cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/48366372

Promotional

its the online leftist space i’ve made :3

A community guild for leftists, socialists, communists and anarchists of all backrounds :3 the community have a slight bent toward anarchism and libertarian socialism and we will have biases toward those methods and frameworks.

Hosted on Harmony chat (aka Fermi) (https://fermi.chat/)

We accept post-leftists as well !

People who preach and unilatterally advocate for Marxism-Leninism and Social-Democracy and that consider all anarchists as “dumbfucks who just are kiddos“ would get removed for being bad faith. the revolution isnt about being right, it is about changing society for the better.

Extreme authoritarians such as Stalinists and Nazbols are not allowed. You are not communists get out! We dont allow right wingers, capitalists and centrist type liberals.

we only allow people that believes in the fundamental restructuration of society toward socialism, but we do allow non leftists who are curious and open to learning.

Harmony (Fermi) Invite : https://fermi.chat/invite/zaoI2X?instance=Harmony

  • Sanctus@anarchist.nexusEnglish
    103·
    3 days ago

    In its current state this appeals to no one but Americans thirsty for anything leftish. Anarchists, communists, and socialists are different ideologies with different goals.

    • keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.frEnglish
      6·
      2 days ago

      There are as many anarchist ideologies as there are anarchists. Communists have a huge variety too, and socialist is a term that encompasses both.

      And I’ll give it a try as a french anar

      • Sanctus@anarchist.nexusEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        It’d be fun to check out for a bit but the fediverse already has a large enough concentration of these ideologies to see where this kind of leads.

      • Sanctus@anarchist.nexusEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        There are clear differences between socialists, anarchists, and communists. The labels are not superfluous or vague. They have precise and agreed upon definitions.

        • cice@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          31·
          2 days ago

          bruh. anarchism and communism are historically tied to and associated with socialism. anarchism was born off the workers mouvement. like communism. communism describes more support for a potential and desired communisticsociety where everything are held in common where people needs gets met according to what they need. and without being forced to work to ‘earn’ living.

          anarchism is more tied with the social critic against all power dynamics mostly social, economic and religious and comtemporainly extends to gender, sexuality, and many more.

          saying anarchism, communism and socialism are distinct and as different beetween each other like how liberalism is distinct from monarchism is like extremely ignorant and intentionally ignoring the historical, ideological and methodological elements of the three. the three advocates for the freedom of everyone instead of the few. the three advocate for worker control in economical activities. the three advocate for social progress and cultural transformation. if you think the three arent just different branches of the same struggle and fight, you are willingly choosing to divide people over slight ideological differences.

          theres is a reason anarchism have many socialist tendancies like libertarian communism and libertarian socialism, its because the most liberatory economical system is communism and where workers are the one in control and chose for themselves in common. also “anarcho capitalism” is in no way, shape or form anarchist. anarchism isnt also ‘being edgy’ saying that we need ‘no rules’ or wanting chaos and destruction. those are a stereotype and misrepresentation of the idea of anarchy. anarchism requires a form of social cooperation to exist. its intrinsically socialistic and aims for similar liberatory goals in the fight against capital.

          further communism and socialism are litteraly the same thing. both wants more rights, autonomy and political power to workers as a class. that they own, manage and control their own workplace. and this system is socialism but a natural and logical extension of worker self-governance is communism. if workers are in control by the intermediary of self governed councils and are the most prevalent form of economical relationship, there is no need to commodify, there is no need for a salary and no need to pay for anything as those will just be artificial and unnecessary intermediaries for the distribution of goods. you dont need currency (money) or markets to have socialism. if you think socialism requires markets and currency. you arent socialists. you are a social democrat which is a form of liberalism.

          • Sanctus@anarchist.nexusEnglish
            11·
            2 days ago

            You want to know what happens in reality when these groups are together in a crisis? We betray each other.

            https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Persecution_Of_Anarchists

            So forgive me if I am skeptical, because historically it hasn’t ended well for anarchists working with communists.

            Also here is a snippet from that article for you convenience:

            The ideological conflict between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism has roots in the 19th century split within the First International between followers of Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx. While both movements opposed capitalism and sought revolutionary transformation, they diverged fundamentally on the role of the state, with anarchists advocating for immediate abolition of state structures and Marxist-Leninists promoting the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a transitional phase. This theoretical disagreement manifested violently once Marxist-Leninist parties seized state power, with anarchists consistently among the first groups targeted for suppression

            • cice@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              2·
              2 days ago

              MLs and Leninists and ‘authoritarian communists’ arent communists, not even socialists. they are statists authoritarian social democrats. they believe in a form of blanquist social democracy managed economy. aka just authoritarian capitalism through centralized ownership to a elitist political class, which litteraly is a borugeois class in itself, capital do not exist only through currency but also by social, political and structural means. its irrelevant how they say they are ‘left wing’. the entire ideological method of Marxism-leninism, leninism and other forms of authoritarian leftist is justified on gaining state power and to take over all industry through it. it only leads to a rise of a new privileged class within the political elite of the state. its no different from a bourgeois class having power in a liberal democracy. the communist ideology is taken as a justificative for their power, they do not beleive in the slightest in the ideals like how capitalists ignores the ideals of equality and freedom of liberalism. being used as a justification is not a sign of the argument itself being bad. its because they use it in bad faith for contradictory goals. communism isnt inherently authoritarian.

              • Sanctus@anarchist.nexusEnglish
                2·
                2 days ago

                I showed you history and you got mad. I don’t know what to tell you. All we have is what has happened. The truth is, communists, anarchists, and socialists can be friends until the revolution happens, after that it gets complicated with neither proponents wanting to live in the others’ society.

                • cice@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                  12·
                  2 days ago

                  excellent strawman didnt had time to roll on the floor and laugh and litteraly die. death was instantaneous for the immense bad faith and extreme predictability.

    • rako@tarte.nuage-libre.frFrançais
      4·
      2 days ago

      I would rather think the goals are the same but the means to get there are (incompatibly ?) different. It would be a mistake to cut discussion because of that. And it applies to revolutionaries the world over

      • cice@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        5·
        2 days ago

        it depends on what flavour of socialist/communist/anarchist you’re talking about. i do not consider MLs, Stalinists and auth “leftists” to be leftists at all. people i call communists and socialists are inherently anti-authoritarians and are always doubtful of state authority. no good faith leftist would support a appartus that decide for workers as its anthetical to very core to socialism and leftism. its giving power to the workers and all of people after all, not creating a new bourgeois class through political means, that would just be liberalism.

        • rako@tarte.nuage-libre.frFrançais
          5·
          2 days ago

          Agreed. I feel the “communists are all authoritarians” mindset is still widespread somehow, even though it’s about as wrong as “anarcho-capitalism is anarchism”.

  • Walters, Fern@bookwyr.meEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    ⚠️Status: working prototype, unaudited. Text channels, signed profiles + avatars, file attachments, per-member presence, and two-party voice calls all function end to end. The crypto (MLS envelope, conflict resolver, relay framing, SFrame media keying, endpoint↔identity attestation) is bespoke and has had no adversarial review — not safe to rely on for anything sensitive. See DEFERRED.md for the known gaps.