u/Sad-Ad-3138

Recently i have seen some people critize the idea of "he who does not work shall not eat" from Lenin's State And Revolution and claiming that the USSR put the homeless and those leading "parasitic" lifestyles into either camps or prison. Is this even true? and if so, surely the definition of "parasitic" can change depending on the whims of the state and lead to oppression, no?

Why is it that many anarchists cite the Zapatistas as anarchist practice when they themselves claim they are a movement full of different beliefs?

how can anarchists argue with the authoritarian left about pragmatism and practice when there are so few examples of large scale anarchist practice to even compare?

I realize this is coming off very biased against anarchists but i assure you i am not here to ragebait or something, i am just inquiring about what i think are silly points that i often see being used by anarchists.

I think anarchists are very quick to decry cuba, Venezuela, the USSR, Vietnam and other auth left projects as not achieving socialist results but the one large scale example of anarchism, that in revolutionary Catalonia, did not achieve anything the USSR didn't and in fact, from what I understand, operated more similarly to the USSR and other state socialist projects than most want to admit.

I mean, what real, practical difference was there between the Union in Catalonia and the state in the USSR?

And for the record i do not think Catalonia was a "failure" just as i don't think pretty much any large scale socialist project was a failure. It is important to note that, in terms of longevity and survival Catalonia is not a great example to look for given it only lasted one year (albeit the circumstances are much different than that of the USSR or Cuba or China, etc. but i think it is a valid point regardless).

I do think it is impressive just how quickly progress was made during the span of that year, that is an amazing achievement. But progress doesn't mean much if you cannot defend it.

That being said i also want to genuinely ask what revolutionary Catalonia accomplished in terms of socialism that the USSR and similar projects didn't?

I truly do appreciate anarchism but it just seems entirely untethered from practice compared to the much more commonly tried auth left projects of the world. I subscribe to some anarchist principles and ideas and i think that it is a great goal to strive for but it seems impossible in the current state of the world ESPECIALLY when looking at its limited number of past attempts.

It pisses me off to no end when supposed "leftists" ignore trans people and their struggles by hiding behind the "there are bigger issues" line.

If they just say that then sure, i agree, but often these people will go on to then imply that "the people dropping bombs on you dont gaf if you're trans or not" as if there arent numerous countries attempting trans genocide as we speak.

It isn't even something new, our lives have been made a living hell for decades prior to this new wave no doubt started by Trump indirectly showing to all of the US's allies that they can do more without any significant pushback.

We have had policies developed against us specifically to make it impossible or near impossible to become who we are and make us wipe ourselves out through suicide and isolation and yet somehow i am meant to believe that noone is getting killed for being trans.

Bull. fucking. shit. Imperialism takes place over lgbtq issues, sure, but that doesn't diminish the fact that we are and have been facing a quiet, widely accepted and uncritized genocide in places all across the globe in both the first and third world and i think it's about time we try to educate people on this more because it is genuinely delusional to deny claims of trans genocide in the modern day.

Apologies, there isn't a vent tag so i went with the topic of the vent for the post flair, i apologize if this isn't the place for that and i will not be suprised if this is removed but i am glad i got this off my chest and hopefully my anger resonates with some of you here anyways.

So recently i have quickly figured out that my best friend is relatively clueless about politics and clearly has a lot of deprogramming to do from capitalist and specifically liberal propaganda. For context they are Colombian but have lived most of their life in the US and i am Czech, never been to the US, which gives me a much easier time seeing through the veil of lies as an outside observer. I am most concerned with and educated on US politics as they are the global hegemon and Czechia are extremely close allies with both the US and Israel but i try to have at least some knowledge on all parts of the worlds.

I am an Anarcho-Communist and my friend is.. unknown. They do not know what to describe themselves as and neither do I so that is the first thing i need help with.

I tried working with the process of elimination but that didnt really lead me anywhere because they:

Cannot be a liberal or Soc Dem because they are anti-capitalist

They cannot be a fascist or really anything right OF Soc Dem because they are a leftist in terms of social issues

They cannot be a communist because, in their own words, they "do not like capitalism but also don't like the other extreme" while acknowledging they have and aren't opposed to having extreme opinions

when i asked them what part of communism they are skeptical about they told me they didn't know and actually asked me for a definition OF communism to which i replied and explained in very simple terms "a moneyless, classless, stateless society" as well as explaining the "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" quote again in simple terms.

They then told me they would have to do their own research first to which i agreed and am now waiting for the results.

So that leaves me with the conclusion that they are a socialist but not a communist. Which i feel is nonsensical both from a modern and an orthodox perspective as Marx personally didnt differentiate between Socialism and Communism and from a modern perspective Socialism is a transitionary period between Capitalism and Communism.

Apart from this though their general beliefs and allegiances are very very liberal-coded.

For example when i tell them to support a third party they repeat the lesser evil argument and say that a third party has no chance of winning anyways. Yes I've explained to them that even in more "revolution-prone" countries it still takes decades to build a legitimate third party, they seemingly did not change their view

When i describe to them why people like Sanders and Mamdani are not socialists, only social democrats and explain to them both why reforms both only harm socialism and that social democracy is still very compatible and arguably even more dependent on imperialism and colonialism they get upset at me for condemning Mamdani because hes "the only politician actually doing something, hes fixing New York City, etc."

For some reason they remain hell bent on not condemning Mamdani overall despite the blatant zionism and lies he has spent his entire time in office spreading because he has done sooo much for NYC.

While at the same time arguing with me that he is just a mayor and has no real power, etc etc. (Which i have always had issue with as an argument regardless. He isnt just a mayor he is the mayor of fucking NEW. YORK. one of THE most politically significant cities on the face of the planet ESPECIALLY to Zionism, the only place more important to Zionism than that is Tel Aviv itself. He has probably the most power that is possible FOR a mayor of ANY city on EARTH to have so i am not buying it).

I want to talk more about this especially the Mamdani glazing and other similar liberal claptrap they still believe in but this post is too long already and i would like to not be seen as insane because REMINDER: this isnt a vent post, i legitimately need help in how to approach radicalizing them. I have been friends with them for years and know that they have a baseline of ethics and principles they hold. They have always been a Leftist on all social issues like Race, sex and gender and they have always been skeptical of Capitalism and much more open to Socialism and its ideas. I have no reason to believe they are some secret reactionary or even that they are truly a liberal or Soc Dem in their heart of hearts, they really just seem to be uneducated about politics and fallen for propaganda. i mean, just recently i had to explain how Liberals aren't on the left but are just polite fascists. So it is clear they arent very radicalized or deprogrammed from that world of propaganda but they seem to be open to it, just more stubborn in some areas than others.

I understand the beef pretty much everyone on the left has with Trotsky the individual but i feel as though this hatred blinds a lot of us from examining and appreciating the work he did, he was one of the most prominent critics of Stalin from the left and had genuinely good and accurate criticisms of him and the USSR at large.

While i am decidedly not a trotskyist i feel as if this age old tradition of dunking on both Trotsky himself and trotskyist communities (which in my experience most have been, admittedly, pretty shitty and often unprincipled and in general very obnoxious much like the man himself was) clouds our judgement and pushes us away from examining and learning from Trotsky and trotskyist writers after him.

Again this is no way a defense of Trotsky himself as i understand that in practice he was a harmful traitor both to the socialists and the anarchists of the time, this is merely asking all of us to remember that socialism is by all means a *scientific* movement and thus we should remember to examine all the facts we have at hand regardless of the source and learn from them. whether its learning how to avoid making and spot past mistakes or learning how to implement past successes into present and future projects.

Genuine question, not just hating. Like surely both from a game design/balance and *business* standpoint they handle the state of Morde (among many other champions but this is the morde subreddit) terribly, right?

Like there are so many ways to balance this champion better than what they've done for years. and we KNOW they aren't against mini reworks of champions because of stuff like the mini corki rework a while back so what is the deal here, genuinely?

a slow or short stun on E alone would solve so much all on its own and it wouldn't be broken because not only can they nerf other parts of his kit to compensate but also because rylais is ass as a combat item. Sure, it would make rylais even stronger as a utility item but slows can only do so much if you don't have combat stats. I don't think any Morde main even likes having to build rylais, we would much rather make more effective use of fun stuff like DnD and nashor's or actually useful stuff like Rift or Liandries.

And besides, if Rylai's brand is allowed to exist then this should be perfectly balanced, *right Rito?*

I have seen many people recommending Anark especially for newbie anarchists but i have a very big issue with him that i feel like i need an outside perspective on.

So i used to watch a ton of BadEmpanada because of his amazing stuff on Israel and Palestine but recently ive turned away from him because of his really strange and fucked up views on trans people and the fact he seemingly lacks a coherent ideology nowadays, essentially boiling down to nothing but "the west needs to suffer".

BE is important to this, don't worry, i'm just a yapper.

One video i remember is him covering a stream clip of Anark talking about and seemingly running pretty pathetic defense for US veterans.

Now, i watched Anark's video myself and it isnt any better with full context: he provides very, to me, strange arguments in defense of US vets such as saying they are *made* monsters by the military, comparing them to slaves and describing their contracts as "indentured servitude contracts", as well as some more subtle things like saying they *see* the most brutal applications of force (rather than the reality that they are the ones applying said force or at the very least indirectly assisting those who directly apply it, as if soldiers are witnesses or bystanders and not the perpetrators)

Now, i understand his general point and it is true that once a soldier is in service they cannot simply leave like a cop can leave their job.

However, it is still incredibly disgusting to me to be making this point and it reeks of American exceptionalism: These soldiers still willingly have to choose to enter the military in the first place and regardless of whatever propaganda or economic situation led them to do so is ultimately irrelevant. I don't think anyone would run this kind of defense for a member of the IDF for example so what truly is the difference here?

He also makes the point that compared to cops soldiers are much more likely to become radicalized as if that makes their ravaging of the global south any less horrible.

Now, i understand the point he makes in this video is ultimately that we need to accept veterans into leftist spaces and i do think we should, IF, a veteran has proven repeatedly that they are dedicating the rest of their life to repairing the damage they caused while in service to the largest, most brutal terrorist organization in the world. However, the aforementioned arguments used to make this point leave an incredibly bad taste in my mouth that makes me think Anark is just another case of an American exceptionalist larping as a leftist, much like the infamous Graham Platner left before the recent news of him SAing someone.

Apologies for the excessively long post, i am very passionate in my hatred for the american military and extremely skeptical and wary of any so-called leftists *from* America.

If i am misunderstanding or misrepresenting any points made in his, admittedly 2 years old at this point, video "Does ACAB apply to veterans?" and am being too quick to cast judgement, lacking nuance, any such thing then please feel free to reply to this post.

This isnt really a discussion as much as it is a rant so just bare with me here:

​

It will always piss me off to no end how ridiculously high of a standard Socialism and Communism are held to when nothing even CLOSE to that level of rigorous analysis and critique is ever applied to capitalism.

​

"Well the ussr did all these horrible things" Yeah dumbass i agree, the USSR committed many atrocities and yet it was illegally dissolved because the majority of people wanted the project to continue but lets not talk about that ".. so clearly it never works and it never will work!"

​

Ok so you're saying that one dictatorship that commits atrocities is enough to disregard an entire system and ideology right? Even with all the improvements it made the suffering alone is too much right?

​

So surely you must be an anarchist, correct? Because it would be, by your own standards, incredibly fucking stupid to support the thousands of atrocities and genocides, many of which are currently ongoing such as gaza, lebanon, and the international attempts at trans genocide commited under Capitalism, RIGHT?

​

Oh, you think that its all worth it because of all the improvements Capitalism has made to the global north at the huge and ignored by idiots such as yourself expense of the global south?

​

You think just because a system "isn't perfect" doesn't mean that is enough to throw it in the bin? How FUCKING CURIOUS HMMMMMM

​

It fucking disgusts me that capitalist and fascist fucking pigs are sooo quick to get so fucking up in arms about the oppression of the USSR or Mao's China or whatever the fuck but ignore the centuries of global, soul crushing, planet draining, brutal, imperialist violence and oppression commited under Capitalism and its regimes.

​

So quick to ignore the incomprehensibly massive amounts of violence and pure fucking evil of the American Empire, so quick to ignore the inexcusable bleeding dry of the global south by not JUST America but also the oh so fucking amazing social ""democracies"" of Europe.

​

I understand that individual character doesnt matter in the context of politics and ideologies but i fully believe that, by nature OF their beliefs, ALL Capitalists and by extension CONSERVATIVES are selfish, narcissistic, propaganda brained, apathetic, devoid of empathy pieces of fucking trash

​

And if a single goddamn liberal or centrist sneaks their way onto this sub and starts crying about how oh so cruel and rude i am and how hurt their little bootlicking feelings are then i want you to know you are cut of the same exact fucking traitorous cloth.

​

Feel free to remove this post or ban me for whatever reasons you find, i completely understand and hold no bad feelings, i just needed to rant because i am so fucking tired and pissed at the world.

This post was originally meant for r/socialism as i am currently a socialist but i feel it better to be asked here than there for obvious reasons SO KEEP IN MIND this post is from a socialist, was originally presented TO socialists, and is from someone who is VERY uneducated in Anarchism and it's ideas and is just barely dipping their toes into the pool so do not be TOO harsh.

So recently i have been watching a lot of Socialist youtubers (mainly Hakim and his Deprogram podcast) and, along with the endless amounts of "tankie" accusations, there is also a good amount of Anarchists actually discussing with us socialists.

And an anarchist point that caught my eye is the idea that the very concept of a state is authoritarian and hierarchical and therefore relying on it will result in the one-party dictatorships of the past.

Now, i have an issue with the use of the word dictatorship in reference to past socialist projects but that is admittedly mincing words rather than engaging with the point.

In my eyes, the point does make sense. Any form of authority will inevitably deviate from the wants and needs of the people. The idea of a vanguard party or even representatives altogether seems, to me, counterproductive to achieving true democracy which i thought was the whole point of socialism, specifically democratic ownership of the means of production.

I think at the end of the day, with my limited understanding of the matter, the end goal of Communism is inherently anarchist (classless, stateless, moneyless seems pretty anarchist to me yk) but where we and anarchists disagree is on the means to reach said end goal.

I understand that a country undergoing Socialist revolution will need to defend itself as has been made clear time and time again in history but i think my concern is that, if a country DOES successfully survive and undergoes revolution enough for communism to be possible how can we be sure that the vanguard party will give up their position of authority to allow for the establishment of communism rather than fighting to keep their power and resulting in the bureaucracy and imperialism of the USSR and China? (this is in no way a demonization of the USSR or China, i have massive support for both HOWEVER i am also incredibly critical of them both because whether we like it or not there have not only been mistakes but flat out atrocities committed by both [not referencing the repeatedly debunked ones like Holodomor or Tiananmen square either btw]

Also, as an aside, i often hear claims even from socialists that the USSR was not actually democratic, that any criticism of the party would have the STASI at your door, you couldn't vote against the party and candidates were pre-determined and chosen by the state instead of by the people among other criticisms and i am wondering what the reality behind these claims is?

If it is true that you had, realistically and practically, no choice BUT to support the party and the USSR as an average citizen then why would we continue to praise it in that area?

lastly i want to make something clear: I AM NOT A LIBERAL, I AM NOT A TANKIE AND I AM NOT A BOT OR A FED, I AM JUST STUPID AND AM LOOKING FOR SMARTER PEOPLE TO EDUCATE AND CORRECT ME SO I CAN MAKE A MORE EDUCATED DECISION ON MY BELIEFS AND WORLDVIEW GOING FORWARD.

Thank you

What is the consensus on NATO among leftists? Do some of us still believe in the myth that NATO is a force for good and for "freedom and democracy" or any of that?

I have always been led to believe that North Korea is an impossible to leave, authoritarian hellhole equivalent to a modern monarchy

As have i been led to believe that China is some hugely undemocratic, corrupt, oppressive regime

I would like to know what the reality of their respective situations is and what are some of our opinions on these countries through the lens of critical thinking and nuance

Is it simply the existence of a US embassy in a country? good military relations? all i can find is information on proxy *wars* but not what constitutes a proxy *state*

Any help is hugely appreciated

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT MAKING THIS ARGUMENT MYSELF AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT PERSONALLY

So i just had a conversation with my mom who lived for a bit under "communism" in the USSR (for context we are Czech and my mom is in her early 50's) and while she agrees with me that fundamentally socialism is better than capitalism and agrees with many socialist ideas she is also one of those "well people are lazy and wouldn't work and they would just sit at home, etc." people

Now, obviously this argument has been disproven time and time again without a shadow of a doubt however i am not sure about one aspect of it despite the mountains of evidence:

How does it relate to "dirty jobs"? like any form of mining, any jobs to do with sewage, work of that nature.

Of course most people will not be satisfied with a life devoid of any work (and those that would be should have the right to and shouldn't be judged for it) and will voluntarily work jobs but is the same true for these kinds of "dirty" jobs that i assume noone would want to do given the choice?

Am i simply wrong in my assumption or would there truly be some merit in the whole "state forces you to work a job whether you want to work that job or not" point that capitalists like to make so often?

Side note: I am admittedly also unsure of what incentive there would be to working jobs besides simply desire to work. wouldn't the idea of working for a more luxurious lifestyle compared to those that do not work allow for and invite the hoarding and accumulation of wealth for oneself? how would this be regulated and prevented if not by forceful taking of said wealth?

I realize these are probably very basic questions and i acknowledge i might be repeating some capitalist rhetoric and ideas and i do apologize for that, it is not my intention to defend Capitalism in any way, i am just trying to become more educated on the topic of Socialism and Communism and i am an out and proud commie (and not a Nordic model worshipper either, i want actual Socialism and subsequently Communism, not an inbetween system that continues to reinforce imperialism and colonialism)

I am Czech myself and have recently gone down a bit of a rabbit hole in regards to socialism in my own country (shouldve done way sooner tbh) and i notice a particular disdain for communism mostly because of the authoritarianism done to us by the USSR, culminating in the Warsaw Pact Invasion. Now, of course i am not ignoring the mistakes of the USSR, there are plenty of things to condemn and learn from it, but at times i feel like the false association of authoritarianism with communism is often even more blatant than in America. Václav Havel is regarded as a saint by the communities i have lived and been raised in (fun fact: he was heavily associated with the America-Funded Radio Free Europe organisation which was hellbent, as the American Empire always has been, to do all it can to dismantle any form or attempt at socialism and communism by targetting Soviet satellites) and so i ask how to dismantle this misplaced anger toward socialism and communism, inability to understand that Socialism is inherently anti-Fascist, not equal to it, etc. etc.

Also, now that i think about it i have a feeling the reason we as a country suck up to America so much is because of this very interference during the times of the USSR. After the Velvet revolution we entered an era of "normalisation" which has spiralled out of control to instead plunge us into a culture dominated by right-wing, cruel beliefs, a blind faith in Capitalism and a blind hatred and stubborn ignorance towards Socialism and personally, for me, it has resulted in me feeling like a foreigner in my own country because i have dared to actually educate myself about Socialism and perform the crime of daring to defend it.

Sorry this kinda turned into a therapy session, i am very passionate about this and it pains me to see my own family and friends and colleagues arguing so hard against their own best interests because of propaganda and ignorance and i am unsure how to undermine that and get through to them and educate them.

PS: I said "the crime of defending Socialism" as a joke but recently the president made it officially illegal to publicly defend Communism, directly comparing it to Nazism so i am unfortunately not far off

Firstly i want to establish that i am and always have been a very passionate and opinionated person and i have always seen injustice where others seem to have not seen it and fought against what i deem as unfair and unjust even when i was just a lil guy.

That is my main reason for thinking i am possibly not considering criticism and opposing views as valid and am not considering views outside of my own as much as i should be.

I feel very confident in my position as a leftist and a socialist, i like to expand my knowledge of these ideologies and theories whenever i can, i am always making small adjustments to my opinions and views on everything in my life because i am constantly learning new things. Despite this i feel like i get unreasonably angry and defensive seeing views opposing that of Leftism and especially Socialism and by extension Communism (i am very civil in relation to different perspectives *within* Leftist and Socialist communities as a whole as i believe that is a fundamental value and practice we should stick by: criticism and questioning on the level of scientists and scholars).

When i see Capitalists defend Capitalism and oppose Communism or Socialism i often fail to truly "hear them out", as you would say. Same goes for Leftism. And the biggest issue i find myself facing is the confusion and lack of ability to distinguish between true, good faith criticisms and false, bad faith propaganda and mis/disinformation. As we know, there is a plethora of propaganda and lies and myth that has been circulating globally among the general populace of centrists and conservatives about Leftism and Socialism and it seems to me absolutely ridiculous when someone critizes my views because to me they seem so simple and such natural conclusions. These are ideas fundamentally built upon empathy, compassion, extensive research and observation and critical thinking and on civil and human rights. While i acknowledge there is obviously a lot of nuance and a lot of different *types* of Leftism and Socialism as they ARE umbrella terms i see no reason why your natural conclusion in life would lead you to Conservatism and Capitalism. I feel slightly less intensely about Liberalism (of course Liberalism IS a conservative position but i digress) as i think it is much more appealing and much more accepted and less "radical" than Leftism.

Anyway, getting back on topic, my question is this: How do i know if someone is arguing in good faith about my views when so much of the criticism i face is based on false information and propaganda? How do i debate those whose kneejerk reaction to the very word "Socialism" is that of horror and fear built on manipulation by Capitalists? (often citing claims of the, famously exaggurated, statistic of 100 milion deaths under Communism, "Socialism never works" which is also demonstrably false, etc.). Most people i meet are unflinching in their pure hatred of Socialism, most often discrediting any statistics, reasoning and defense i give by saying some flavor of "say that to my relatives who lived under Communism and tell them they should be happy" and it makes me think: Am i truly the bad guy? Are the Capitalists right and i have become radicalized? Am i more similar to the nazis we fight than i truly realize? Is what i am calling propaganda actually the reality and it is I who is following a rewritten, misrepresented version of history? Am i truly discounting the pain of those who lived under Stalin or Mao? Even if Socialism is truly superior to Capitalism is it right to disregard the pain of those who lived under these past regimes?

Am *I* the brainwashed sheep?

Thank you for reading and be as harsh as you need in your answers and questions. I will not be able to respond to every single reply if this post picks up any real steam but i will attempt to reply to as many as i comfortably can.