve those goals. But the goals are different. I can’t remember where I read it, but someone pointed out that an example of the difference between communism and fascism is that Stalin largely failed in achieving his stated goals, while Hitler largely succeeded. Way oversimplified, and my comrades will probably excoriate me for the clumsy analogy, but the point is that these are different things, and to say they aren’t is ignorant.

      The other complaint is that all they see when they engage with you guys are memes and shitpost gifs, and that it doesn’t contribute to the conversation.

      There is a lot of shitposting. However, one of the things a lot of people here have learned first-hand time and again is that a lot of people don’t want to hear what we have to say, regardless if it has merit, or is thoughtfully researched, or is based on personal experience. We’ve all heard the same tired, poorly-understood, cliche arguments over and over again about China and Cuba and the USSR, etc., and at some point you get to a stage where it’s clear that engaging in good faith is useless. And so, rather than write a wall of text with links to credible sources, people post a picture of a pig with poop on its balls. Is it contributing to the conversation? Arguably no. Was there a conversation to contribute to in the first place if a well-researched but heterodox argument is met with knee jerk, canned responses that don’t address the issue? Again, arguably no.

      The intention from most people here is to troll and dunk and shitpost at people who are obviously willfully ignorant or outright bigoted. Any genuine inquiry will likely be met by a genuine response, as I am trying to provide you here. However, if someone is going to make transphobic or antisemitic comments while getting pissy about how we’re criticizing institutions like NATO or the IMF, they’re going to get dogpiled with shitposts. Critical support for China or Russia or Cuba or whomever is not blanket support of those things, and nor is criticism of NATO or the West or the big multilateral financial institutions a declaration of support for Putin.

      Leftists are, if they believe what they say they believe, aligned with the interests of real people everywhere, and when you’re on the side of actual people, large institutions with power tend to be a mixed bag, simultaneously doing good and bad things. What we’re concerned with is the understanding of these large systems of power, and the mechanisms by which they can be challenged for the betterment of everyone. That’s not the status quo position, and it’s not entirely clean and easy to describe, so it’s likely going to get some of us into arguments.

      That said, most people here aren’t just stirring shit to cause drama. We’ve been here as a community for three years prior to federation with other instances, and we’d still be here if every other instance defederated us. We’re trying to engage in a constructive way, but there are a lot of us, we’re aligned in our purpose, and we never log off. We’re going to come on a little strong at times.

      I hope that helps.

      • adultswim_antifa [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        People in this country think they’re the freest in the world. A couple of years ago, a cop was filmed murdering yet another black man. People protested and, all too frequently, cops initiated violence against peaceful protesters. Is that not authoritarian?

        • Fibby@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its considered authoritarian for the state to take housing and distribute it to the people.

          Its not considered authoritarian for banks to kick people out of their home.

          I’m starting to think this “authoritarian” word is bullshit.

          • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Always has been, mate. It’s basically a synonym for “I’m a hypocrite”.

            “Authoritarianism” is everywhere, from the natural to the man-made. I obey the very material authority of mother nature here in Alaska by not driving like a jackass in winter when I’m going to work, then I’m forced to obey my shitty bosses in order to get enough of the wealth I make for them back in order to keep a roof over my head and not starve for a week and rinse and repeat while they watch their portfolios soar.

            Here’s Engel’s little blurb on Authority too if you want to read more.

          • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            here’s hall-of-fame poster aimixin. he’s in conversation with a libsoc but don’t get hung up on that, the focus of the argument is on the nature of the state and how it reveals the emptiness of the word

            Every government is authoritarian. You only consider it not to be “authoritarian” when you support its use of authority. Anarchism is authoritarian as well, yes I’ve read up on libertarian socialists. Do you think the anarchists in Catalonia who had labor camps were not “authoritarian”? Were they wholesome democratic labor camps?

            Every state seeks to preserve itself and so every state will use authority when it is faced with potential destruction. This is not inherently a bad thing, it obviously depends on the government in question, and who is trying to destroy it, and why. People always justify the use of authoritarian means used by whoever they support, and then those who are intellectually dishonest pretend that somehow their use of authority isn’t “authoritarian”.

            And obviously anarchism and libertarian socialism exists. I don’t see how that contradicts with me saying “authoritarian” is a meaningless buzzword that can always be replaced just with “something I don’t like”.

            Is the US “authoritarian” when it bombed Vietnam back into the stone age and Eisenhower himself said they refused to hold elections because they knew the US occupiers would only get 20% of the vote? The Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, the destruction of Libya, or the US prosecution of Julian Assange, or the Smith Act Trials, Operation Earnest Voice, Operation Condor, Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Ajax, Operation Mockingbird, etc, etc, were not “authoritarian”?

            Maybe you’d agree these things are “authoritarian”, but either way it proves my point. Plenty of people like to insist the US isn’t “authoritarian” not because it actually isn’t but because they support what it does.

            If you never desire to leave your cage, you might feel incredibly free. Liberals who never genuinely try to challenge the authority of the liberal state they live under have a tendency to believe that there is no authoritarianism, because they have never once even desired to challenge that state’s authority. (Yet, ironically, they will always support the state’s authority when they see it used against those who do try to challenge it.)

            “Libertarian socialism” doesn’t escape this. “Authoritarianism” is a meaningless buzzword, the only real tangible difference between “libertarian” socialists and ordinary socialists is that “libertarian” socialists prefer a higher level of decentralization. But decentralization in no way inherently entails a lack of authoritarian means, as they’ve always used them in practice to enforce their system.

            part two:

            You aren’t paying attention. Democracy is authoritarian. It is the means by which the democratic will of the people express its authority, by means of force. What happens if someone picks up a gun and tries to oppose the democratic consensus? Do you just sit by and let the democracy be destroyed? No, the democratic state uses its own authority to oppress the opposition.

            There is no such thing as a distinction between “democracy” and “authoritarian”. It’s a meaningless buzzword. The opposite of a democracy is an autocracy or an oligarchy, not “authoritarian”. That’s just something westerners fling at other people’s democracies which they don’t like for daring to vote for something against US interests and want to see them blown up and millions killed and displaced.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When the verdict of the man who murdered George Floyd was being read, the Governor of Minnesota mobilized thousands of national guard troops and ordered them to occupy Minneapolis. There were thousands of armed soldiers, on foot and in armored vehicles, staged throughout the city. The implicit threat was that if Chauvin was acquitted and we tried to enact justice anyway we’d be machine gunned in the street for opposing a murderous white supremacist.

          For those few days Minneapolis was the most heavily occupied city in the world.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ll affirm that the people here are serious, they just like jokes, but wanted to particularly respond to this:

      Users on other instances say you guys are “tankies”, and from what I understand, that’s essentially the authoritarian version of the left; instead of being the more moderate-ish(?) leftists/communists. Which one do you guys identify under?

      I’m a Marxist-Leninist (ML for short) and most people here are either MLs or anarchists, but I’m making the comment because I wanted to share this video that is relevant to the question:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k

      Without even looking, I have to imagine someone else hit you with “On Authority” by Engels, which is correct but I think used as a bludgeon too often. Short version of its relevance is that when capitalists own the state, diffusing “authority” into private interests who have state violence backing them up is no less “authoritarian.” That’s not actually what he says in the text – he was mostly writing contra-anarchist-critics – but that’s why I think people trot it out too much when they are usually just responding to neoliberals who don’t share the correct assumptions that Engels agrees anarchists do and then predicates his argument on.

      • rtstragedy [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you for linking this video. A lot of the political compass stuff never really made sense to me but this articulates the feelings I had about it really well, and I learned a lot (esp. the comments about gun control, and how gun freedom serves the ruling class by creating terror in most cases)

        • That video is great! To add a small caveat to the gun control point, you’ll find a few users here who are into guns, own their own and/or attend a range with some regularity, and it’s not inconsistent with their socialist/communist principles.

          While it is true that gun freedom, as it is spoused by most people who support it in the US mostly serves the ruling class, many leftist organizations or leaders have understood the power that having the means to defend oneself from the orchestrated violence of the state, or other actors who will not hesitate at using violence against leftists/racialized or LGBTQIA+ people has, and how it is sometimes necessary when trying to build power structures that attend to those same peoples’ needs outside of a capitalist system.

          A key difference between a right-wing and a left-wing gun owner is that the left-wing one, given the conditions for it, will prefer those guns to be in collective control and ownership, and not at the service of an individual and their needs. Well, that, and that the left-wing one will be anticapitalist.

          I just wanted to preemptively introduce this concept before you saw one of our gun fans in the wild and were confused by it.

          Cheers!

    • IceWallowCum [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hello!

      essentially the authoritarian version of the left; instead of being the more moderate-ish(?) leftists/communists.

      This distinction comes from a false problem posed by capitalists - liberals and conservatives alike. It is completely ideological and not real.

      Every relation of property requires force/violence to be maintained. When you have to determine who gets what in a society, the distinction between getting /not getting or having/not having is supported by violence or the threat of it, in whatever form it may take in a specific society.

      Thus, every single form of society that is based on relations of property is maintained by force and violence. That includes modern western states, drug cartels, and even early socialism. The difference between capitalism (dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and early socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) is which class uses violence against which other class in order to control property.

      This considered, it is impossible to have any sort of society (one without absolute abundance, that is) that is not based on force or violence. Pointing this out to capitalists gets you called a tankie because they would be on the side of “not having”, not because they abhor violence, as we already established their society is also based on violence.

      Think of it this way and you’ll see most political discussions, specially ones about violence, boil down to property.

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you.

        you’ll see most political discussions, specially ones about violence, boil down to property.

        This statement is interesting and I will definitely think about it more and try to see things through this lens.

        This considered, it is impossible to have any sort of society (one without absolute abundance, that is) that is not based on force or violence.

        I’m trying to put this into perspective with my current situation to better understand it. I live relatively comfortably. I can afford rent, groceries, and utility bills. Would the “society based on force” in play here be that I am being forced to work to afford and enjoy these necessities? And that the ideal society would be that I shouldn’t have to work to have those? I get that this is probably moving towards the more well known stance of “the workers should own the means of production”. Is that the case?

        every single form of society that is based on relations of property is maintained by force and violence

        I own property back in my home country. The previous owner just didn’t need it anymore and put it up for sale. What is the force or violence I used to attain and maintain ownership of this property? On the other hand, I am also paying real estate taxes on the property, which means I am also being forced by the government to pay to continue having the property in my name and prevent it being taken away from me. What is the ideal scenario here?

        Apologies if it appears I have an elementary understanding of these ideologies, but I’m trying to frame it to my level of living experience, so I can understand it better, since the premise of the argument is that it all boils down to property.

        • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can afford rent, groceries, and utility bills.

          It’s when you can’t afford those things that the society based on force comes into focus with perfect clarity.

          What is the force or violence I used to attain and maintain ownership of this property?

          The force or violence is what is used to enforce the property rights that you purchased. If I went to your property right now and claimed it as my own and started using it, what would you do to stop me? What tools are available to you to prevent that? The deed of ownership to that property is just a proxy for the violence.

        • IceWallowCum [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s ok! I’ll try to add a bit to what other already said, in simple terms. I’ll respond to punctual questions in another comment.

          I’ll talk about two important ideas here: historicity and collectivity. This whole mode of thought is very complex and there is no shame in feeling overwhelmed at first and not getting it with just some short online comments. Marx took thousands of pages to develop all these ideas, and others still had to develop them further.

          One important thing to keep in mind during an analysis is that, although things simply pop up on our mind when we experience them, that is not the case in reality outside our head - your land didn’t just pop up into existence the way you experience it right now. Sure, you simply bought it from another person, but that’s not where the land started existing. Assuming you are from the US, how did a piece of land in America become a market product in the first place? To understand that, you have to look into history. Way back then, someone had to take the land away from others (natives) using force and then keep it from getting taken away by others also using force. The state was created by these situations: as a mediator of ownership of the newly explored property. How is that mediation put into practice? To see it, let’s bring it a little closer to yourself: what would happen to you if, instead of buying the land, you simply got into it and said it’s yours? Best case scenario, you’d be dragged away by cops - that is, the state would use force to mediate property rights. Unless you have an army to fight the state, you are not keeping that land.

          So, since things in reality develop through historical processes, it is wrong to not consider those in your analysis, you won’t get close to thinking something that is objective (ie. that exists outside your head).

          Also, just reflecting about oneself and your own personal experiences will hardly deliver a correct analysis. The world is collective - everything around you and inside you were made by a long chain of producers scattered in space and time. Failing to add this consideration into your analysis won’t get you close to reproducing reality correctly inside your head either.

          Hope this helps! Try the “primitive accumulation” chapter of Capital, it’s towards the end and will give you a great picture of all this, as it describes the political events that gave birth to English capitalism. It’s not a hard read, as it is not abstract as the initial chapters are. Then come back and tell us what you think 😄

          If you’re feeling adventurous, read the introduction to Grundrisse, although that one is more complicated. The book lays down a lot of Marxist ideas, and also describes the method of analysis Marx used to reach them. My two comments were based on these two, respectively.

        • IceWallowCum [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Would the “society based on force” in play here be that I am being forced to work to afford and enjoy these necessities?

          Kinda. You’re buying it in the first place because you don’t have a property to produce it yourself, which is also the reason we work, as there is no other way of getting what we need to survive. That’s also why you pay rent.

          Think of this: who owns the food before you buy it, or who are you buying it from? How is it produced? Why can’t you just take it, and what happens if you do?

          My point is: violence is inherent to property. Property can’t exist without violence or the threat of it.

          And that the ideal society would be that I shouldn’t have to work to have those?

          In Marxist communism, the question of what is a perfect society doesn’t matter, is counterproductive and should be repelled. The point is not to design a perfect society, but to develop the progressive forces of capitalism (the tools which develop scientific advancements, education, production capacity…) and get over the regressive forces (current relations of property, mostly). Communism will develop from capitalism, not made of thin air by a fairy. According to Marx himself, the initial stages of communism will be hardly distinguishable from capitalism, save for the property relations. Which brings us to:

          I get that this is probably moving towards the more well known stance of “the workers should own the means of production”. Is that the case?

          You should know what that means beyond the slogan:

          You see, european and american capitalism started as progressive force, in the sense that it brought about a material development never before experienced in history. Now, we have the potential to do much much more than we currently are, but the way the system works gets in the way and keeps us from doing better. Just look at cars and climate change - why aren’t we ditching fossil fuels faster, if it’s for the surviving of the human race?

          In Marx’s analysis, in the beginning stages of a form of society, their relations of property, specially the property of the means of production (land, tools, education), act as a progressive force, developing the productive forces (workers and their abilities, mostly). With time, these productive forces become too developed, and what once was a rocket launching society forward now becomes a cage that won’t let it go any further. These overdeveloped productive forces then dissolve the previous relations of property and a new relation of property arises, one that is based on that overdevelopment. Then rinse and repeat.

          Science and productivity are now too developed for capitalism, which now ceases to be a factor of progress and becomes an impediment for further development. The natural next step of a society to progress is to abandon the current relations (who owns the land, tools, machines etc) and organize new ones based on the fact that workers are much more educated and we can now produce absurd quantities of useful products if we ditch the production of useless ones for financial market reasons (do you know the amount of energy humanity wastes mining bitcoin? 😬).

          There’s also the fact that the planet is dying and big companies won’t let us do anything about it or else they’ll lose profits, so that is another situation in which capitalism has become a cage and not the rocket it once was.

          I recommend reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, which consists of Marx dunking on a communist party of his time. He exposes all these ideas much more eloquently than I can.

        • immuredanchorite [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its fine, everyone starts from somewhere.

          The fact that all property relations rest on violence or the threat of violence is intentionally made invisible by the ruling class under capitalism. This is done through propagation of ruling class ideology in education, movies, television, radio, newspapers etc. Marxists refer to this as the superstructure And that is a whole other rabbit hole… It comes in many forms, but within a society you will hear familiar arguments about why poverty exists alongside opulence, why poverty and its manifold problems are the result of individual moral failing or lack of proper work ethic etc. These are typically nebulous ideas that change over time to whatever will best allow the status quo to persist and they intentionally ignore the basis of these problems and their root cause within the organization of production within our world (the social basis of production). In the USA prior to the civil war, convoluted ideas of race science were created to support and justify an unjust system of chattel slavery and racial caste, for example. Today, emphasis is placed on individual moral failing: poor work ethic, drug addiction, lack of religion, or other vague but incorrect ideas that are often have their root in racism, ableism, sexism, classism etc. Typically ignoring that, for instance, some of the richest people in the world don’t work, use drugs with abandon, lack religion etc.

          If you live in a well developed capitalist country, particularly in western Europe and the US/Canada, your “comfortable” lifestyle is created and maintained by violence in a number of ways, both historically and currently, domestically and abroad. All political economic systems rest on the authority of the state to maintain property relations through the state-sanctioned use of violence. When someone is evicted, for instance, the constable or sheriffs will show up and forcibly remove a tenant. Contracts are upheld and property itself is legitimized through the state, and so the state is able to set the terms of what type and means of acquisition and ownership are allowed. If they are not, or the state finds them illegitimate because it challenged their authority, then it can be met with violence (jail, beating, dispossession, displacement, ostracism, execution, to name a few current & historic means). Marxist-Leninists and other types of communists rightly point out that this is a feature of all states, and nearly every observed society, but they also point out that this violence has a class character that is determined by the social relations that underpin the dominant mode of production (i.e. the state is a device of the ruling classes to maintain the current order and subject the other classes to the current system) They seek to abolish this class system, and hopefully all oppressive systems with it… but that is something the current ruling class will resist, and so creating a political system where the oppressed classes use the state to repress the former ruling class (capitalists, landlords, petit-bourgeois reactionary types, etc) and maintain the ruling position of the working class in order to build a world without class domination and without opression

          Capitalism itself is an exploitive and extractive system. You are correct to point out your boss steals from you the full value of your labor for their own profit, and this level of exploitation may seems benign or relatively acceptable if you have a comfortable life, but it is still violent and your relationship with your boss also ignores the bigger picture. Outside of your job there are much more oppressive arrangements within that system and many people are homeless, living in poverty, hungry and sick, despite an abundance of labor and resources to stop all of these social ills. People in the “developed” economies mostly have that “development” at the expense of highly violent and exploitive methods that extract wealth and labor from others. western europe, the us, and others typically spent the past few hundred years pillaging the rest of the world and groups of people within their own borders as well.

          Colonization and imperialism are imposed upon the world with great violence, and then once that order was set up, it was maintained in a transformative process that had to adapt to changing conditions and social movements that sought to break its control. None of this was non-violent on the part of the imperialists, but it has changed into a more abstract or indirect form through financial instruments, debt, or large clandestine efforts to shape governments abroad. Their relationship is still extractive and violent and imposes poverty, famine, war, and displacement on people throughout the globe. If you are in a comfortable job in a developed western nation, it is more than likely that you either benefit from this violence directly or indirectly. If you are in a country that is a willing subject to US imperialism, a junior partner, then often your lifestyle has come in the form of a bargain, where your political and economic system were shaped by the United States in exchange for favorable terms: but without it would be subject to violence or sanction.

    • BadTakesHaver [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many comments I see from other instances are mainly complaining of you guys being the former (tankies) on the first bullet, saying you are basically just like the far-right, just on the opposite side. The other complaint is that all they see when they engage with you guys are memes and shitpost gifs, and that it doesn’t contribute to the conversation. I know that’s not everything, as I do see serious discussions on my feed from time to time, but is the shitposting and trolling done on purpose to antagonize other instances?

      many posts have been made on this forum as well about toning down the shitposting and trolling on other instances, and a few mods have made similar posts as well i believe. Usually the people who are complaining about it the most are bad faith posters or bigots that are getting dog pilled, but our mods are aware about the large amount of trolling and want our users to play nice, although moderation of our users on other instances is being left up to their mods.

    • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      All leftists (communists, anarchists, syndicalists, etc) agree that capitalism must be dismantled. The most moderate faction within leftists are democratic socialists, who believe that capitalism can be dismantled through democratic legislative action through existing parliamentary/congressional system. This means forcibly repatriating assets such as large tracts of land and companies from the rich through a majority vote. Of course, the rich will not agree to this but democratic socialists are going to do it anyways through electoral means.

      This is the most moderate wing of leftism, but it is still considered authoritarian since it removes private property from the bourgeois without their consent. So to answer your first question, there is no moderate version of the left since all of them are authoritarian. Hexbear is a leftist unity instance in which all leftists are tolerated while Lemmygrad is a more limited marxist-leninist (tankie/communist) instance. So to answer your question, we’re the tankies, but all of us are “authoritarian” here if they’re leftist.

    • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      Re: bullet #1, tankies/authoritarianism

      “tankies” in the way they’re using it is basically anyone they don’t like to their left (it was originally an intra-left sectarian insult, but the liberals using it don’t care about the history). But what usually sets them off is the assertion that US hegemony is an incredibly negative force worldwide, and that it’s so bad that consequently multi-polarity (ie increased influence by US enemies and non-aligned states, russia and china being especially controversial) would be a very good thing, even if the individual countries gaining power are imperfect, or outright “bad”, because it weakens US hegemony (which is a primary factor holding back socialism worldwide). In a multipolar world, non-aligned countries could do much better for themselves and their people rather than just be heavily exploited by the US and its allies, and no one power would be able to dictate terms unilaterally.

      In terms of “authoritarianism”, sure, there are aspects of implementing communism that require ruthlessness, I think even anarchists would agree. The capitalists (people that own companies and hold power, not just people that “believe in capitalism”) will not let go of power without a fight. But our goal is a society that would actually encourage human flourishing and guarantee a good life to everyone, not one of wage-servitude to another just because they own the land, or the company, or tools. I would not really classify that as authoritarian in the way that word is commonly used, at least not when considered from a human perspective. There’s more to human freedom than freedom to accumulate and spend money unrestricted by the state or even the needs of other humans.

      to #2, shitposting/edginess

      The shitposts and edgy humor are a mixture of things, some are venting/exaggerating, some are mocking liberals, fascists, etc., and some are just surreal/weird humor, but what they generally are not is ironic. People aren’t ironically in favor of the maoist uprising against the landlords, nor trans rights, nor guillotines, nor the soviet union, nor whatever else you’re seeing here. That doesn’t mean we support those things we meme about uncritically (see also: Chris Dorner memes), but the general disposition here is earnest, believe it or not, especially the part about advocating communism.

      #3, horseshoe theory, not contributing, emote spam, derision

      As to tankies being just like the far right… I don’t know how people take that seriously unless their understanding of politics is so simple as “good thing/bad thing” and they hear “china bad” “cuba bad” “commies bad” so much on the news that they just believe it. They come to us saying things like " you’re communists? but commies are bigoted and don’t respect human rights" like it’s just a fact because they heard it a bunch of times, and it’s like, “well do you see that here? do you see us being racist or queerphobic?” We still criticise countries that we like on their policies when we disagree with them, and we do so with the understanding that unlike capitalist nations, which use minority rights as a bludgeon while not addressing the roots of inequality, communist countries have a lot more capacity to be genuinely responsive to their citizenry, and to nurture attitudes that attack the roots of bigotry too. The new family code in cuba is a huge transformation for a country that liberals love to slander as homophobic, for example, and it’s supported by their people.

      As far as replying with emotes and memes… sure, we do that. It’s (usually) derision of the ill-considered liberal (or worse) ideas being espoused. But I don’t think it precludes having a deeper discussion if a couple stray emotes slip into the replies. Hopefully fixing the emoji sizing issue on federated instances (which our devs are contributing a patch for upstream) will reduce the perceived severity of this infraction upon the eyes of other instances. I’d say its also partly just a culture shock. We’ve been over here replying in emojis that we mostly all know the context and history of for 3 years now, whereas there’s no culture of replying with inline images on reddit that I recall.

      But as for why some posts/comments get such a derisive response and some don’t: there is a line between someone who is asking a fair question in good faith, and someone who is hilariously ill informed and/or fishing for a gotcha, and generally liberals don’t come to conversations about, for example, communism or a certain ongoing war with an open mind at all because “putler and Xinnie the pooh are straight up evil how dare you even compare that to the merely flawed USA”. Our aim isn’t perfect, but the IMO the goal generally is to respond to the former with sources, criticism, and argumentation, and the latter with outright derision because they don’t deserve our good faith if they can’t offer the same.

      Edit: didn’t like the wall of text, lets break it up by topic. Also of note: we are not a monolith. despite coming to a general consensus on a lot of topics over the years, there is plenty of disagreement, both politically and in behavior/optics as well.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Tankie” doesn’t really mean much in practice. Many of us are communists who think that places like the ussr, n korea, cuba, vietnam, and china aren’t unremittingly evil, and we have exhaustive sources to back it up. We also know the history of events like the 1932 Soviet famine aka the “Holodomor”, the June 4th incident aka " Tianamen Square Massacre" and a bunch of other anti-communist shibboleths. A whole lot of people who think they’re leftists but aren’t completely uncritically accept anti-communist propaganda with no awareness whatsoever that it’s propaganda. And they hate being told that it’s propaganda, that it doesn’t relfect what happened and deliberately distorts history, often to the benefit of warmongers and fascists. So they call us tankies to indicate that we’re evil genocide deniers and you shouldn’t engage with us because we might start showing you well documented historical sources that contradict the propaganda and then you might become a genocide denier too! It’s all very silly but most Americans and many Europeans think they’re immune to propaganda and whatever the news and government says it 100% true.

      “Authoritarians” is also mostly an empty accusation. There’s no realy consistency about how it’s used. People claim any government they don’t like is “authoritarian” but generally can’t explain how the features of the government they don’t like differ from the governments they do like. They also often have very naive or just flat out wrong ideas about how governments they like work.

      We’re not trying to antagonize other instances specifically. We hate liberals and liberalism for making the world in to it’s current miserable state, and there happen to be a lot of liberals in the lemmyverse. We also post far, far, far more than almost any other online community. No one needs to tell us to brigade an instance, we all decided to get stuck in and start arguing on our own, no coordination needed.

    • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is my take, and thank you for asking these questions. I was initially against hexbear federation when .world was debating, but I’ve enjoyed ( though maybe not understood) most hexbear content since jumping to Midwest.social.

    • makotech222 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      authoritarian version of the left

      All political ideologies are authoritarian. People who don’t acknowledge this are just liberals who grew up in the west and assume everything that happens is natural, and not something forced upon them.

      basically just like the far-right, just on the opposite side

      I mean, all politics is about advocating for your positions…? thats the point of doing politics. Our positions are obviously what differentiate us from conservatives/liberals. Hexbear tends to be a bit more acidic about politics because most of us have been abused in some way by the current global order under neoliberalism.

    • JuneFall [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In regards to the second, communists and working class people are human, we are all over the place, there is no correct distinguished way to be a communist. So it can be both as others wrote. I remember having a Marx study circle with like 10 students, 2 PhDs and 1 - extremely funny and smart guy - who worked in a factory producing Trafos (very cliche I know) and whose parents were communists in South America and fled, and quite a few of us academics were pretty much shutting down the experience of him, cause it wasn’t the German academic study circle style.

      This site instead would’ve laughed with him and tried to incorporate the jokes and experiences into Marx exegesis.

    • SootyChimney [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plenty of other good relevant replies, I just wanna express my admiration and love for being open and asking questions. I’ve seen a few people from other instances show genuine curiosity like this, and it’s quite heart-warming. Hope our instances can intermingle posts and ideas happily and constructively meow-bounce

    • jack [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see a lot of shitposts and edgy humor, which is fine; so I initially thought the instance was more of a shitposting community rather than a serious one advocating communism. Or is it?

      This is a general purpose forum for communists, anarchists, and fellow travelers. Site culture encourages both serious political discussion and shit posting. We are very earnest about our politics. Having been locked in this website with only each other for three years, we have developed lingo, in-jokes, and a posting style that can be easily misunderstood by outsiders.

      It’s the only thing I’ve ever seen on the internet that feels like actually hanging out with friends. There are many users I recognize, but even the ones I don’t, I still get that vibing-with-like-minded-folks vibe.

      • DickFuckarelli [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Best description I’ve read so far. We talk a lot of shit, and are simultaneously super supportive of each other. Most disagreements end civily. Best place to ask for advice on just about anything on the planet.

        People fucking care.

        Personally there are some rules and even some posters I’m meh about. But the community is so good and so positive it’s not worth giving a shit about. Just move on.

        • forcequit [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          personally, there are some rules and even some posters

          my fave thing is the complete falling in line with each other we’ve done since federation. The party line, folks, it works

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Libs love to say they’re open minded, rational, will entertain new thoughts, believe in the free market of ideas, etc., until you challenge the nonfalsifiable orthodoxy:

        During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

        Try to challenge that and suddenly the time for debate has long passed, all the answers are right there on Wikipedia, which is now authoritative, and even the meekest skepticism of that orthodoxy is soon equated to genocide denial.

    • Mindfury [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know you’ve received a lot of proper responses, but i just want to let you know that this is what we like to see as a community.
      This is how we want to engage with posters - people with legitimate willingness to learn, to ask, to speak with an open mind, and to look inwards and do self-crit when necessary. We have spent 3 years doing this internally, and that has forged a community.

      Anyone who comes to hexbear with this in mind, and not pre-conceived notions borne from thought-terminating cliches, will soon find out that we’re a lot kinder, more willing to have real meaningful discussions and more supportive that you’d think.

    • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tankie has become a pretty useless word especially over the last 4 or 5 years.

      1. Originally it meant people who supported the USSR in suppressing an attempted revolution in Hungary (which by the way was largely supported by Hungarian fascists who were literally fighting alongside the Nazis only 11 years prior, it was complicated)

      2. Then it meant generally people who think socialist states should maintain their structure using violence when they see it as necessary to not collapse. As if every other type of state doesn’t obviously do that

      3. Then it started to just mean “marxist-leninists”

      4. Then pretty recently it got misused even harder, until it split and started to mean three things:

      • classic definition #2 up above
      • anyone to the left of me! (Most common now)
      • those weird “patsoc” grifters and/or fans of how capitalist Russia hates gay people (this is the stupidest version of all)

      It’s mainly “anyone to the left of me” which is just the word “woke” but for liberals.

      Give it 2 or 3 years, and republicans will be calling Joe Biden a tankie.

      • YEP [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One thing I never can really grasp my head around is the framing of the Hungarian uprising or tiananmen square protests. There were much larger acts of state violence committed at the same time elsewhere. Like the French killing a million Algerians or the us proping up iraq in the Iran iraq war while they genocide kurds and launched chemical weapons at Iranian cities. There has to be some dissonance or just ignorance there. It’s the emphasis vs lies propaganda at its finest.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Parenti’s “non-falsifiable orthodoxy” statement explains it. It really is just reflexive, deeply ingrained, and completely unexamined anti-communism. It’s not a real event to most of them, it’s an article of religious faith that proves the righteousness of their anti-communist beliefs. Trying to tell them “no one died in the square, about 300 people including unarmed pla soldiers died in fighting between the pla and insurgents several blocks away” is like telling someone that the tears leaking from the virgin mary are a rusted out sewer pipe. You’re not revealing the truth, or educating them. You’re attacking their religious convictions that form part of the foundation of how their world works, and they react accordingly by shutting down and denying.

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          All of that type of propaganda carries with it a note that “they did it to their own people!”. There is in implicit understanding (or was, at least, when I was growing up in the US) that it is natural for militaries to kill people from other countries, a group which also conveniently includes minorities. Imo this was probably a deliberately crafted piece of cold war propaganda, since the US never really had to kill white people to suppress unrest.

    • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago
      • We’re not, unless your idea of “Tankie” includes people with pretty severe critiques of both the SU and Current (and pre-Deng) China. There are a lot of MLs and various Mao-associated tendencies, but I’m a Luxemburgist (less keen on strict party control than MLs, more sceptical of National Self-determination), and I’ve seen Council Coms, Bordigists, Gonzalists, Trots of Every Stripe, and anarchists here. Even a few reformists. You’ll have a good time if you understand that we tend to take Communist and Socialist states as acting, however flawed, in good faith, and act similarly to members of all tendencies as long as they’re socialist, internationalist, and LGBTQ+ positive etc, and, though sometimes a good Trot joke is hard to resist.

      • The answer to both options is yes, we are.

      • We very, very occasionally end up with the same positions as the far right sometimes, though from vastly different principles. Most of us support, with caveats, both the Soviet Union and Current China, as well as other states like Cuba, DPRK etc. Additionally we generally take an anti-imperialist stance here. Which means our opinions on Ukraine range from “A plague on both their houses” to “Revolutionary Defeatism” to “Putin deserves the wall even more than Zelensky, but a fast peace is preferable, preserves what remains of some pseudo socialist currents in the Donetsk Republics, and more importantly weakens the USA.” Some are even more sympathetic to Ukraine, but acknowledge that NATO is not their friend, and that Ukraine has a very real fascist problem. We also have opinions on US politics that acknowledge Bernie Sanders as the milquetoast Social Democrat that he is and the Democrats as incapable of substantive reform even if Biden declared the DIctatorship of the Proletariat tomorrow. There is a substantial diversity of views there as well, though.

      • We meme a lot because we have a lot of injokes here, and it’s a quick way of getting across a point that’s been done to death, or quickly dunking on an opinion in a way regulars will immediately understand. Also, we’re a pretty chill and jokey community here even when struggle sessioning.

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you. Apologies, but there are a ton of responses here that answer my questions many times over and I can’t respond to each and every bullet, so I will zero in on the unique ones instead. In this case, I’m curious about this one, specifically for the DPRK.

        Most of us support, with caveats, both the Soviet Union and Current China, as well as other states like Cuba, DPRK etc

        I can see the reasoning for current China and the Soviet Union based on the principles of the ideology, regardless if they practice what they preach; but what are the things the DPRK is doing right in your opinion? What I see from my (apparently limited and one-sided view) is Kim, his cronies, military leadership, and the elite class living comfortable to luxurious lives while the common people are serving in the military or living peasant lives without access to proper nutrition, healthcare, and the convenience of modern technology. To me, these are caveats, which sound eerily similar to capitalism, so what is the good side?

        Follow up question: Does it ever come to a point where the caveats far outweigh what aligns with your views (more bad vs. good)? And does that change your view and support of that specific country?

        Thank you!

        • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m…very critical of the DPRK personally. I think Juche as an ideology, while it has some interesting points, is pretty idealist and departs far too far from Marxist principles. And yes, the Kim personality cult rubs me the wrong way. That said the American Civic Cult gives me the same vibes. As does the Australian Anzac Cult, Britains hard on for Churchill and Nelson and the Royals etc etc

          The DPRK has many flaws; it’s over militarised. Its inner cadre is insular and often slow to adapt. Its relations with China could be a lot better if they’d roll back on the Juche just a bit. There’s a nasty stink of Neo-Confucianism all over some of its political organs (but then, we might say that western communist parties often adopt some of the negative aspects of Christian ideology like millenarianism and purity cults.)

          But it’s not the starving absolute monarchy often depicted in western media (though like Cuba it did have a fairly severe famine in the 1990s, after the SU fell and before it could re-normalise Chinese relations (the DPRK was on the soviet side of the split, if you recall). Kim is mostly a figurehead, he has power as does his family, but less than Stalin or Mao did, and those too were not the dictators people make them out to be, frequently losing votes and having preferred policies blocked by the rest of the party. The Kim family live privileged lives, sometimes spoiled lives, but no more than the US president. They don’t actually own all those palaces, and if they step too far out of line the Party won’t hesitate to take them away and find a third cousin to pick up the torch of Kim il Sung’s legacy.

          As for the inner party, yeah, it sucks and I’d prefer Sankara’s approach of making their upper officials drive second hand 30 year old rust buckets and live in studio apartments. But then you have headlines in the west “North Korea so poor, their ambassador can’t afford a car or proper clothes.” The unfortunate fact is that appearances need to be kept up, and also, upper officials in any nation tend to work 80+ hours a week under high stress conditions where loss of acuity is not an option. I know we laugh at Biden and Sunak, but they (or at least their handlers) are actually terrifyingly smart people who can work crunch for years at a time without flinching. They need the comfortable offices, drivers, and business-class flights to do their jobs effectively.

          Yes, it has a lower standard of living, but like Cuba, it can’t trade with anyone (and no, trade with China isn’t easy when a company that trades with the DPRK cannot, at any point in any operation, use a single Western financial institution, business, or NGO in any transaction (even those with non DPRK companies) without getting hit by the sanction hammer.) People there live ok lives, they eat regularly, they buy consumer goods, they go to their jobs, which sometimes suck. There’s a robust health and welfare network, there’s pretty good education, and while the military take up too much GDP, there is opportunity for economic expansion and it has in fact been catching up. It is fairly easy to get involved with local political committees and the average citizen has more control over local and even national policy than in western nations.

          There’s an old joke. In the USA you can choose your party, but not the policy. In China, you can choose the policy, but not the party. The same goes for the DPRK. By the time an issue reaches a caucus, it’s been passed back and forth through representatives a thousand times, and every sector of society has had its say. The parliament is a rubber stamp because all the arguing happens at a lower level where people have more direct involvement. It’s still not perfect, or even good, but I don’t think it’s worse than a Parliamentary republic, and better than a Presidential one.

          Defectors are unreliable because they’re often paid better the more outlandish their stories are, which is where we get people like Park talking about the one train that Korea has that they have to get out and pull in the winter and if you fall down in the cold they shoot you with an anti aircraft gun and send your family to the mines to pay the cost of the bullet. Many defect because they were smugglers or black marketeers who found themselves on the run, which is how they had the connections to cross the border in the first place. Others are disaffected military personnel, or cadre that lost a political infight and may have pointed critique that is at least worth trying to pick through. Some just watch too many bootleg shows, and those ask for repatriation more often than you might think.

          I’ve actually had the pleasure of knowing a couple of North Koreans as casual aquaintances, and they’re normal, if somewhat insular people, who live normal lives. They laugh, they get annoyed, they have an unfortunate addiction to Chilean Tempranillos of dubious quality…

          Yes, it does come to a point where I won’t defend a nation or group, somewhere not too far beyond where the DPRK is. Unlike others here I don’t offer Russia as it stands critical support, nor do I offer it to any nation that doesn’t at least pay lip service to Socialism. Something like Pol Pot I unequivocally condemn, as masking a murderous agrarian reaction in a red flag. There are (mercifully small) factions in the CPC that could move China in a direction I could not follow.

          PatSocs, Nasbols, etc are also not deserving of critique. In fact my standards for non ruling parties are far higher than for ruling ones. After all, no plan survives contact with reality.

          • TraschcanOfIdeology [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            they have an unfortunate addiction to Chilean Tempranillos of dubious quality

            Of all the things i’ve learned about North Korea and its people from this post, a description of their wine tastes is the weirdest one. I can’t say i’ve tasted a Chilean Tempranillo, but I can’t imagine it being very good.

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          some links where people have written up stuff on the DPRK before:

          it basically comes down to most of the media about the DPRK in the west using outright fabrications as the basis for their thesis that it’s an awful place. like take Yeonmi Park spouting literal gibberish and yet getting taken seriously by western media - yeah mate, no one in the DPRK poops, that’s definitely a real thing and not a shitpost to make this website blush, thank you for printing it. it’s got its problems - how could it not, given the sanctions and the brutal war with the US - but it’s in a similar boat to most of the other AES states like Cuba, China, and Vietnam.

    • forcequit [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re a big-tent leftist instance, that means no sectarianism one way or another. We’ve anarchist, anarchobidenist and anarchostalinist comrades among us, though the site as a whole probably leans more ML. We don’t throw each other under the bus in order to be the ‘good leftists’.

      It’s both serious and shitposty, it’s a safe space for trans people to just exist, we’re staunchly anticapitalist and anti american hegemony. We also like jokes about throwing nazis into pits pit (see pt. 1: tankies, for more)

      Horseshoe theory is some Turning Point/PragerU false equivalence that attempts to paint leftist action and thought as “just as bad (if not worse!)” as those we stand against. There’s plenty of neolib talking points floating about, and once we’ve had our fun/you’ve stopped engaging in good faith, out come the pictures of a pig with shit on its testicles