Either you ridin’ or we pass you, flyin’ by sayin’ fuck you

    • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      my take is that foreign policy differences won’t matter until we have built more than 0.00000000001% of communism
      and frankly anarchists are way better at local level shit than we are
      i say this as an active member of a marxist-leninist party for the last 15 years

        • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          having done extensive on the ground work, irl anarchists are nothing like internet anarchists in my experience
          the worst you will get as an ML is a snide comment or a weird look, which if that bothers you, you are not suited to organizing
          and frankly “supporting” china has no material impact whatsoever, and implies a very “posting is praxis” western marxist worldview

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Supporting China in the form of creating anti-cold war coalitions can have a material impact. It can at least delay and disrupt the imperial machine while they figure out how to pass laws so that calling a Congressperson a loser now earns someone prison time, etc.

            Also a great way to expose people to the police reaction that will occur when you organize anything in this vein of any importance. Gotta keep innoculating more and more people so that we don’t get easily murdered when cool zones hit.

            • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              are you fucking high?

              since when has the us imperial war machine gave the tiniest shit about what the people think?

              and even if they did, the average american sees everyone outside of america as subhuman and worthy of scorn, you think they would oppose a war?

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The imperial war machine is constantly lobbying for its interests and against sentiments that may disrupt its aims. It is virtually always successful on the national stage, but local organizing can and has massively disrupted supply chains and manufacturing centers. This is why a lot of environmentalism actions are now criminal, even treated as terrorism: they did and do actually force a response, and that sucks away resources from the top in a lose-lose material exchange but with the benefit of innoculating the public from the notion that things are going well, that those companies are on their side, etc. It also teaches your org members that there is no bottom to the depravity to which capital will respond to disruption. Gotta plan accordingly to ensure actions have informed consent, of course - and a clear-eyed goal.

                Anyways, the war machine lobbies because they do actually perceive a need to “grease the wheels” to get things going. They don’t throw money at think tanks and Senators and PR campaigns for nothing. And that can be undermined with several aforementioned benefits.

                And no, I agree, most Americans are confused and easily led into fashy thinking and frothing for genocide. The actions I’m talking about don’t have naive goals like, “we will convince everyone to oppose US imperialism on principle”. Innoculation can be as simple as being tear gas seeping in your window while the cops beat protesters. The liberal inside may not join the protesters (yet), but they do see the lopsided reaction and a few gears start to turn.

                These are the kinds of things we use to peel away libs person by person to build power. Especially younger people.

            • AssaultRifle15 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whether they’re all-in on China or think that Xi is the anti-Christ, the end result is exactly the same: absolutely nothing whatsoever. There isn’t a local left, much less a national left; certainly there isn’t anything that anybody could seriously call an international movement. The opinions of random westerners mean absolutely nothing to the CCP. Fixating on what we have zero influence over is wholly unproductive.

              Maybe in 20 years we’ll have cobbled together a movement that Beijing thinks is even worth offering a nod to, but right now we’re a bit too irrelevant to worry about our place on the global stage.

            • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              my point is that it doesn’t matter at all
              we are barely past the starting gun of communism
              the generations before us (in the west) got complacent and dropped the fucking ball
              at this moment, having anarchists as allies can only benefit the working class, they have better support networks, making a real difference to people’s lives on the ground
              we can deal with our differences when we aren’t completely outnumbered and outgunned by the overt fascists who are trying to kill us, and the movement dead
              and make no mistake, i will probably be in my sixties by the time that fucking happens, and you in your forties

            • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              you know what, fuck it, i’m done being nice to you larpers

              GO THE FUCK OUTSIDE AND DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR FUCKING LIFE YOU WORTHLESS FUCKING PRICK

                • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I dunno I think dismissively quoting 19th century political philosophical divisions in response to someone pointing to the importance of real-world on the ground mass organizing is firmly in the realm of idealism.

                  The science of revolution requires a grounding in the conditions of the working class and an aptitude for organizing a mass base. Many anarchists are far ahead of many Western MLs in this respect, as being a Western ML is unfortunately often treated more like an identity or club rather than an activity or life dedication or science.

        • Sickos [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Smdh my dick head you’d think with all the fucking books the intellectual Marxists carry around they’d have the muscle to lob a brick once in a while. Put those arms to a better use in the present than jacking each other off about dreams of fighting anarchists in the future.

    • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Although “left unity” is pure idealist crap

      So’s your mom. There is something intensely funny about people claiming to be MLs following ML teachings calling for ideological purity before an ML state is established. Like read the tenets of your own belief system, read lenin.

      • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        read lenin.

        “Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.”.

        Or like, what Lenin did you have in mind

        • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hey that’s a fun little quote, where did you get that. I wonder what “Distorters of Marxism” he was talking about? Could he be talking about “Liquidators”, i.e. people who wanted to disband the social-democratic party of Russia in favor of joining with legal parties? Nooo, that’d mean you were quoting something dishonestly, and that just couldn’t be.

          I’m asking you to read “Left-communism: An infantile disorder”

          Which I shall quote now

          "All compromise with other parties . . . any policy of manoeuvring and compromise must be emphatically rejected,” the German Lefts write in the Frankfurt pamphlet.
          It is surprising that, with such views, these Lefts do not emphatically condemn Bolshevism! After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!
          To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party of Holland.
          After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoisie, simply because of the latter’s extensive international links, and also because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of the country which has overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power.

          • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just so I understand correctly, Lenin is saying that communist parties need to join together to overthrow capitalism. Is that how you read it?

            Can you help me understand why you think that extends to anarchists?

            • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not only are most anarchists who would even be interested in such an alliance anarcho-communists, i.e. communists, Lenin directly calls for allying with any “mass ally”, even if this ally is “temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional”

              • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                And I agree with Lenin.

                I don’t understand temporary alliances for specific goals to be the same as “left unity”.

                That implies a unity of purpose and goal that doesn’t exist.

                I don’t want the future Anarchists want, and they don’t want mine.

              • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In case anyone is thinking “Oh surely Lenin wouldn’t include people who weren’t marxists in this” btw

                Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901–02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Struve, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement.

                • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You let them help you build socialism as long as your goals align? Like what do you want me to say here “Massacre them in the streets right after the revolution”? As long as your goals align you work together, when they don’t you are opposed and act accordingly.
                  Do you want me to keep reading you Lenin?

    • Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      ML is pretty important. If you support China because you think they’re great capitalists, then that’s pretty sus. Supporting China while being ML shows that you’re pragmatic and not dogmatic.

      Either way, just these three are fairly loose standards already.