For all your boycotting needs. I'm sure there's some mods caught in lemmy.ml's top 10 that are perfectly upstanding and reasonable people, my condolences for the cross-fire.

!memes@lemmy.world and !memes@sopuli.xyz. Or of course communities that rule.
!asklemmy@lemmy.world
!linux@programming.dev. Quite small, plenty of more specific ones available. Also linux is inescapable on lemmy anyway :)
!programmer_humor@programming.dev
!world@lemmy.world
!privacy@lemmy.world and maybe !privacyguides@lemmy.one, lemmy.one itself seems to be up in the air. !fedigrow@lemm.ee says !privacy@lemmy.ca. They really seem to be hiding even from another, those tinfoil hats :)
!technology@lemmy.world
Seems like !comicstrips@lemmy.world and !comicbooks@lemmy.world, various smaller comic-specifc communities as well as !eurographicnovels@lemm.ee
!opensource@programming.dev
!fuckcars@lemmy.world

(Out of the loop? Here's a thread on lemmy.ml mods and their questionable behaviour)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Yep, he softened his bite, but ultimately there are still an extremely small number of successful Anarchist movements compared to Marxist ones. Anarchists can get things done, but usually a lack of organization leads to struggles.

Yugoslavia was supposedly nicer to live in, compared to the rest of the USSR, but I wouldn't say the Bolsheviks were revisionist. They saw their conditions and acted accordingly.

Fair enough to admitting that Lemmygrad bit, but it's an extremely common talking point here that Lemmy.ml "can't admit it happened." Not even Lemmygrad believes it didn't happen, it's deliberately bad actors putting words in people's mouths at this point.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (7 children)

If by "successful" you mean "took over a whole state, sustainably" then there's zero (both Rojava and Chiapas are mere territories), but then the only ML states left are basically Cuba and Vietnam, the USSR collapsed, China has richer billionaires than plenty of liberal democracies, etc.

If with "successful" we also mean "feed the poor, organise the disenfranchised, and punch Nazis" then there's uncountably many. It's all predominantly prefiguration and avoiding liberal democracies to regress, in line with more recent theory.

revisionist

See I'm an anarchist, revisionist is not actually an insult to me. But it surely does rile up MLs if you point out that they're ever so slightly disagreeing with previous canon so I might be using it more liberally than them :)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

China is still Marxist-Leninist, just with a strategy of welcoming international finance while maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat to keep the bourgeoisie in check. They saw what happened to the USSR and opted to make concessions, staying intrgrated with global Capitalism while trying to subvert Lenin's idea of Imperialism. Whether or not this pans out in Socialism's favor is unknowable at this present moment.

I do believe feeding the poor, punching Nazis, and establishing Mutual Aid is fantastic, and I agree that in the Global North, Anarchists are more effective than Marxists have been. I still don't see any actual long-term success or movements in Anarchism's favor.

I wasn't calling you a revisionist, I understand that you're an Anarchist. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Deng absolutely was a revisionist.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

staying intrgrated with global Capitalism while trying to subvert Lenin’s idea of Imperialism

...and you have to have billionaires for that? Also, heck, the GDR was integrated into capitalism and they had a mostly (asides from the trades) planned economy. They built industrial robots which then churned out cars in Wolfsburg, and stomped a silicon industry out of the ground to keep competitive in that area. Western mail-order catalogues were full of GDR washing machines, fridges, etc.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What's the cutoff point for how much a Capitalist should own? A good amount of China's top companies are state owned, and there is a good amount of planning too, so I am just curious at what point becomes too much.

I am all for good critique of China, but it's the strategy they have stated, and we can only wait and see how it pans out over time.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What’s the cutoff point for how much a Capitalist should own?

Once it has systemic impact. Turn their company into a foundation, put them on the board, rest of the seats go to workers and something like the local university, allow that their kids two generations down the line are rich enough to never have to work a second in their life (if they manage to not squander), but definitely don't allow inheritance of that kind of capital which is what China does. Interesting paper especially about the inheritance thing, ultimately that alone is sufficient to curb concentration of wealth:

We demonstrate that chance alone, combined with the deterministic effects of compounding returns, can lead to unlimited concentration of wealth, such that the percentage of all wealth owned by a few entrepreneurs eventually approaches 100%.

We show that a tax on large inherited fortunes, applied to a small portion of the most fortunate in the population, can efficiently arrest the concentration of wealth at intermediate levels.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How would that impact China's goal of luring in investment if it scares off Capitalists?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is about Chinese billionaires. No foreign stock-traded company would ever care that Chinese can't inherit fortunes.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 months ago

They would. If China cracks down too hard too quickly on Capitalists domestically, Capitalists may start to pull out.

load more comments (4 replies)