That, I think, is only virtuous if misinformation and hateful ideologies like fascism are thoroughly stomped out, rather than platformed. Too many people think themselves knowledgeable enough to speak, yet add to a miasma of misinformation. Moreover, some points of view are friendlier to the ruling class, and therefore get materially boosted via the media and other such mechanisms despite a lack of truth. What’s dominant rarely correlates with what is true.

To claim that economies where public ownership and planning is primary are Capitalist is silly. That either requires believing that states like Cuba and the USSR don’t/didn’t have public ownership and planning as the dominant factor of political economy, or a belief that Public Ownership and Planning as primary is Capitalist. The former would be a case of historical inaccuracy, the latter is theoretically ridiculous. I believe you are supplanting your own opinions on Socialism onto Anarchists in general, who tend to prefer Anarchism over Marxism due to differences in analysis of the state, not necessarily what is considered Socialist to begin with.

Saying the difference between pubicly owned and planned economies as primary and privately owned and planned economies as primary is simply a “red coat of paint” is a serious analytical failure, you can acknowledge Marxism as Socialist without thinking it better than Anarchism.

Secondly, you’re entirely pivoting your point regarding Lenin’s Imperialism, I think. Are you acknowledging that you misunderstood what I was talking about, or are you saying Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism isn’t accurate? Moreover, it isn’t just about how more developed Capitalist nations exploit countries in the Global South, it’s an analysis that this is the main obstruction of Socialism of any kind, be it Anarchist or Marxist. Further, it’s an analysis of Imperialism as the dying stages of Capitalism, as it directly results in inter-Imperialist wars and total folding of every nation under the thumb of Imperialism until nations begin to break free, weakening Imperialism overall.

Finally, I think you need to talk to more Anarchists globally, and not just in the West. The Zapatistas in EZLN openly cite Marxism-Leninism as one of the founding influences of Zapatismo. Historically as well, Marxists such as the Soviets provided material aid to Anarchist revolutionaries. To only claim Anarchists hostile to Marxism as legitimate, and denouncing Anarchists willing to work with Marxists against Capitalism and Imperialism, is a bit chauvanistic.

Edit: As for the “two sides campism is ML,” that’s just further proving my point, you refuse to look at the internal logic and call things whatever you outwardly see them as, like you did with calling AES “Capitalist.”

I think it’s pretty clear that one can accept AES as clear improvements for the conditions of the Working Class as compared to Capitalism, while preferring decentralization and approaches like prefiguration over centralization and public ownership/planning. It isn’t a paradox to say “A is bad, B is much better than A, but I ultimately want C.”

Further, Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as a special phase in Capitalist development is 100% compatible with Anarchism, as it purely describes Capitalist development and not how to achieve revolution or what a post-revolitionary society should look like. I specifically mentioned analysis of Imperialism and preference of AES over Capitalism, and not Marxist-Leninist analysis of the State, Class, etc, because those aren’t compatible with Anarchism. What Lenin outlines in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is a fact that can’t be denied. Developed Capitalist countries have seen merging of Banks and Industrialists, resulting in Financial Capital dominating industry, with Monopolies of the few governing the economy and exporting Capital to the Global South in order to super-exploit for super-profits. To deny Imperialism is like denying Colonialism.

We see this alignment of Anarchists globally against Imperialism in societies like the EZLN, which takes much inspiration from Marxism-Leninism with their own characteristics. Those in the Global South are intimately familiar with the mechanisms by which they are exploited and oppressed by the US and Western Europe especially, which is why the Anarchists in the Global South tend to align more with Marxists than Capitalists.

As for Campism, my point is more that you group Anarchists that disagree with you up with Marxists if they recognize the impacts of Western Imperialism and reduce it to Campism. I admit, I could have worded it better, but it’s a bad rhetorical trick to deliberately reduce the logical foundations of a position to purely whatever it happens to look like on the outside.

As someone who admittedly is guilty of “lecturing,” many do enjoy it and have DM’d me or replied thanking me for it. Different people respond better to different approaches, be they the walls of text I am frequently guilty of or shorter questions trying to get them to elaborate on their own understanding.

What is it that you’re trying to learn? Like, are you interested in what Communists think? Anarchists? Why? Is the virtue of these POVs being different a fascination of yours, or are you trying to find the correct stance through comparison?

I spend a good amount of energy trying to explain the merits of Marxism-Leninism and Leftism in general on Lemmy (and IRL, though that’s much trickier). Ultimately, you can’t make someone care. You can’t convince people of something they choose not to want to believe, either, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. Roderic Day wrote a great article titled Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” that perfectly encapsulates this process. People license themselves to believe whatever it is that they believe benefits themselves, regardless of evidence or empathy.

What you can do, however, is explain the merits of that which you believe in, and this is far more effective with people already targeted by the current system. Those closest to the edge, those radicalized by their conditions but not yet organized or versed in theory, are the perfect people to talk to. The effort required to gain an ally in that sense is far less than someone who is convinced that the system is fine, but just needs a little tweaking. Building strength through organization helps legitimize your positions and expands the circle, so to speak, by moving the “line of radicalization” further. Person A, who believes the system is fine but needs tweaks, goes from comfortably mainstream into the new line of radicalization, one step away from working to supplant the system, when those who were radicalized near them organize.

Further still, as conditions deteriorate, more people are impacted and more people are radicalized. This is both good and bad, bad in the sense that more are affected by the evils in society to a greater degree, but with the good being further chance of organization.

Just my 2 cents as someone who has spoken with many different people about Marxism.

The whole thing with the June 4th incident in general is a big mess of the game “telephone.” You say the killing happened off the square and people think you’re denying any killing happened at all because all they hear is “no killing happened on the square.”

This gets even worse when the question becomes “what happened on Tian’anmen Square?” Answering that it seems no killing happened on the square is technically supported by evidence, yet answering in such a way without bringing up the fights between rioters and the PLA on their way to the Square itself, where hundreds of people absolutely died and no one denies, leads to claims of “absolute denial” which isn’t a stance held by anyone.

I use a Kobo with Calibre! I use it for fiction and theory alike.

The biggest difference is that Anarchists on Hexbear almost always agree with Lenin’s analysis of modern Capitalism in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and further recognize AES states as far better than their Capitalist peers. They often have similar takes as MLs but fundamentally disagree with how to structure revolution, and society post-revolution.

I think it’s a bit of an odd take to say that they are isolated from the larger Anarchist movement. Perhaps in the West, I can concede that, but globally? It’s the opposite, those Anarchists that support AES over Capitalism and accept Imperialism as a special stage of Monopoly Capitalism are in the majority. I think that your statement is, ironically, a campist one that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of their takes while supporting your own.

For what it’s worth, you already know I’m an ML, I can let Anarchists speak for themselves, my being a former Anarchist isn’t the same as a current Anarchist giving their POV.

Not at all correct. China doesn’t use debt traps, nor does it focus on exporting Capital in order to produce outside its country lines at lower wages. Rather, it’s the opposite, China frequently forgives loans (usually made through State entities and not private corporations and banks) and focuses on commodity exports. To say that China does the “same Imperialism” is factually wrong. There’s much that can be correctly criticized about the PRC, but to put it on equal footing with the West with respect to whether it is ultimately playing a predatory or beneficial role is divorced from reality.

I think drawing a line between a vague notion of “freedom” and what existed in AES without doing any of the work to back that up makes little sense. Further, I think trying to say Western Germany, which was highly developed and already one of the most Imperialist countries on the planet at the turn of the 20th century was stronger economically than the USSR, which started the 20th century as a mostly undeveloped agrarian society just beginning Capitalism, is ridiculous.

That’s like comparing someone who worked daily for what they accomplished for themselves with the Trust Fund kid who got a job at his father’s investment firm.

Moreover, the USSR had constant and stable economic growth for its entire existence, and one of the highest rates of growth on the planet, while doing 80% of the combat in WWII and providing free education, healthcare, retirement, doubling life expectancies, and more.

I don’t think it makes any real sense to say that it’s about returning to restore a Russian Empire’s borders. From what we know, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between NATO and Russia, and this continued even after Socialism fell, because Russia eventually kicked out the Western Capitalists that bought up and privatized the former state industry. This was accelerated when Ukraine suffered from the Euromaidan coup, and the Russian-speaking areas of Donetsk and Luhansk broke away.

You were almost correct when you said it was to increase their sphere of influence, the goal of Russia is to either assure Ukraine’s neutrality or demilitarize it completely, as NATO has been intentionally encircling Russia and threatening them into opening up and letting the Western Capitalists back in.

Okay, so how are you doing that without a vanguard forming? Intentional or not, there will be differences in political knowledge and organizational skill. Do you formalize it? Let it form?

It’s not at all the same thing, and I suggest you read the linked texts. Building infrastructure and trading deals is not the same as Imperialism, where brutal loans entrap countries and industrial capital is exported to produce with lower wages for super profits domestically. I already explained that China is heavily industrialized and seeks to sell what it produces.

They claim to be Marxist-Leninists, explain their actions, and have an economy driven by Marxist-Leninist analysis. They have Markets, yes, but markets aren’t the same thing as Capitalism itself. Rather, they have a Socialist Market Economy, which is driven by public ownership and planning of heavy industry, energy, finance, infrastructure in general, etc and have partial private ownership over light industry.

By what reasons do you say they aren’t what they say they are? What do you think their economy would look like if they were “true Marxist-Leninists” in your eyes? When does an economy become “Capitalist” and when does it become “Socialist” in your eyes?

Drip Lenin, Drip Lenin

You’re describing Imperialism as outlined by Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and its contemporary form by Hudson in Super Imperialism, but these are overwhelmingly done by Western countries, especially the United States. Do you have specific evidence of this being a primary factor for China specifically? Again, the US relies on this as its Capital is overwhelmingly financial, whereas China’s is Industrial.

What’s your proposed solution? You can’t force everyone’s political knowledge to being fully equal, so there will be a vanguard whether you formalize and democratize it or let it form naturally and behind closed doors. Further, you can’t get rid of both class and hierarchy without returning to tribal forms of hunter-gatherer societies, large industry requires administration. A horizontal network of communes retains classes by turning everyone into petite bourgeoisie, so you either want to abolish hierarchy, class, or industry.

You’re describing different phenomena under the same title, which only adds confusion and not clarity. You should read Lenin, Imperialism isn’t that long and it describes the modern form of Capitalism very accurately. Moreover, I don’t really think that’s an accurate outlook on the Russo-Ukranian war as a motive.

Usually blahaj has liberals and US Empire-friendly Anarchists. There aren’t really any Marxists I’ve seen in any significant numbers, and 196 maintains anti-Marxist rules.