this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
498 points (85.7% liked)
Memes
52965 readers
2218 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dude do you even know what liberal means?
Liberalism is an ideology founded in a few core principles. Capitalism and the right to own property, the power of the government originating from the masses rather than god, and inalienable rights for its citizens.
You guys are the ones redefining old words cause you don't like the idea of not being considered leftist anymore. The overton window has shifted since the 1700s, yall are centrists now.
Liberal policies aren't just a singular thing. Because of these groups astro turfing they're getting the usual gang of idiots to say there is only one group and that is the one that shares a few center right policies.
We aren't saying there aren't different kinds of liberals, what we are trying to tell you is that liberalism is not a left wing ideology anymore. It is centrist and anti-communist. Yes you have left leaning liberals and right leaning. But that still only makes yall center-left and center-right.
Leftists issues with liberals is because liberals, no matter what are pro-capitalist and anti-communist. Communists are anti-property and liberals are pro-property. Yes a leftist has more in common with a left leaning liberal than they do a right leaning liberal, but that does not make their interests aligned. Historically anytime liberals and communists team up, communists get backstabbed. And more often than not, it never even gets to teaming up. Historically, liberals are the ones to team up with authoritarians to crush communists.
And I'm an anarchist. I trust Marxist communists just about as much as I do liberals. That is to say not much. And I have more interests aligned with a Marxist than I do a liberal
😢
Hey I don't trust yall, but I still give yall the opportunity to prove me wrong (and so far I have been proven wrong by some individuals, so its not impossible). Same as I do with a liberal. I'm just prepared to get backstabbed.
Unfortunately the difference between anarchists and Marxists (pro-state or anti-state) seems to be a disagreement that ends in anarchists getting betrayed, disenfranchized, and shot. So I gotta stay diligent cause I'd rather learn from history rather than repeat it.
Historically, it hasn't really been the case that Marxists have hunted down anarchists for having anarchist beliefs. What normally happens is Marxists wage war ideologically on anarchism, and some anarchists take up arms or form cells to oppose the socialist state the Marxists have set up. The anarchists have historically had far more agency than simply being hunted down, and in many cases anarchists have worked alongside Marxists for mutual benefit.
Just wanted to give you fresh perspective.
I aint saying anarchists dont have agency, but its because Marxists insist on it being their way or the highway and use positions of power to disenfranchize anarchists. Anarchists obviously do not like this and resist. That is not the anarchists fault. It wasnt the CNT-FAI's fault for not wanting to disband their militias and integrate them into the Spanish Republican military structure, and it wasn't the Kronstadt Rebellion's fault for wanting the worker's soviets and freedom of speech to be brough back after Lenin centralized control to the Bolshevik party. And it certainly wasn't the Ukrainian Black Army's fault when Trotsky decided they had no use for them anymore and turned the rifle on them. Anarchists and marxists have and still do work together, the issue is the relationship is not built on mutual respect and cooperation. Marxists seem to see anarchists as a tool, that when its use is no longer needed, is expected to go back to the drawer and sit quietly while the marxists take over.
I definitely could see a situation where marxists and anarchists could cooperate on a mutual and equal level. I just do not expect it to happen.
Personally I would want protections for anarchists to freely establish anarchist organized communes and other organizations like workplaces that are independent and autonomous from the marxist state. The two would still share resources and have open borders, but the two would be free to manage their own internal affairs. To me this meets anarchist principles of free association, and still allows for a marxist state to exist. Plus I feel it would meet the marxist's principle of a transitionary state. The marxist state pops up, and the state would wither away to a stateless, classless, and moneyless society as people transition to the autonomous anarchist communes.
Do I think this would work? Possibly. Do I think an agreement like that would ever be made? No, not likely. The anarchists would still have the threat of being betrayed, and maybe even possibly the anarchists try to betray the marxist state. It would be an uneasy dynamic. And historically, marxists have shown they don't want to make room for anarchists. But unless some sort of guarantee and protections were to be placed for anarchists in some way, I don't see anarchists and marxists to ever get along.
Kronstadt wasn't an anarchist revolt, nor was it about "freedom of speech," it was a group of sailors that wanted privledged positions that destabilized the war effort that was led by a Tsarist that later joined the white army, Stepan Petrichenko.
Either way, I think the biggest struggle is that the ends are not the same at all, which is a common misconception. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primary about collectivization of production.
When I say "communalization," I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity's cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx's beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
Anarchists see the state as another system of class. A socialist state does not create a classless society, it changes the class dynamic from capitalists and workers to bureaucrats and workers. The workers themselves do not own the means of production and have to answer to the politicians and bureaucrats that manage the means of production.
And if that is your perspective then I do not see how anarchists and marxists could ever cooperate, as you said our goals are not aligned. Which is to say I do not see how you could be surprised by anarchists not trusting marxists. Doesnt sound like we have enough in common from your perspective to work together without one of us betraying the other.
Also no the Kronstadt Rebellion was an anarchist revolt, freedom of the press and speech for socialists including anarchists was one of the demands of the rebellion and so was bringing back the workers soviets that Lenin got rid of, among other things that, to me, are just asking for a more democratic and free system that doesnt centralize all the power to one party. The link I attached is the demands of the rebellion and it has nothing like you speak of.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/kronstadt-uprising/kronstadt-uprising-texts/demands-of-the-kronstadt-insurgents/
Administration is not a class, just as managers at companies are not owners. Collectivized production and distribution has equal ownership, but also contains administrators, foremen, etc as are necessary for global, interconnected production and distribution.
As for Marxists and anarchists working together, we share capitalists as a common enemy, and can work together as such. Right now, imperialism is the highest contradiction, so we share common interest in the downfall of the US Empire.
Returning to Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:
They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal. Further, Lenin did not disband the soviets, the point raised by the sailors was that they "didn't represent the will of the people:"
They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn't like how they were made up.
Further, they were led by a council containing Stepan Petrichenko, who claimed to be an "anarcho-syndicalist" but officially joined the Tsarist White Army a year after his failed terrorist attack. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.
I really don't think you want to claim this as genuinely anarchist.
Yes we have a common enemy, and I never said we shouldn't work together to fight it. But that cooperation to me is coming with a ten foot pole cause I know that as soon as it stops being advantageous I'll be stepped on
I do not agree those demands would have been suicide, and I ain't claiming Stepan is a perfect individual. I definitely think he made stupid decisions. But it is incorrect that he officially joined the white army. He tried to, but was denied because of his former Bolshevik affiliation. Plus he ended up coming back to the soviet union and joined the Red Army Intelligence Agency, which is something else I criticize him for along side trying to join the White Army. I do not hold any anarchist on a pedestal just because they are anarchist. Proudhon was a piece of shit, and Bakunin was an antisemite. They are flawed people and exactly why I am an anarchist. Because anarchism does not rely on people being perfect as it doesnt allow anyone to hold power over anyone else.
Lastly, soviets ruled by only bolsheviks is not a soviet, thats a one party system and yes does not properly represent the workers like the Kronstadt stated.
In any event I wish to move on. I will say this was a more pleasant debate than I usually have with marxists, so thank you for that. Ciao comrade, I will be expecting your boot when the day comes lol
According to Paul Avrich, Petrichenko was denied in his attempt before Kronstadt, but was allowed in May, under general Pyotr Wrangel. My point is not to say that anarchists are bad people or anything, but that the Kronstadt mutiny was hardly anarchist, it was clearly opportunist in nature. The Spanish anarchists were real anarchists.
As for the soviets, they were democratic. Getting rid of a unitary democracy based on social cohesion and common interest over competing parties and outlawing bolshevik representation is both antidemocratic and horribly flawed in the context of a bloody civil war where the bolsheviks were the most supported group. Had the mutiny succeeded, the lack of cohesion would have led to the socialists getting trounced by fascists near-instantly.
All in all though, good luck yourself. I have no intention of being a "boot," I want a better world for everyone, where we as a society can collectively produce and distrubute according to a common plan for the good of all. Basically Star Trek.
Economically liberalism can be right of center but socially they are left. It's complicated way more than just "they're right"
What do you think astroturfing is? Which groups are these?
Let's start with if you can recognize this is something that occurs in the first place.
Do you remember www.reddit.com/r/walkaway/
I know astroturfing exists, and yes that is an example of it. "Dark brandon" is another such example.
I believe .ml is just another form of it with "liberals are right politically"
The purpose of .ml is to create views and opinions alternate and divide the left. It's a toxic place with more support than should be warranted by it's values.
I still don't know what you think astroturfing is and which groups are doing the astroturfing
Same political groups that create walkway and bernbros. It's your heritage foundation, Koch Bros, freedom alliance this or that. Same political groups it's always been. The left are being pushed to decimate its own numbers by alienating itself from itself. It's clear as day when viewing places like .ml and other Lemmy instances
Sure looks like the left has been growing in numbers from my time in leftist orgs. I'm also not sure the likelihood of the heritage foundation taking a chance on accidentally initiating Black Panthers 2.0 in the US.
Just because you don't agree with people on this platform, you should probably understand that lemmy, a place that can't be swayed by an algorithm controlled by billionaires, and notably created by communist developers, would attract other communists here. You came into our space questioned our legitimacy here. The fuck
Lol oh yea, you guys are black Panther 2.0
Come on. You're a poison pill not a black Panther.
Jesus Christ reading comprehension
You said it
The same people behind walkaway are behind the berniebros and lemmy? Also please please tell me what you think astroturfing is I'm dying to know
Apparently those on ml are gonna be used the right, to keep pushing left? 🤔
Do you think groups on the right were behind things like walkaway and bernbros?
Astroturfing is when groups deceptively create content in digital spaces to manipulate and influence those spaces to believe a movement or initiative is derived from a grassroots or organic origin. The goal is to move the group whatever the vested interest wants them to be.
I bet you were going to argue Lemmy isn't on anyone's radar because it's so small and we're all just super grass roots and organic.
Behind walkaway absolutely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36t5-0Tpu30
The bernie movement was notably organic with a lot of volunteer activity and not astroturfed. That's why the nomination going to Hillary was such a big upset.
The main developers of lemmy are funded by individual donations and the instances largely as well. The only exception I think of is lemmy.world if I remember correctly. Precisely which organisations do you think are astroturfing on lemmy?