NikkiB

Nothing confounds me more than the droves of "libertarian socialists" and "anarcho-communists" who insist on clinging to the world's least relevant ideologies. Speaking as someone who used to be an anarchist (before I became old enough to drink), I can identify at least part of the reason being a vehement anti-Soviet and Sinophobic worldview cultivated by decades of malicious propaganda.

But I don't think this critique gets to the core of their beliefs. The true operative factor is twofold. On the one hand, anticommunist "socialists" avoid the consequences that come from aligning oneself with actually-existing socialism. This boils down to the simple fact that no one, especially not the powerful, are actually threatened by western leftist "movements" which spend all of their time and resources owning the red fash tankies online. Functionally, radlibs and liberals are on the same team aside from some nominal points of disagreement. This is clear enough from the Ukraine news cycle and its predictable effects on the minds of these terminal losers.

But on the other hand, every single anarchist "revolution" ending in defeat and failure has advantages for those who wish to profess to the ideology. Within radlib mythology, the fundamental failures of anarchist movements can all be blamed on external sabotage. This, of course, is exactly what we have been shouting from the rooftops for decades upon decades. And yet this seemingly obvious point of weakness shields anarchists from having to prove that their ideas actually work. If you have no surviving socialist project, there's nothing to criticize.

Obviously, this is in actuality a serious problem for every anarchist. When all "anarchist" socialist states are fanciful stories of flawless communism sealed in the distant past, there is no scientific socialism and no historical progress along those lines. Apparently, this suits them just fine, though it does make them deeply unserious.

It can't be.

Libs and reactionaries will constantly bring up the Wagner group in response to having the existence of the Azovites pointed out to them. This counterargument strikes me as lazy and equivocating, but I've always had trouble responding to it.

What would people here recommend I say to this point? Assuming I say anything at all.

I was arguing with someone in the V**shite subreddit because I'm a masochist. That was the first time I'd ever heard the term "little green men." Apparently, not knowing who these guys are disqualifies me from having an opinion on Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, so I'm trying to learn. Who are these people? Did they do something awful and genocidal that I'm not aware of? Or is this person just talking out of their ass?

In my research, I encountered more of Stalin's infamous deportations, namely that of the Crimean Tartars to the Central Asian SSRs. It seems downright ghoulish to me that he would do that, especially given the death and suffering it caused. Is anyone familiar with the rationale behind these deportations? Is it not as bad as it seems, or is this a black mark on his record? If it's a black mark, how do we make sense of that while still upholding Stalin's legacy?

And of course, whenever Russia comes up, the radlibs and the anarchists all flock together to insist that Russia is a colonizing, imperialist power. I'm aware that imperialism is something pretty specific, and not something that Russia can be rightfully accused of. Even so, I have to admit that I'm not fresh on what DOES count as imperialism. Will someone elucidate this for me?

Thanks in advance.

Took my monthly foray into Reddit and made a post of r/capitalismvsocialism asking people what they thought would happen to capitalism when climate change wreaks it havoc across the planet. I learned three things about liberals.

1. They either think climate change is not happening or is not a serious threat.

2. They think Communists pollute more because China, a developing nation with over 1.4 billion people, currently has a higher raw annual CO2 output, which incidentally isn't true.

3. They think capitalist green energy is on pace and everything's gonna be fine guys don't worry we still have PLENTY of time.

But someone did argue that "zero carbon means zero carbon for everyone," therefore the global south can't burn fossil fuels if climate change is to be combated effectively. Is this really true? Is there no way for these countries to develop without causing climate change?

I see sex work as somewhat analogous to coal mining. It's not that it isn't real work, or that those who work in that capacity don't deserve rights, dignity, or a society that works for them. The problem, of course, is the ever-present exploitation of the workers coupled with the severe unpleasantness of the occupation which ensures that the people who do work these jobs are those with few other options. That isn't to say that all sex workers and/or coal miners are miserable. Even so, the patterns around this kind of work are unmistakable.

Given these facts, I think most reasonable people understand that sex work should go extinct. That isn't to say that you can't make pornography or have sex with strangers. However, it's impossible to gauge enthusiastic consent when money is changing hands, and enthusiastic consent is a vital component for an ethical sexual encounter.

My question for the community is how exactly this is meant to be accomplished. How can sex work be abolished without harming the very people it's meant to protect? The number one problem western sex workers face, more so than creepy clients, is the cops, who profile them, steal their wages, and arrest them on a whim. Clearly, criminalizing sex work hasn't done much for sex workers. What are some alternatives?

Given that this community has generally positive view of Stalin, I'm curious what he did that my comrades find irredeemable or out of line. Since it's easy to criticize the Soviet Union from a western perspective, bonus points if you explain how this was detrimental to the development of socialism and/or communism.