Cowbee [he/they]

Good, the Piracy community over on dbzer0 is much better than the subreddit anyways.

Appreciate the kind words! You’re 100% correct in saying that snark isn’t useful but is understandable. Many good people are being actively harmed and are out of patience in explaining how and why said harm exists, and how we can move beyond it. That isn’t even mentioning the outright hostility many Leftists face in general, on a daily basis. Ultimately, what I’ve found is that most people aren’t going to be convinced of something that seriously challenges their worldview in a single conversation, but through compatible life experiences make themselves more open to new ideas. Those are the ones that end up listening to others genuinely and taking to heart what the other person has to say.

The problem isn’t centralization, but the concept of a “generalist” instance. Instances should be more focused in concept and scope, and usable locally without feeling the need to scroll all.

The problem is that centralization is a natural process, you are asking to reset the clock every once in a while forever instead of moving on. Central planning doesn’t mean unaccountability or no democracy.

There’s a difference between having officials and “daddies” that make up a “ruling class.” Marxism has always understood the necessity for administrators and managers, though these too aren’t a “class.” I think you’re using class as any category, but classes are tied to ownership relations to the Means of Production. Officials and managers don’t necessarily own the Means of Production to any greater or lesser degree than a worker.

Which part is the “hot take?” How does Marxism not address the complexity of modern power structures?

Cuba is in a rough patch right now, but it isn’t about to collapse, and the ruling class is the working people.

As for the PRC, they have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and have been working through Socialism. I think you have a different idea of what a class is, I am working off of the Marxist definitions and things like “oligarch class” aren’t a thing, same with “manager class.”

Classless society only existed in tribal society, but that doesn’t mean we can’t get to a fully collectivized global economy and eliminate classes.

That wasn’t a “fun” fact at all, comrade… but thank you for sharing. It’s important.

See, Anarchists can’t get rid of classes with a commune focused system, unless they only interact within the commune and do no trade elsewhere. Otherwise, they are all Petite Bourgeoisie, interested in the success of their Commune by their shared stake in only their commune. To extend collectivization and end classes requires a government and administration, which is more Marxist.

Your understanding of Classes is a bit off, I’m a Marxist and you’re using a presumably entirely different definition of “class” if that’s your understanding. Same with the state, if you don’t get rid of classes you retain statist elements.

See where we end up? The Political Compass is entitely useless for any actual understanding of what someone believes, it reinforces liberal notions of ideology. I’m not even trying to debate the validity of Anarchism here, but how to categorize it. I used to be an Anarchist so I’m more sympathetic to y’all than many other Marxists.

I will say, I do think your understanding of Marxism is lacking, so if you want to call it “auth” or if you legitimately think Marxism doesn’t unite means and ends (spoiler: it does), then I recommend reading more Marxist theory. I will shamelessly plug my intro reading list, feel free to give it a look.

Socialist countries are working towards the end of classes, like Cuba, the PRC, etc.

Classism and patriarchy are similar but distinct issues.

I only know a single other Communist IRL and they’re my fiancé. Existence forces me to grapple with liberalism and fascism on a daily basis, maybe an Anarchist here or there. It is only here that I can talk to comrades.

Some countries are better than others, sexism is a global issue.

Different structures exist in different countries, I am not sure what you mean by a “daddy” from a political economy POV.

No country runs on “daddies.”

No, I mean Anarchists. The commune structure is individualist, not collectivist, it seeks absolute freedom of association and not full collectivization. I am not making a moral case here, this is the fundamental divide between Anachists and Marxists. In order to create such a system, authoritarian means are required, ie revolution regardless of how you coat it. No ruling class will give up authority voluntarily.

Marxists seek to create a fully centralized and democratic structure devoid of classes. This is more democratic than Anarchism, as Anarchists only have influence over their immediate sphere, not the whole globe. Anarchism however offers more direct control over their surroundings, usually.

Put another way, why are you an Anarchist, and not a Marxist?

Different in what manner? Having daddies?

No idea what you’re actually trying to ask here

Reinforcing classism is of course the goal of most Western governments.

That doesn’t really sound like a solution, just a justification for not tackling the problem though. Good public schooling is good, period, and limits social stratification that Private schooling entrenches.