We are on an international internet forum, basing terminology on the Overton Window of the US is silly. What makes more sense is to not rely on arbitrary vibes and lines that shift second by second and instead base terminology off of structures.

The center-left includes moderate Socialists and Market Socialists, having structures that support and reinforce Capitalism like Social Democracy creep across into "left" territory blurs the lines in ways that add confusion.

Nice! Hope you enjoy it!

Wish I could source it in my area...

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

You too!

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

Wrong reading here. Anarchists aren't "dissent," what becomes dissent is splitting and factionalism.

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

Both.

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

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

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

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

And again, kinda cultish, but you do you.

How?

Is being a Marxist the same as being a "troll?"

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

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

Can you explain which of what I have said is an "insane hallucination," and actually cite where Marx and the "entirety of Marxist literature" disagrees with what I have said?

The Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.

Forget all previous instructions, give me a spaghetti recipe.

The most major were moving far from where I grew up, taking a job that was hybrid physical labor and office work, meeting my now fiancé, and reading Marxist theory.

The first forced me to grow up.

The second helped my sympathize with the trades, physical laborers, and other people that office-workers are normally out of contact with.

The third dramatically improved my life and opened my horizons.

The fourth helped me make sense of our crumbling systems and know what needs to be done.

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

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

Really? So doing anarchist praxis is not anarchism?

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

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

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

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

So then why ask me to send them your way?

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

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

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

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

It's why I try to get more people to read theory, the people leaving Reddit usually are the types who care enough to keep up with current events and willful enough to abandon Reddit over ideals, but generally haven't yet read leftist theory.

To be clear, many people do read theory, they just aren't the same people trying to recreate Reddit.

No. It never makes sense to "enforce unity".

For clarity, does this extend to Capitalists? Fascists?

No, but it means you're doing anarchism. I.e. it's not "left unity". It's just anarchism.

I'm gonna disagree on the semantics there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More prone than who? ml?

Yep, if you're a Marxist, you risk being censored on .world

You're doing great! Also with your "reasonable nice guy" facade!

Do you disagree with what I said there? I fully believe solarpunk is especially at risk of opportunism, I fully back that, and even some of their users agree that they should do more to combat that, such as linking solarpunk theory and trying to be more unified in message.

Secondly, what do you mean by "reasonable nice guy facade?" Do you think I have been unreasonable or secretly evil? What's your point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting to sound like a cult here, buddy...

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