Not who you asked, but I figured I’d pitch in. Hexbear.net has a good amount of AnComs, as long as you aren’t sectarian against Marxists. It’s a left unity space, it’s where I have my other account. As a Marxist-Leninist, I find Hexbear is generally far more chill and less argumentative because there’s a 0 tolerance rule for transphobia, bigotry, liberalism, etc.

Lemmy.ml is far more argumentative due to being more broadly federated, and isn’t explicitly anti-Capitalist. I mainly stick here for outreach, not to have a good time or anything. You have more visibility sorting by all, and can access Hexbear from Lemmy.ml if you don’t want to make an account on HB, though you lose access to emojis and other HB specific features, like easily accessing the Megathreads for News, General chatting, etc.

You probably wouldn’t like Lemmygrad.ml, it’s explicitly Marxist-Leninist and is sectarian against Anarchists. I enjoy it, though I don’t have an account there. It’s accessible from Hexbear.net and Lemmy.ml.

lemmy.dbzer0 is more piracy focused, and has an Anarchist bent. It’s accessible from Hexbear.net and Lemmy.ml, but can’t access Lemmygrad.ml.

Slpnk.net is socialisty, focused on the Solarpunk aesthetic movement. It can’t access Hexbear or grad, but Lemmy.ml and dbzer0 are connected (I think dbzer0 is, at least).

My advice? Browse each locally for a week without making an account, see what sticks. There’s no downside to making an account or abandoning your old one, really.

Yep, the entire system is built to give the illusion that it’s capable of change, while giving all of the reigns to Capital.

You do mind Communists and Marxists, though, Hexbear and Grad have opinions and stances aligned with most major Communist orgs. If you’re going to have a problem with Marxists and Communists, then it makes more sense to honestly own up to that, rather than upholding the Ubisoft Marx from Assassin’s Creed as legitimate.

“Tankie” is just “pinko” or “commie” in the modern day, it’s just a pejorative for Communists. Further, all governments are authoritarian, all exert authority, what matters is which class is exerting its authority.

I think the biggest reason Bernie gets more hate from the Left is because in many ways people were radicalized by him, and then outrgrew him. He’s disappointing. He did a good job of getting many liberals to adopt more progressive views, but he will constantly fold because that’s all he can do with the strategy he takes. Electoralism doesn’t work, and those radicalized by Bernie increasingly see that and feel betrayed.

There are also those that weren’t radicalized by Bernie, and thus always saw him as a sheepdog for the Empire.

I don’t think it’s good advice to just say “be especially suspicious of those spooky Marxist commies!”

Pick an instance you like browsing locally, and use that, rather than trying to browse as much content as possible. Specialized and niche instances are often way more interesting.

You’re misunderstanding many of my points. Market concentration is one aspect of how Capitalism functions, and is why it can’t last forever and is bound to be replaced by planning or by barbarism. Land ownership is a part of that process as well. However, the negative consequences of these facts are minimized in areas like Scandinavia through Imperialism.

You already kinda leaned into it, IMF loans are an example of Imperialism. Essentially, Scandinavian countries do the same thing other Imperialist countries do, they outsource the worst labor and pay far less for it than they’d pay for domestic labor, and along with the rest of the Imperialist gang use millitary threats and reliance on things like food control from countries like the US to keep these countries dependent. It’s why “aid” is really a tool of underdevelopment, true aid would allow countries in the Global South to develop themselves, rather than foster dependence.

I am not engaging mostly with the stats you bring up because they are one-sided and really serve to apologize for Capitalism and Imperialism, by focusing on land ownership alone when it’s a giant and interconnected system. I’m skeptical that the impact is as big as you say it is, but even if we accept them all as true, you’re still only analyzing one factor and thus miss the true problems at play. Marx elaborates as such in this letter discussing Henry George.

I’ll answer the disagreements in order:

1. The role of land. My point is that a Land Value Tax will not solve the problems of Capitalism. It can certainly play a role in a larger transition to Socialism, but it alone will simply pave the way for new avenues of exploitation, as has happened every time a “progressive Capitalism” has been enacted.

2. Capital, and its role. Land is one aspect of Capital, just as financial Capital and Industrial Capital are. You taking specific aim at Land ownership, and not at the system of private ownership as a whole, is why you have an incomplete view.

3. We agree already that Land needs to be tackled, and you agree that markets centralize and thus are better to have those monopolies folded into the public sector, but what happens after that? How do we get there in the first place? We keep folding into the public sector and abolish classes, and we get to there in the first place through revolution. We don’t sieze for the sake of siezing, but because it becomes an economic necessity as production increases in complexity.

4. It has never genuinely been possible for any working class to gain power by asking for it, ever. Only revolution has worked.

You do focus, but you over-focus, which is why you miss the key points. This is why there aren’t really any Georgists anymore, the right-Georgists become Social Democrats or Neoliberals, and the Left-Georgists become Marxists. Georgism occupies a niche underdeveloped in economics, which explains its scarcity. The largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity is run by Marxists, while Georgists don’t run anywhere.

I also don’t know what you mean by “ethical problems” with respect to Marxism. Marxism, if anything, is more ethical as it aims to abolish class society as a whole, rather than apologize for a large part of it and focus on one aspect.

I don’t think I’m being rude. I do disagree with your analysis quite sternly because I think you quite nearly get it. You fall just short, and it’s frustrating, if I’m being honest. If that manifests in rudeness on my part I apologize.

Scandinavian countries are seeing rising wealth inequality. This inequality was pushed back against, especially when the Soviet Union still existed as a neighboring alternative system, but unionization alone doesn’t translate to control of the State or fight against rising inequality. Further, Scandinavia is Imperialist, it isn’t accurate to see it as a closed system with internal inequality alone, the geopolitical context must be analyzed as well.

It’s very easy to find sources showing rising concentration of wealth. This makes logical sense, even if there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Such a tendency is core to Marxist understanding of the eventual failure of Capitalism under its own weight.

Economic rents are monopoly rents, for the purpose of our conversation. Monopoly is a sliding scale, if something is restricted in supply, to where you can’t make any more, it fetches higher prices. Land is one aspect, an important one, but it isn’t the source of new value, labor is. When orienting an economy, we need to understand who controls what, and Land is a form of Capital. Land rent is an aspect of the overall system, but in focusing on it one-sidedly, you get an incomplete view, such as your belief that the government in Scandinavia represents the people. Really, it supports Capital, including land, and bribes its working class with the spoils it plunders from the Global South.

Essentially, your analysis is half-baked, thus undercooked. You have a partial view, and that over-emphasis on one part of the whole leads to incorrect conclusions about the whole. Land is important, that’s why one of the first things Marxists tend to do upon taking power is implement land reform, but it isn’t the full picture.

You’re on Lemmy.ml.

The White Army was specific to Russia, not all Socialist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Don’t really know what you’re getting at, here.

Workers were always consumers. That’s part of the problem with Capitalism, higher wages give more room for increased commodity circulation, but Capitalists don’t want to pay their own workers higher wages. Further, industry is still the backbone of production worldwide, the Imperialist states in the West just export the hardest jobs to the Global South so they can have cheap goods without the harsh labor.

As Capitalism decays, proletarianization increases even in the Imperialist countries, and thus reception to Socialism increases.

There is no “mental problem that cannot be solved,” this is quite literally inventing a problem that exists purely in your head. Idealism to a T.

Broism is a reaction to proletarianization, combined with patriarchial culture. It ignores analysis and goes for vibes-based solutions, which is why all bro-culture is incoherent and contradictory.

…what?

Having a parent as a politician and then being elected is not a “class.” The alternative is to bar descendents from holding office, which is just trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

The USSR had problems we can analyze, but through collective farming methods became food stable in a country that frequently had famines. Further, we can see food stability in countries like the PRC.

We should not ignore right-wing proletarians. We should thoroughly correct their poor analysis and promote correct political lines. We should see fascists and the bourgeoisie, landlords, etc as enemies.

The upper class plays up division to distract, this is correct, but Socialism remains the correct path. There isn’t a “perfect” Socialism, but that doesn’t mean advocating for Socialism locks in the current situation. To the contrary, Socialist revolution has already happened in many areas.

I’d like to know what you mean by saying “Socialism has ro for improvement” as a general rule, and not as countries building Socialism iterating and working to resolve the problems that come with nation building in general.

No problem!

Reading theory helps me understand the world around me. It keeps me realistically optimistic, without spiraling into doomerism or naive optimism. Reading scientific articles on space, tech, etc keep me curious and ever-learning.

Working out makes me feel better, have more mental clarity, and more energy. It’s self-satisfying. It isn’t necessary for everyone, but I enjoy it and the feelings it gives me. My attitude and mood improves with it.

Administration and management are necessities in complex and large-scale systems. This does imply power imbalance, but it does not imply the same character of class dynamics as in Capitalist states.

Social Democracy doesn’t work, but Socialism does. We have seen this in practice quite effectively. There isn’t a mythical “perfect” system, all Socialist states have faced internal and external struggles, but we have seen remarkable resiliance and success from them in a quantitatively and qualitatively different level from Capitalist states.

Self-study and exercise. I read Marxist-Leninist theory (as well as scientific articles and other non-fiction that interests me) every day, and work out 4 times a week. Both have significantly improved my life.

What do you mean by “stuck?” Globally, conditions are rapidly changing, and moving steadily in favor of the Proletariat. Socialist countries like the PRC are overtaking the US, which is weakening in Imperialist power.

Desires based on inaccurate analysis are invalid. If someone wants to limit government because of problems sprouting from Capitalism, not the government, then these aren’t desires that need to be addressed. They can be better informed and corrected, but not entertained.

Strengthening the government under Capitalism isn’t Left either, rather the Leftist (specifically Marxist) solution is to smash the state and replace it with a Proletarian one. Historically, the bourgeoisie has been suppressed by Proletarian States, your hypothesis isn’t accurate.

Hegel’s Dialectics are idealist, and thus wrong. He advanced Dialectics, but it was Marx that stood them upright and made them Materialist. The idea of trying to synthesize a new ideology of left combined with right historically is Social Democracy, which ends in the same problems under Capitalism and in the Nordics, for example, relies on Imperialism to sustain itself. With the global weakening of Imperialism, conditions are decaying in the Nordics.

Right-wingers misanalyzing the issues felt by the whole proletariat don’t validate that analysis by virtue of the consequences being real. The proletariat being divided is indeed one method of upholding Capitalism, but the answer isn’t to abandon Leftist analysis, which is correct.

Further, Dialectical Materialism doesn’t “miss that people care about other things.” I think you’re confusing DiaMat for Class Struggle, which is merely one analysis of DiaMat.

The Left also isn’t all about “respecting people and their emotions and desires.” Not all desires are valid, nor are all viewpoints. There are correct conclusions and correct analysis, and there are incorrect conclusions and incorrect analysis. A right-winger blaming government as the issue when really it’s the fault of Capitalism and the state being of bourgeois character is wrong, and those ideas should be fought.

The “right” is made up of those who want to retain the current Capitalist system, or turn the clock “back,” to earlier days. The “left” is made up of Socialists that want to progress onwards. The left and right “values” you list aren’t really indicative of right or left, but vibes.

The proletariat should unify, but this would make them left. Abandoning the reactionary position of being right-wing doesn’t mean the leftists get less left, it’s unifying around correct analysis.

Mind elaborating?