KurdishLuxemburg [she/her]
Slop.I don't understand.
He's mad at "state-capitalist" countries (socialist dotp's with any remaining market economy) for "sacrificing marginalised" people. But then in the next breath he opposes police states (the US, UK, etc) even if they're trans friendly (they're not).
OHHH the context for this is that China statement from a couple days ago right? Lol. Ok I understand now.
Very convenient, when you don't want to acknowledge anything good about socialism you can just say it's not socialism.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com what is a socialist that supports China in your head? Do you call them "state capitalists" to avoid acknowledging that they are socialists? Or do you just do the whole "red fascist" larp?
I think it's genuinely fucking disgusting that you would suppress wins for trans people in any capacity. It fills me with revulsion. I think if someone posted about a positive trans thing happening in the US you would not remove it for "this is not to do with socialism" because you would still think in your head "yay trans win" and justify trans victories as relevant to socialism... But for China? You suppress it because of your feud with socialists. In this capacity you support the US and capitalists more than you support socialists or even the wider left at all. The priority in your head is "I don't like China and I don't like that this makes them look good" and that's literally the only thought you were having when you wrote this shit. Zero consideration of what is better or worse. Zero consideration of trans people, who are just a weapon for you to wield where it benefits you, or suppress where it does not benefit you. Zero consideration of historic context. It's complete dogma.
Did it ever fucking enter your mind at all that sexuality and trans issues showing support and progress in China is HUGELY beneficial for western lgbt people because the west is forced to compete or relinquish its presentation of itself as the most humane and progressive countries of the world? You're literally harming trans people by suppressing shit for your dogma.
You might be misinterpreting the comment. It was in reply to the recent post about trans rights in the GDR, crossposted on dbzer0. So the "state capitalist dystopia" I presume is the GDR. And its not that "state capitalists" are sacrificing the marginalized, its the "dismantling" [actually unification]
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
I think I caused a lemmy civil war
Nah, relations with the instance have usually been warm but specifically cold to their admin. It's funny that way.
The necessary sacrifice of trans people? Idk about you but freedom of expression and its contrast with gender essentialism which always makes people... le sad! is a great entry point into opening someone's mind to how a better world is possible. Would McDonald's sacrifice their least protein rich food, the French fry, for a burger future? No! How could a burger future happen without the French fry bringing people into the store?? Thank you for your attention on this matter. #protectthefries
So when they threw off the yoke of their authoritarian police state they created a wonderful anarchist commune right?
Furthermore db0 either doesn't understand history or is deliberately misrepresenting the matter. The people of east Germany didn't choose to dismantle it. The combined powers of NATO imperialism spent decades crushing the Eastern bloc directly against the wishes of people living there. Western Germany was a puppet state staffed by the literal remnants of the Nazis, not some bastion of liberal freedom or whatever. It was less a country and more a place for nato to park its artillery
Jesus christ, if eastern Germany was some kind of "state capitalist dystopia" then what did that make the rest of the world? What does that make Europe now, with its full endorsement of zionist genocide, it's complacency with endless war with Russia, its destruction of the global south? The pure concept of evil itself?
tf do you expect from compatible left mfs
db0 is one of the most exhausting people I've ever encountered online. They're like the pure concentrated ideal of a liberal who masquerade as an anarchist. They're completely eurocentric, takes posting far too seriously, and believes every single negative thing about socialist states no matter how much progress they made. They're a Mozart of being an insufferable infant.
They also frequently make up fictional scenarios where a communist party takes control to then persecute them personally. Like what level of arrogant delusion do you have to have to think that any burgeoning communist movement, in this current moment, would care at all about the political differences they'd have with anarchists? We're living in a moment of brutal imperialist genocide, I'd think that would be the primary political issue to face.
But no db0 seems to believe all communists worldwide are simply scheming on how to eradicate anarchists specifically because... I don't really know. And I say this is liberalism because I never fucking see db0 mention that liberal states are far more aggressive to anarchist movements than communist ones, which is the simple reality of the matter. No, db0 focuses their ire on tankies, claiming that any tankie movement will be one even more genocidal somehow than the current liberal capitalist states.
Just one of the most goofy people online
i don't even think about anarchists
I mean you should. There's actually a lot of good leftist anarchist theory that I assume db0 has never read.
nah i'm good
Both times I've ended up interacting with them, I tried to get their opinion on a topic, only for them to be completely incapable of giving such an opinion and just showing their proud and wilful ignorance before declaring a victorious "disengage" and running away.
Last time it was "On Authority" I believe, and the thread they spend complaining about how it was the worst thing ever written or something literally had more words and would've taken longer to read than the actual text that they refused to. Just truly baffling behaviour, they'll waste more time embarrassing themselves through their refusal to learn or consider anything at all than they would be willing to spend time actually proving the "tankies" wrong by just reading something and pointing out flaws in it. Or just you know, not wasting hours of their time refusing to read something but still try to argue against it anyway. Truly baffling behaviour.
I hope I don't miss them showing up, but I've got to get to bed. If you do show up here db0, I just want you to know that I do sincerely hope you're doing well. We don't hate you like you seem to think we do, we just find your behaviour frustrating. I hope you're not stressing yourself out about imagined tankie conspiracies against you.
their take was so chronically online that I just went outside and layed in grass for 3 hrs, I headcanon them as a cia plant to create infighting because of how leftist lemmy and was
Huh? I don't see this as them saying 'idgaf about transphobia', they're just saying they think states are so unsustainable that such minorities can easily get hurt in their failure. Unless I'm misreading it, this is just "Anarchist says states are dangerously unworkable", which like.. yeah, that's kind of what anarchists say.
I would still say their assertions are wrong, but I don't see any dismissal of transphobia here.
db0 is mischaracterizing the dissolution of eastern Germany in way that reads to me as transphobia, or at least could be seen as dismissing actual things trans people said. East Germany wasn't dissolved due to the choices of its population, it was crushed by nato encirclement and made to reunite with the nazi west. Queer east Germans at the time were worried about losing rights, but db0 is characterizing this as less meaningful than some broader dissatisfaction that east Germans had with their socialist state, which simply wasn't the case.
To me as an American it reminds me of how liberals would tell me I'm gonna end up in a camp for queer people if I don't vote for Kampala Harris. Like it's a pure dismissal of me and my political orientation in favor of fantasizing.
db0 is claiming it's perfectly reasonable that people would overthrow a socialist state while betraying queer people. Which is simply a foolish way of seeing the world, because what does that say of db0? Are they saying it's a more noble cause to overthrow a supposed police state dystopia in the name of anarchism than to worry about the consequences for minorities?
They are justifying not some hypothetical anarchist revolt against the state, but the actual historical destruction of the GDR, gutting it and sacrificing it to its Nazi neighbor. Elsewhere in the thread there's a link to the OOP and they are clearly talking about the part with the famous article about how queer rights will be undermined by "reunification", to which you can clearly see in the comment that they are basically saying it's understandable that people would abandon the queer population if it's expedient in their noble quest of destroying the "dystopia".
Edit: I can already hear their "I'm not touching yoooouuu" style defense of their statement, that they actually were talking about a hypothetical anarchist revolt and not supporting East Germany's actual destruction, but then why are they talking about abandoning queer people to start with? Surely their hypothetical revolt knows intersectionality is important, and it's not like there weren't anarchist types fighting for queer rights there as they do everywhere. The idea that this isn't expressing sympathy for the historical destruction of East Germany is not supported by the text and if db0 truly intended otherwise (bullshit), they should take a break from posting and take a remedial writing class to understand the concept of salience.
police state
isn't this phrase redundant within an anarchist frame? like what state would not qualify as a police state unless it has zero law enforcement
For db0, a liberal capitalist state.
It's always hilarious when these anti-tankie libs and "anarchists" have to twist themselves into pretzels trying to turn a positive thing into a negative when confronted with facts that do not fit their anti-communist worldview. It's truly a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy in action.
Anarchist Catalonia was a police ~~state~~ commune too
Revolutionary Catalonia was a clusterfuck of anarchists, trotskyists, MLs, and various flavors of "other"
Too bad it didn't have anyone who gave a fuck about Moroccans still colonized by the Spanish, leading to Franco steamrolling them with Moroccan colonial troops who thought they would get a better deal under Franco than the Spanish Republic.
God that sounds so fun and like constant infighting at the same time
Lol is this regarding the recent memes about East Germany being annexed?
Disappointing that db0 still behaves this way towards socialism, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence backing the liberatory nature of socialism, the horrendous backslide after its dissolution, and an absurd insistence that all socialism is somehow state capitalism.
I get really annoyed with this attitude. I wish people who believe this would simply come out and say they believe liberal capitalism is a more preferable political situation than a socialist state that exercises a market economy. Because that's how it seems. They throw around words like dystopia, police state, dictatorship, authoritarian, etc for socialist countries, but curiously don't use the same words for liberal capitalist nations. I don't get how any flavor of leftist could feel this way.
Anarchists I know in real life simply don't give a shit about that kind of thing and are more focused on ground level work.
The big kicker for db0 is that they consider planned economy to be "state capitalism" as well, which makes the very real differences between socialist market economies like China and Vietnam with more planned economies like the DPRK into nothing at all. These are all socialist systems, but even calling the PRC "state capitalist" and calling the USSR/DPRK "planned economy" would still be more useful than designating anything with a state that's doing socialism as "state capitalism" (which, unless db0 has changed, is what they do).
It's such a weird thing that anti-AES sectarians like to focus on, this one awkward term that was used by Lenin to describe "a capitalist state^[Wait, is that where the term comes from, was it wordplay reversing "capitalist state" (being a state subordinated to Capital) to "state capitalism" (being Capital subordinated to the state)?] ruled by a communist party that's doing social welfare and business regulations as a stopgap while building up the cadre and infrastructure necessary to move to a centrally planned socialist economy" which did accurately describe both the USSR during the 1920s and China in the early 1950s, and may or may not be an appropriate description of China now that it seems to have reversed the momentum of the revisionism/strategic retreat of Deng's liberalization and appears to be gradually moving back towards a socialist economy with significantly more resources, infrastructure, and industrial capital than they had before.
Like I don't think it even describes the Deng era China, because they were retreating from a socialist economy to get access to industrial capital and resources by commodifying their immense pool of comparatively highly educated labor, and they were deregulating business and reducing social welfare at the same time. They were doing the State Capitalist progression backwards in what was objectively a revisionist action, for all that it ultimately worked out for them in the long term (at the cost of saving the US from its economic slump caused by aging industrial capital that Capitalists didn't want to simply replace and a lack of additional workers to be able to expand their operations with; China provided a market for the sale of new industrial capital and a massive untapped workforce to scale up production with, enabling American financial capital to make a fortune and "recover" the economy by expanding to include China within its auspices).
It certainly doesn't describe the USSR once it got central planning up, unless one wants to get really ultra about them continuing to use currency instead of some non-currency medium like labor vouchers, or the tacit tolerance they had for small scale private enterprise in the "second economy" that existed in a grey area of being a black market that was allowed to exist. Nor does it describe China from the mid-late 1950s up until Deng's reforms.
Anticommunism is a hell of a drug
Straight to jail for criticizing slow internet
