515
hexbear.net is on sale for auction (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca
493 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Auction: https://www.sav.com/auctions/details/7073489/hexbear.net

Not sure what will happen, but seems to be a Fediverselore event for sure

Update: post from hexbear admin on chapo.chat: https://chapo.chat/post/4468531

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Politics doesn't really have dimensions to begin with, things like the Political Compass are just abstractions of ideas and positions that attempts (unsuccessfully, IMO) to provide shortcuts to understanding the broader image of a viewpoint.

As an example, Marxism-Leninism and AES states espouse and implement more democratic structures, but harshly oppressed opposition from liberals, monarchists, and fascists. This is certainly "authoritarian," but I don't think that's a bad use of authority. Rather, all systems and positions are "authoritarian" in different directions and towards different groups. You get where this is getting muddy and rather than clarifying, it's actually adding more confusion?

As a side-note, if you think Communists are "just as detestable" as Nazis, I think you need to look more critically at these movements historically. Blackshirts and Reds is a great comparison of fascism and communism historically, proving them to be completely uncomparable in terms of sheer brutality and who they served, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while taking a critical look at the USSR and why it dissolved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Politics doesn't really have dimensions to begin with, things like the Political Compass are just abstractions of ideas and positions

    Which is why I'm saying it's nonsense to claim that say a social democrat should not criticise a Marxist-Leninist because it's "punching left".

    As an example, Marxism-Leninism and AES states espouse and implement more democratic structures, but harshly oppressed opposition from liberals, monarchists, and fascists. This is certainly "authoritarian," but I don't think that's a bad use of authority. Rather, all systems and positions are "authoritarian" in different directions and towards different groups.

    This makes little sense. Apart from extremists most groups and systems do tolerate different opinions and viewpoints, and would even allow change if a majority agrees with it. Authoritarian governments explicitly do not allow this.

    There's a case to be made for suppressing views that are directly harmful to human life. Authoritarian governments suppress viewpoints that may harm or reduce their own power. And much like capital, power has a tendency to accumulate in one place, which is exactly why democratic systems that allow other viewpoints are so important: it decentralizes power. This also deradicalizes extreme elements in government.

    Take the Netherlands. There's been much said about the PVV, the anti-Islam and anti-migration party, coming into power. But because their power is so diluted and shared with other parties with different viewpoints, they're having to work with three much more moderate parties. As a result:

    • They settled for a PM who was formerly associated with the labour party, a longtime fairly apolitical bureaucrat.
    • They had to let go of their anti-Islam views.
    • And the big anti-migration bill? The current proposal makes it so they can better differentiate between refugees from wartorn countries and those who are in immediate danger, between migrants who are coming from relatively safe countries who were not in immediate danger and between those who are actively prosecuted based on their identity and who cannot reasonably be expected to return safely. Not exactly massively radical stuff.

    They're still twats, but they haven't made any extreme or radical changes, and they won't be able to do so either. They had to moderate, and they did (to a point, of course).

    As a side-note, if you think Communists are "just as detestable" as Nazis, I think you need to look more critically at these movements historically.

    History isn't exactly kind on either movement. The theory is always different from practice unfortunately. I'm not interested in counting skulls, I decide for myself what the boundary is for me to consider acceptable. I don't care how far beyond that boundary a movement is. I won't vote for it nor will I cease criticizing it so long as I have alternatives (and thankfully I have plenty). Both Marxism-Leninism as well as Nazism are beyond that boundary for me. Sure, there's more elements I agree with in ML, but I can find those in other ideologies too. It's the elements that I heavily disagree with that make me dislike it. I can acknowledge Nazism is worse, but that doesn't draw me towards ML in any way.

    I suppose you could draw a parallel to people who won't support the democrats over their stance on Gaza having caused a genocide. Sure, republicans are certainly worse, but that won't make me a cheerleader for Harris. But given that the US has no alternative, I would (begrudgingly) still vote D. Thankfully I live in a country with strong democratic principles, which does provide me with alternatives, so I don't have to compromise on my principles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Punching left" just means antagonizing Socialists. It isn't about arbitrary spatial coordinates, but is a commonly understood shorthand.

    Secondly, systems do not allow themselves to be changed. Feudalism wasn't voted away, nor is Capitalism. There's frequently controlled opposition giving the illusion of choice, when no such choice exists in reality. This is a fact that has been understood for centuries.

    I don't think the case that viewpoints like fascism should be allowed makes any sense, and taking the USSR's example, liberalization killed 7 million people that would not have died otherwise. Rather, if we take Marx's analysis, centralization of industry and production is inevitable as it advances, ergo it should be democratized as it centralizes. Decentralization doesn't mean democratization, such analysis would mean Capitalism is more democratic. In reality, centralization and decentralization have nothing to do with how democratic a system is, just how it can be democratized.

    As for Marxism-Leninism, you can oppose it without drawing equivalence to the Nazis. Doing as such originated as a form of Nazi apologia and Holocaust minimization, also known as Double Genocide Theory. You likely aren't intentionally doing that, but the fact remains that this is the origin of such equivalences. Moreover, the bodycount of Western European countries and the US is far higher to begin with, History has been more kind to AES than it has to Capitalism.

    I encourage you to read the book I linked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Punching left" just means antagonizing Socialists.

    "Socialist" is an incredibly broad label. To argue that critique on auth-left groups is an attack on socialists is just not meaningful in any way, as it specifically refers to a niche within socialism.

    Secondly, systems do not allow themselves to be changed. Feudalism wasn't voted away, nor is Capitalism.

    Except that historically speaking they have changed in certain situations. They are rare of course, but it's certainly not unheard of. The Second Hellenic Republic for example was established via democratic referendum, after which the monarch was peacefully deposed. The idea that all opposition is somehow controlled is fairly ridiculous given an honest reading of many historical events.

    There is of course a certain set of safeguards built into almost any system that resists changes. A constitution is a good example. But that too can in most systems be changed. Resistance to change doesn't mean resistance becomes impossible. Authoritarian governments tend to establish blocks that prevent change, sure. But most democracies would be able to for example remove capitalism if a sufficient majority votes to do so.

    There is a level of conflating of ideology and political system that you seem to display, which I suspect is somewhatideologically motivated in your case. Then again, those distinctions are hardly ever really truly clear. One could argue that capitalism is a strictly economic ideology, not a political one. But any system that adopts it also sees effects in the political sphere.

    I don't think the case that viewpoints like fascism should be allowed makes any sense

    Never argued fascism should be allowed. It's an ideology that is a clear and present danger to society and human life, so it should in my opinion be banned.

    Decentralization doesn't mean democratization, such analysis would mean Capitalism is more democratic.

    Capitalism by definition centralizes capital as much as possible. This accumulation of wealth leads to an accumulation of power, which has anti-democratic effects (see: the US). Decentralization does not necessarily mean democratization, but centralization does almost always lead to more authoritarianism.

    It's the big stumbling block of communism as well. It attempts to decentralize wealth by spreading it over the population, with the workers owning the means of production. But doing so requires incredible power (to seize and redistribute), which typically ends up with a small group or even a single person. And they rarely relinquish that power (see: the totalitarian leadership of the USSR), which also leads to authoritarianism.

    As for Marxism-Leninism, you can oppose it without drawing equivalence to the Nazis.

    I was very explicit in that I don't consider them equal. You can compare things without equivocating them. To consider a comparison an equivocation is what people do to silence critique, a tactic which I don't appreciate. All I'm saying is that both are beyond the boundary of what I in good consciousness can support. I don't care about counting skulls, I care about the risk that the pile grows. That risk is far greater with Nazism (obligatory: fuck Nazis), but unfortunately also not insignificant enough with Marxism-Leninism either.

    Thankfully those aren't the only two options available.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It is meaningful for punching left to refer to antagonizing Socialists. Marxist-Leninists are by far the most common type of Leftist globally, so pretending that they are just a small niche is very western-centric.

    As for fascism, you argued that the Soviets should have allowed more opposition. In the USSR, that opposition consisted of Tsarists, fascists, and liberals, all of which ultimately were responsible for killing millions of citizens of the USSR.

    As for centralization, you agree with Marx about it centralizing. However, rather than move forward in time, you try to turn the clock backwards. If centralization is a given, then it should be democratized across the whole of society so that we may continue to increase efficiency in production and work fewer and fewer hours to cover more and more needs and wants.

    As for how the USSR was run, this is just generally false. The Soviet method of democracy was in place, and the economy was run and planned by many, many, many people. As a consequence, wealth disparity between the richest and the poorest was around 10 times, as opposed to hundreds to thousands in the Tsarist era or the modern Capitalist era. Some "ruling elite" they turned out to be, looks like they sucked at it. For further reading: Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union.

    In your original comment, you expressed equal distaste for Communists and Nazis. Communists have historically had far fewer skulls under their name than liberal regimes or fascist regimes.

    Either way, though, what's your alternative that causes you to break from Marxism? Where is the evidence of its success, and your plan to get there? Genuinely, I am asking honestly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Marxist-Leninists are by far the most common type of Leftist globally, so pretending that they are just a small niche is very western-centric.

    Considering this is a western-oriented service, and I live in the west and largely interact with other people in the west, it seems to me that it makes sense to mostly consider the political makeup of the west. I don't see the point of collaborating with people on the other side of the planet when it comes to local politics.

    Regardless, do you have any sort of citation regarding the prevalence of certain political ideologies? I can barely find national sources that divvy up ideologies enough, let alone worldwide. And then I mean an actual survey regarding ideology, not membership of a party or voting records. Plenty of leftwingers are members of the democrat party for example, but I wouldn't consider them to be neoliberal or something. Genuinely curious about this.

    As for fascism, you argued that the Soviets should have allowed more opposition. In the USSR, that opposition consisted of Tsarists, fascists, and liberals, all of which ultimately were responsible for killing millions of citizens of the USSR.

    I didn't argue anything about what the Soviets should or shouldn't have done. The USSR banned far more opposition than just those groups. And it's not like the Soviets themselves haven't caused millions of deaths themselves.

    As for how the USSR was run, this is just generally false. The Soviet method of democracy was in place, and the economy was run and planned by many, many, many people.

    The direction of planning was centralised into the hands of very, very few people, even if the details were worked out by more people. But I don't think anyone can argue that Stalin wasn't a dictator, or that Kruschev eliminated anyone who could oppose his rise to power, etc...

    As for centralization, you agree with Marx about it centralizing. However, rather than move forward in time, you try to turn the clock backwards. If centralization is a given, then it should be democratized across the whole of society so that we may continue to increase efficiency in production and work fewer and fewer hours to cover more and more needs and wants.

    I don't try to turn the clock backwards. I want to avoid the consolidation of power and wealth in the first place, which is what historically has always led to mismanagement, corruption, suppression and in worst cases wars and genocides. Rather trying to redirect that accumulation of power to a small group that has to somehow democratize it, said power should immediately be spread out over many groups or individuals. Easiest example would be wealth accumulation: strong progressive taxation with a rate of up to 100% at the maximum acceptable level of wealth. That money should immediately be distributed to the rest of the population, without intervention from a government who could redirect it for other purposes. I don't advocate for the abolition of capital or property, because I don't expect humans to be selfless enough to do so. But at some point when someone has 'enough', then that should be that and they shouldn't be able to obtain more.

    In your original comment, you expressed equal distaste for Communists and Nazis. Communists have historically had far fewer skulls under their name than liberal regimes or fascist regimes.

    I don't care. As I said I don't care about counting skulls, I care that the pile is considerably large. I don't care about which method was used to count the exact total, whether that's per capita, per year, per war or whatever, as proponents of both capitalism and communism keep doing to lower their own totals. I don't start liking communists because the Nazis/capitalists/feudalists/whatever were worse. They too have blood on their hands and that makes me dislike them, it doesn't get more complicated than that, and no amount of apologizing for these deaths will suddenly make me think otherwise.

    Either way, though, what's your alternative that causes you to break from Marxism? Where is the evidence of its success, and your plan to get there? Genuinely, I am asking honestly.

    Best place to live in the world right now is likely the Nordics. Ultimately capitalist, sure, but with strong social mechanisms so that nobody ends up falling behind. Social democrats have a fairly good track record of not ending up involved in genocides and life seems to on average improve the most with social democratic policies. I live in the Netherlands, which is a bit too much on the right wing-liberal side of things but I do very much appreciate the electoral system, with proportional representation. It creates a lot of parties, sure, but that spreads out power and that prevents radicals from suddenly seizing power (as demonstrated by the current government that consists of a radical party that isn't getting any radical policies through + 3 more moderate parties trying (and succeeding) to keep everything in check). We also do have very rich people, but there aren't a handful of them that dictate all politics for example. The judicial branch manages itself and is properly independent, which keeps the executive in check.

    It's a stable government form, that can incrementally improve things without letting people fall behind.

    Complete sidenote: countries in general should be smaller imo, protected by defensive pacts. That would reduce imperialist tendencies from now large countries like the US, Russia and China (again by limiting the accumulation of power).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's important for Leftists to take an internationalist stance, so as to avoid perpetuating Imperialism like PatSocs seek to.

    As for sources on numbers in different niches, I don't think there are hard numbers we can look at outside of viewing which tendencies have had the most traction and widest impact historically, which is currently Marxism-Leninism, especially if we include the CPC and assume a good chunk of its 96 million members are Marxist-Leninists.

    I don't know what point you're trying to make about the Soviets with respect to "killing millions" or "banning opposition" outside of what I said, you aren't really pointing at specifics so there's nothing for me to respond to, other than to say the Black Book of Communism has long been debunked.

    As for the Soviets, power was dramatically equalized, especially compared to Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation. For Stalin, the CIA didn't think him a dictator. He certainly held a lot of power, but he wasn't unaccountable nor was he the one making all of the decisions. Same with Kruschev. That doesn't mean no Soviet leader has made mistakes, or had self-interested intentions, but at the same time you are taking an ahistorical, dogmatic view of the Soviet Union.

    What you describe, with your heavy progressive tax rates, has only ever been in place in countries fearing a revolution while neighboring a Socialist power, historically the USSR. It's one thing to think a system would be nice, it's another thing entirely to shift towards it. Moreover, without addressing Capitalism, your "decentralization" is just an attempt to break up industry and keep Capitalism going a bit longer, like cutting your arm so it never fully heals.

    Back to the Communists, I don't genuinely understand who you would support, it seems you let perfect be an enemy of good, which is just nihilism and passive support for the status quo.

    Oh, you answered it in your next paragraph. It's no wonder you hold western-centric views, support for the Nordics makes that clear. The Nordics fund their safety nets through brutal loans and export of Capital, a process identified and tracked as Imperialism. They essentially function as landlords in country-form, expropriating far more value from sheer ownership of Capital than they actually produce, it's a form of usury. These Safety Nets are declining (as you yourself are noticing) because the Soviets are no longer right next door, pressuring the Capitalists in your country to offer concessions. That's why the Nordics are eroding.

    I think a big part of your worldview is thinking the Nordics separate from US Imperialism, and not willing accomplices to the looting of the Global South. It might hurt, but you should look into the IMF and how Western Europe and the US work together to serve as global landlords, backed by the US's millitary and NATO membership as essentially a protection racket.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People don't generally read books even if I link them unless they are already interested in what I have to say. I could link Losurdo's Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend if I wanted to share an objective critique of the man that neither glorifies nor demonizes him, or I could link sources on how the USSR was run so the term "dictator" doesn't make sense, but barely anyone would read them.

    The CIA's later report seems to more be the "official line" rather than genuine analysis IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sorry about the flu.

    As for your comments, I disagree that the doc I linked is dishonest, manipulative, or misinformation. They didn't need to poach from the politburo to look at the structure of the USSR, Americans like Pat Sloan already went to the USSR and reported on how it functioned (not to the CIA, but in general). Archival evidencen we have today backs up the claims made in the doc as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's important for Leftists to take an internationalist stance, so as to avoid perpetuating Imperialism like PatSocs seek to.

    The result is alienation of the voting public. A local approach is necessary to appeal to voters because large international movements rarely if never actually materialize. They don't offer substiantial improvements in living standards that are within reach, instead promising great things in the far-flung future.

    It's also why Trump is so effective in messaging: he advocates immediate improvements for voters within the US. Voters don't seem to care he likely won't deliver, but it gives him broad enough appeal to get elected. He does also connect with other conservatives internationally, but it isn't his main priority at all.

    I don't know what point you're trying to make about the Soviets with respect to "killing millions" or "banning opposition" outside of what I said, you aren't really pointing at specifics so there's nothing for me to respond to, other than to say the Black Book of Communism has long been debunked.

    The various political purges, famines etc... Those aren't in dispute.

    As for the Soviets, power was dramatically equalized, especially compared to Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation. For Stalin, the CIA didn't think him a dictator.

    Sure, compared to monarchism/tsarism things were more equal. But that's a depressingly low bar to set, especially when compared to the post-war democracies situated a bit further west. You've linked a single document with little context supposedly written shortly after Stalin's death. At that time, fairly little was known about the inner workings of the Soviet Union, which was largely discovered later. Stalin was not a very typical dictator, in the sense that he was quite frugal and a genuine Bolshevik, e.g. he really was strongly ideologically motivated, rather than a direct lust for power that's typical for dictators. But he was still the undisputed leader of a one-party state that did not tolerate dissent, had a very powerful secret police at his disposal and frequently removed people he did not like from power (or had them killed). Stalin himself commented on his lack of warmth for humanity after his wife died. He was absolutely ruthless and consolidated considerable power to himself and his innermost circle, enough to deeply concern Lenin when he was still alive. Historians generally agree Stalin was a dictator, albeit a somewhat atypical one.

    What you describe, with your heavy progressive tax rates, has only ever been in place in countries fearing a revolution while neighboring a Socialist power, historically the USSR.

    The US had a 77% tax rate on the highest incomes in 1918, which predates the USSR by 4 years. It dropped in the interwar period and picked up again with the start of WW2. Budgetary pressure is what in the vast majority of cases increases tax rates. It's statistically by far the most important factor, not the threat of countries like the USSR. There are far too many countries near the USSR that did not increase tax rates, and vice versa, to assume this is the case.

    The Nordics fund their safety nets through brutal loans and export of Capital, a process identified and tracked as Imperialism.

    You know that their balance sheets are public information, right? They don't show some kind of massive funding from brutal loans on the global south. The vast majority of their initial wealth came from the export of natural resources, but these days they are primarily service economies.

    I'm not saying those schemes don't exist (they do) but said schemes are not unique to specifically the west. Notably China is often criticised for similar schemes, taking control of important infrastructure in the process.

    I think a big part of your worldview is thinking the Nordics separate from US Imperialism, and not willing accomplices to the looting of the Global South.

    You have repeatedly made incorrect assumptions and conclusions on my worldview, and you seem to hold a somewhat simplistic and onesided view of the world yourself. I don't think we will be nearing each other in this discussion. That's fine, it's okay to disagree on things. Particularly on politics it's important to keep a diversified set of opinions around. I do value your view on things, even if I don't find myself agreeing with it.

    Finally, I'd just like to add that I don't make perfect the enemy of good. I refuse to accept bad is somehow good, or exempt from criticism, just because worse exists. I have a set of principles I simply will not compromise on, that I do not think are unreasonable. Plenty of ideologies or political parties don't cross my red lines, some do. I have a personal preference of course, and I consider that my democratic right to have. I also acknowledge that the world doesn't like being expressed in simple ideological terms. No "historical narrative" ever fully pans out. That's fine, I can live with that. I simply try to focus on the problems in front of me, that I can realistically help solve, and try to avoid anything that could prevent me from helping to solve problems in the future.

    I intend to leave this discussion here, as I don't see much value in continuing it (and it's getting late). Thanks for your civil participation in it. Hopefully Lemmy will also learn to upvote civil discussion even if they don't agree with every comment in it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Internationalism does not need to be separate from local improvements, but internationalism must be a focus to avoid PatSocs.

    As for the purges and famines, the highest estimates from credible sources put the death toll of the Great Purge at no more than 700,000, and the famines weren't intentional, and moreover were ended by the Soviets in a country that had regular famine before collectivization. That's why I question the "millions" numbers.

    I don't think we need to dwell on Stalin, your take isn't entirely divorced from reality like many others tend to be, though I would recommend reading into Soviet Democracy.

    Tax rates aren't the same as social services, you'll see dramatic drop-offs after the USSR fell in both.

    The vast majority of what is consumed in the Nordics is created in the Global South, and again, these countries engage in usury relationships with the Global South. China does not engage in the same kind of relationships in quantitative or qualitatively equivalent means, as they focus on exporting commodities.

    Ultimately, I'd recommend looking more into critiques of the Nordic Model.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent