cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/45204357
Yesterday, I created my account on Lemmy.ml because I want to become mod on [email protected]. And I posted this comic on [email protected] It's SDV game cutscene where Shane a NPC go watch Sports game with you kiss you accidentily but It was part of that event also player kiss Shane(NPC) back. Here's video for more context. And someone claimed it have SA(Sexual Assualt) From Hexbear Ofcourse. So, I should delete it. I said it was a part of game cutscene. And If main player doesn't love the Shane(NPC) then they don't need to complete this event. And Just as a sarcasm I added Yeah we shoule delete this entire community because this game is Woke like Woke Detector Steam Group said. That user think I am some anti-woke dickhead something like that IDK. And tell me to Kill My Self. What I do now? I wanted on become mod on .ml because community was already well established. I message dessaline but I am sure he will not unbanned me. :(
Did I really did something wrong? I don't know If I really did something wrong.
Link for that comic if embed doesn't work.
Create one lemm.ee [email protected]
Would it make me understand why hexbears are dogpiling anarchists who reject "left-unity"?
For some definitions of "work", maybe. From my perspective it "works" the same way "unity" works in /r/politicalcompassmemes.
I believe it would help, yes. Hexbear's Anarchists are generally supportive of AES because they agree with Lenin's analysis of Imperialism, though I don't claim to speak for all of them. Like I said, you don't have to agree with Lenin here, I just think your personal understanding of Hexbear and Marxism-Leninism in general, and thus your ability to "deal" or interact with them, would be much better if you read that specific work.
That being said, obviously I don't expect you to read an entire book just to understand political viewpoints you disagree with, I just wanted to point it out to you in case it hadn't been already.
As someone who, back in my ultraleft liberal days (before I actually started reading theory and taking it seriously), participated in r/politicalcompassmemes, it's entirely different IMO. I think a good exercise if you want to see what Hexbear actually functions like is to scroll the News Megathread and see some of the conversations had there.
Again, though, you don't have to do any of this. I just think that if you for some reason decided to make "understanding Hexbear's Anarchists" a goal, then this is the quickest way to do so.
If you do decide to read Imperialism, you can DM me if you have any questions.
The question is, can an anarchist which doesn't accept any AES remain a member of hexbear for long, or do they get eventually punted for "sectarianism"? In fact, just how many anarchists who don't accept AES states do you actually have in good standing? How many who don't believe in left-unity?
You can be critical of AES when not on a Hexbear account. "Left-Unity" doesn't mean "all leftist ideas are valid," rather, it's about coalition building. Again, understanding Lenin's analysis of Imperialism is helpful, as both the Marxists and Anarchists on Hexbear see what Lenin outlines as "Imperialism" as the greatest enemy of all Leftist movements.
Unsure, I'm not a mod nor an admin. I think it's self-evident when identifying as an Anarchist that AES isn't your ideal, Hexbear's Anarchists usually just see it as a dramatic improvement on Capitalism.
Not many, I imagine, otherwise they would be on a different instance most likely.
Hm, from what I'm hearing the "left unity" of anarchists and marxists-leninists only works if said anarchists actually accept the marxist-leninist theory instead of, you know, anarchist one.
Isn't that supposed to be true for MLs as well?
I am honestly struggling to understand how does one distinguish between hexbear anarchists and hexbear MLs when they both accept Leninist theory. We all know (most) anarchists and MLs want the same theoretical end-goal of communism, but differ in praxis. Do hexbear anarchists actually agree with hexbear MLs on praxis?
Isn't that kinda circular? Hexbear proves left unity works because it has anarchists who already believe in left unity.
Lenin's analysis of Imperialism is in no way incompatible with Anarchist theory. I'm not telling you that Anarchists are supporting forming vanguard parties, or gradually transitioning to a world Socialist republic through revolution, I am specifically citing Lenin's analysis of Imperialism, which I see as the uniting factor on Hexbear.
Anarchism isn't my ideal, no. That doesn't mean Anarchists do bad work or that they aren't good comrades, especially if we are aligned on Imperialism.
Lenin's analysis of Imperialism is hugely significant but not the entirety of Marxism-Leninism. Additionally, Anarchists and Marxists don't have the same idea of Communism. The Anarchist theory of what is considered stateless is a hierarchy-less network similar to a spiderweb, while Marxists have no issue at all with hierarchy, but with classes. Anarchists have similar goals and are anticapitalist, but Marxists and Anarchists do not want the same thing. Marxism vs Anarchism is a good article from the perspective of a Marxist debunking someone's claims that Marx was "basically an Anarchist," which again I don't expect you to agree with, but should better understand the position Marxists actually take, which is important given your present familiarity with Anarchism.
Note: I am not trying to "convince you." I am trying to highlight differences and explain where Anarchists on Hexbear are coming from.
Yes? I never said it wasn't. Grad has Marxists that don't agree with Left-Unity and dunks on Anarchist takes regularly, Hexbear is unique in that it unites both.
How though? Just internet words? That means practically less than nothing. In practice you would be at opposing ends if as you say, your ideal society would include a hierarchical state as the anarchist define it, which is basically anathema.
I don't see how it does. All I see is people writing and interacting in a very peculiar way. Anarchists I've interacted from hexbear say practically the same things as hexbear MLs.
Even if these two factions somehow managed to put the irreconcilable differences of praxis aside in order to discuss some issues like trans-rights, or genocide and whatnot, it doesn't seem much of a "unity" at all to me as that requires common action. From what I'm seeing, it's more of a common culture than any sort of actual left unity. And common cultute is nothing new either. There's common culture between channers in /r/pol and /leftypol. Common culture with libleft and authright in /r/politicalcompassmemes. Doesn't make them united in any reasonable sense.
Most people are flexible, and if in the event there was mass success along Marxist lines or Anarchist lines, would join the successful movement.
And I am telling you that you can understand this "peculiarity" by reading Imperialism.
This is the most correct thing you've said. Hexbear isn't an org, it was described by one user as "not the Communist meeting room, but the bar they hang out at after the meeting." There are members of various orgs like PSL, FRSO, Food Not Bombs, etc. on Hexbear alike.
A movement is only successful through unity of praxis. How would one succeed when MLs and Anarchists are pulling into two different directions?
(I'm going to put aside for now the many things I have to say about historical lessons anarchists have learned and why to avoid this)
I doubt Lenin had much to say about the peculiar way leftist nerds spam emojis in an online forum :D
That doesn't describe unity. It describes people who are OK with suppressing themselves in order to hang out in a common space to talk about other matters. I hung out in plenty of ML parties in my days. I was still never united with them.
I literally just stated that if either movement started to truly pick up steam, most would join the one picking up steam.
You should talk to the Anarchists on Hexbear about what they think of with respect to this topic, obviously I am biased but it's worth noting that what I said previously, most would join the successful movement, has historical basis.
I thought we were speaking about geopolitical positions, not just site culture. Lemmygradders don't speak the same as Hexbear either, Hexbear has a unique site culture, that's true
Again, I suggest asking Hexbear users directly.
First of all, that's ahistorical. Bolsheviks infamously denied a revolution was happening and tried to wait for better material conditions, while a revolution was happening. This kind of things happens all the time.
Anyway, you just rephrased yourself. How would a movement "pick up steam" with two factions pulling in different directions? Or do you claim that MLs would join a purely anarchist movement? If so, that's not an example of left unity. It's an argument for entryism or something. And we already know what happened when anarchists joined ML movements picking up steam...
No I'm talking about the site culture. I think that's the primary reason people put aside their core differences to hang out, either that, or LARPing as the other faction to give credence to "left unity" 🤷
If any non-toxic anarchists venture out of Hexbear, sure I can ask them. [email protected] is right there but I never see any hexbear anarchists commenting (except for the times they brigaded)
It is historical. Many Anarchists joined the Bolsheviks to support the mass movement, and the Bolsheviks also supported the Anarchists in Spain for a time. Disagreements are allowed to happen as well, my point is that the division isn't black and white.
You call it "entryism," I call it left-unity. Even then, coalitions have their place as well. Secondly, many Anarchists joined the ML movements, the ones who did not were the ones too opposed to work with them. That doesn't mean the Marxists were innocent, of course, just that it isn't black and white. Many Anarchists joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks.
The former is more of a point than the latter, there are clearly Anarchists on Hexbear and Anarchist theory is often talked about and encouraged.
Hexbear's Anarchists aren't likely to participate in an Anarchist community that fundamentally disagrees on analysis of AES.
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".
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.
Again, it's all about the praxis. How one larps on a web forum is irrelevant.
Sure, if all you're doing is playing reformism...
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 🤷
Starting to sound like a cult here, buddy...
At what point does dissent become counter-revolutionary? Never? Or is there a point where it makes sense to enforce unity?
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.
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.
That's your opinion, of course, and Hexbear's Anarchists clearly disagree. I suggest talking to them about it.
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.
No. It never makes sense to "enforce unity". Dissent doesn't become counter-revolutionary unless there's counter-revolutionary praxis involved. Since you're all about "left unity", you should be perfectly happy to let anarchists practice anarchist prefiguration inside a ML society, no?
No, but it means you're doing anarchism. I.e. it's not "left unity". It's just anarchism.
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!
Sure, tell them to come over to /c/anarchism!
dbzer0 is not hexbear. We don't ban people who are misguided about "AES", like hexbear would. Not do we dogpile them for wrongthink. As such, there's not problem in coming over to talk to us.
However I would be raising quite an eyebrow to any anarchist who avoids talking to other anarchists who don't accept state capitalism is a form of socialism.
For clarity, does this extend to Capitalists? Fascists?
I'm gonna disagree on the semantics there.
On the contrary, it supports leftists to do what they believe is most effective and learn from other tendencies.
Why don't you make a thread inviting them? I'm not wanting to get accused of "brigading" like Hexbear always is.
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.
Hah I knew it. No, dissent is not the same as platforming.
Really? So doing anarchist praxis is not anarchism?
Supports how? With thoughts and prayers? That's not unity. That's just vibes.
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".
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.
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.
So then where is the line between reasonable dissent and platforming?
It's semantics. If a Marxist uses Marxist analysis to side with Anarchists, they are still acting as a Marxist.
As I already stated, many members of Hexbear are also members of PSL, FRSO, Food Not Bombs, or local leftist parties and groups.
So then why ask me to send them your way?
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.
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.
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.
Again, praxis. What praxis are they doing! Anarchist or ML? Your Marxist analysis is irrelevant.
So? How is some Hexbear not taking part in FNB showing "left unity" to those who do?
Again, all you're showing here is that hexbear left unity is just vibes. "We all hang out in the same place and we all do different things, so we're united (somehow)"
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.
And again, kinda cultish, but you do you.
Wrong reading here. Anarchists aren't "dissent," what becomes dissent is splitting and factionalism.
Both.
I think you're just trying to argue semantics here. Hexbear is made up of different leftists all pursuing similar goals through different strains.
I'll refrain, I am uninterested in being accused of brigading.
How?
So, Anarchists are allowed to exist in ML societies so long as they become or pretend to be MLs. Gotcha.
So you join a anarchist movement which has momentum, and along with direct action, you try to set up vanguard parties and shit?
If so, that's just entryism.
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.
An anarchist doing anarchist stuff is not in "left unity" with an ML doing ML stuff because they hang out in the same bar.
An ML not doing anarchist stuff is not in "left unity" with an anarchist doing anarchist stuff.
An anarchist and an ML hanging out with each other is a just vibes.
An anarchist and an ML hanging out in a web forum with a peculiar style, is an online culture.
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!
Because cultists prefer to not venture out of their communities, and discourage interacting with people who don't already share the same worldview.
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.
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.
I disagree.
Hexbear Anarchists would disagree, though I won't speak for them.
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.
How is it a bad faith reading when you reiterate it immediately after? Who decides what is "the point of directing the revolution against itself". Anarchists will surely tell you they are doing the exact opposite.
I don't give two wooden nickels about the "Marxist analysis driving decision making". I want you to tell me what ML praxis you're doing when you declared "Both" earlier!
If they disagree with core anarchist theory then one has to start adding scare quotes to "Anarchist"
You realize one of our most popular communities is run my a Marxist and promotes left unity, yes? Please don't project.
Eh, I just saw this at the end of my reply. No need to reply if you don't want to.