People who get mad at Cowbee's in depth responses are the same people who feel attacked when you are just trying to explain something to them. Like, sure big paragraphs scary, but, like, maybe read?
Slop.
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
I fully expect people to not agree with everything I have to say, and I openly admit my biases, too. It isn't really difficult to find my position on any one thing, if it's a salient topic I've probably spoken about it at some point.
Yes but you see your supposed to just believe whatever the latest state dept statement says. To do otherwise is uncivilized and rude and tankie and red fash and bannable.
db0's mangling of what you say is pretty ridiculous tho
I agree, but when it's pointed out it backfires on them anyways.
It's disappointing to see how db0 has developed, although they'd say the same about me. I really don't recall them being this way a long time ago. They used to be more level headed but now it seems like, ironically, they are a petty tyrant of their e-fief and they guard it jealously against imagined threats lurking in every shadow.
They aren't even capable of engaging with reasonable arguments. They just snap to accusations and knee-jerk reactions where they assure themselves that they are always in the right. The tragedy of this is that db0's skepticism towards hierarchy and how power is wielded apparently only extends outwards and never inwards into self-critique for how they act.
There's a good argument for the anarchist hero Nestor Makhno being authoritarian. He ordered the summary execution of leaders in his own military, deploying his military secret police(!!) to carry out the executions. Volin, then-head of what was ostensibly the civil administration oversight body, the Military Revolutionary Council, which had mandate over all things that weren't about conducting war or where it fell into a state of exception (e.g. Makhno finally giving Grigoriev exactly what he deserved when Grigoriev pulled a gun on Makhno) and so it was expected that Makhno would have held a trial and that there would have been sentencing. Except Volin wasn't in the room when this order was issued so the executions were carried out and only after did Volin express dismay at this action by Makhno.
Volin being in the room when decisions like this were made meant that he did keep a check on Makhno at other points, such as when a domestic Ukrainian printing press was printing material that Makhno deemed to be "too sympathetic" towards the Bolsheviks and so Makhno ordered that the newspaper be banned and their printing press be destroyed. Volin countermanded this order based on anarchist principles and on the fact that it was a matter for the civil administration and not for the leader of the military to decide.
There are other examples of Makhno's actions being just as "authoritarian" as what you'd find people criticizing communists for, including using the military secret police to establish terror cells in the USSR to subvert the government (remember this next time you hear the "stabbed in the back" trope that gets trotted out routinely), but these get overlooked or excused as being "Bolshevik propaganda". Meanwhile most sources are either anarchist, pro-Makhnovshchina, or they are primary sources from actual anarchists like Volin and Belash; never let facts and sources get in the way of an opportune handwaving, I guess?
There's other matters, like his personal conduct and the way he established a clique of officers around him and insulated himself from everyone else while ruling by edict, and the very tricky matter of the way that the Black Army treated the Mennonites. But that's a long story.
Suffice it to say that I don't need to explain that memes that glorify Makhno are certainly permitted there, despite him very easily qualifying for the title of authoritarian dictator himself. I already know that zero discussion would be permitted on this because either it would require db0 to acknowledge that even figures like Makhno had to, at times, resort to "authoritarian" measures (not that every time it was justified), and that almost any criticism of communist leaders could easily be applied to Makhno as well, or it would require acknowledging that Makhno was authoritarian and thus memes that lionize him are not permitted. Both are anathema to a dogmatist like db0.
Though I guess with specters like comrade Cowbee haunting the mind of db0 with the latent awareness that he will bring a very well-reasoned argument and the historical sources to back it up, is it any wonder why db0 acts like they're afraid of their own shadow?
Interesting, I knew about Makhno's banditry towards the bolsheviks, but not about having a secret police or shutting down that Ukrainian printing press! I tend to agree, there's a selective blindness going on that seems ideologically driven, and I think it's because dbzer0 as an instance is gaining more Marxist sympathies as a whole. Heightened contradictions and all that.
Though I guess with specters like comrade Cowbee haunting the mind of db0 with the latent awareness that he will bring a very well-reasoned argument and the historical sources to back it up, is it any wonder why db0 acts like they're afraid of their own shadow?
This is the thing that puzzles me, db0 regularly uses me in particular as an example whenever they want to make a point about Marxists, despite me not representing every Marxist or even speaking with them in days. It seems like I'm a go-to example, but as that thread showed it doesn't look like they particularly care to represent my views accurately.
It was really brain-melting seeing anarchist comrades I knew well, who had denounced the Cheka and the Stasi and so on, take one of two routes when I raised the Makhnovist military secret police - either they'd deny it and claim it was merely Bolshevik propaganda (lol) or they would immediately switch to defending it and providing justifications despite not being aware of it up until that point. I was already deeply questioning my anarchist politics at this point but to see anarchists, some of whom I sincerely respected, start doing the same thing that they'd lambaste "tankies" over really shook me and it led me to question the dogmatism that I became aware of, which eventually led me to get serious about materialism. Ultimately, it speaks volumes that an anarchist movement irl required the establishment of a secret police force during a period of civil war to defend the revolution. I'm not going to say that their every action was justified but if you lean into it, it says something about the nature of and the necessity for concentration of authority and of state apparatuses. I guess I wasn't quite hardheaded enough that I could ignore this for long, although only by a narrow margin.
So, as is customary, you've replied to me and so it's only right that I provide you with yet another item to add to your reading list [PDF Warning]. Fortunately Kontrrazvedka: The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service is short, but it's quite comprehensive for the topic of the Makhnovist military secret police (Kontrrazvedka being the Ukrainian term for them.) There are other mentions of them in other historical sources but they are often small and fragmentory.
Azarov is a contemporary Ukrainian anarchist so it's really hard for his work to be reflexively dismissed as a source too, which is nice. I still think he handles the subject with kid's gloves, honestly, but at least he stuck his neck out to write this work and he did criticize the Kontrrazvedka, which is more than I can say for some anarchists. (It's a bad period of history to be a prominent anarchist living in Ukraine though and I wonder how he's doing.)
Congrats on being promoted to boogeyman status. That's something we could all aspire to be lol
Yep, what you describe is a similar path I took from anarchism to Marxism. Seeing anarchist movements forced through necessity into making concessions and adapting structures that normally go against horizontalism was one of the bits that propelled me towards Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and then the rest of the Marxist canon. And thanks for the book! There's no chance I can get to it anytime soon, but it's absolutely getting added to the list of books I intend to read.
Hope Azarov is doing well too, that's terrifying.
And yep, I've basically been a boogeyman for quite a few people for quite a while now. I don't really get it though, I'm one of the least confrontational and least aggressive people that talk about Marxism here on Lemmy.
I'm one of the least confrontational and least aggressive people that talk about Marxism here on Lemmy.
I legit think it's this! You're always so calm and composed and you treat the comments you're arguing against with such respect, more than they often deserve. I think it makes it really hard for people to argue against you in a compelling way, and it pisses people off that their arguments look so bad in comparison to yours
I've had similar thoughts, and I find it really funny that it provokes such hatred. The reason I do it is so that none of my points can be dismissed due to their delivery, that's also why I give a lot of leeway for what others say and focus on the points at hand no matter how rudely they're given. Nia Frome's On Dialectics, or How to Defeat Enemies is a great essay on why that works well.
You don't need to be threatening to be perceived as a threat, I suppose.
I think that's what's more threatening, as comrade Are_Euclidding_Me pointed out. It's easier to dismiss rude or confrontational people, no matter how justified they are, than someone that avoids slapfighting.
db0 is trying to bait you because they refuse to (likely could not even if they tried) actually engage with what you say. I'm sure they think this is very smart and "anarchist" of them to be doing.
Tbf on your Mahkno section, he wasn't exactly normal for anarchists of the time. He advocated for an anarchist vanguard. That's organising along lines of ML hierarchy but for anarchist means. It's very muddled in its own way.
That's a good point. Not to come off as snarky towards anarchists but there's only a couple of anarchist projects that we can even look to as historical examples - in Ukraine, in the Spanish Civil War, in Korea with the KPAM (extremely briefly and it seems like a lot of the scholarship on it is bound up in the Korean language, if it even exists.)
Often anarchists use Rojava, aka AANES, but they really aren't anarchist (although I tend to avoid debate on this matter) and then there's the MAREZ led by the EZLN, often just referred to as "The Zapatistas" (which irritates me because it gives those western chauvinist vibes) but they explicitly reject the label of anarchism because it's from a western political and colonial paradigm. Can't say I'd have any objections to that even if I did have a say, which I don't.
Both the Malhnovshchina and Revolutionary Catalonia are really good examples of hierarchies and anarchist vanguardism of a sort, not to mention of states themselves, so it's a catch-22: I'm going to look at it and my conclusion will be that these structures are a necessity to advance and defend the revolution, at least insofar as they were able to, but I could see anarchists rejecting this and arguing that it's a quirk of history and that they aren't necessary and that it is possible to advance an anarchist revolution without it. I can imagine that some anarchists would argue that these structures are also what led to each revolution failing too, although I've never come across a good argument or any sources that seem to vindicate this position.
It's interesting how Makhno and Arshinov leaned harder into vanguardism after they fled Ukraine with the collapse of the Black Army where they developed platformism as a response to what they identified as critical flaws within the Makhnovshchina.
I wonder if Makhno wasn't so bitterly opposed to the Bolsheviks, for obvious reasons since he had such a personal stake in opposing them, if he would have taken Arshinov's path and ended up going full-Bolshevik in the end?
Thank for writing this comment I have learned much.
You're welcome. It's very much a sketch rather than being something comprehensive. I've read a fair bit about the Makhnovists although I'm no scholar. I tend to keep this stuff under wraps a lot of the time because often there's not much point sharing it - it's liable to just fuel online slapfights that produce little aside from spectacle.
I do genuinely believe that most of what the Makhnovists did in terms of establishing a state and defending it were necessary, and I try to be careful not to treat it as some gotcha like a debatebro would.
Every time comrade ReadFanon comments I learn new things!
I wanna do another "Uphold ReadFanon Thought" post but more general and not just neurodiverse related.
But also
3399 comments
Not helped by the recent changes made to limit how many pages of comments/search/etc you can get.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
They hated Cowbee because he told the truth
Oh my god db0 is the most miserable person I've ever encountered. Just total contrarian hall monitor nerd energy. The evil tankies aren't coming to oppress you.
They get so mad at cowbee and cowbee is just 
Every time, lol. I had nothing to do with that user or the thread either.
lol, db0 definitely wasn't expecting to be called out on that ”ideal form of communism” comment.
They claimed they thought I made that comment but that they didn't want to bother digging it up, which is fair enough. At least I got to actually explain my views before the thread gets locked.
No that's not fair enough, lol. He lied about you and then chickened out rather than take any responsibility for his own lazy excuse-making.
I try to give a large amount of charity to other's comments for the fact that it helps rhetorically. If db0 is in fact being genuine with what they said, that being that they genuinely thought I made that claim, then me proving that original claim wrong is already more than enough for others to see.

db0 just digs holes for himself over and over again. Completely unnecessary self-embarrassment, even trying to bring cowbee into it and chickening out the moment he's asked for any evidence of his lies.
Not to mention that nobody outright says that they’re going to be oppressive. Lenin sounded great in . . . 1917 when he was writing effectively anarchist praxis. We just know that the creation of a new state is going to inevitably end up oppressing and killing those who oppose creating a state.
This is an excellent bit
What is now happening to Lenin’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Leninism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Leninists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Leninism, are speaking of the “anarchist” Lenin, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!
Wasn't Lenin in 1917 writing "kill the bastards" as advice in a bunch of his missives? I've never been big on the russian civil war, but I remember something about Lenin making Stalin look like a lamb
While the Russian Civil War did start in 1917, I think they mean prior to the October Revolution, but you can still just read State and Revolution and other texts and see that Lenin was very much opposed to anarchist ideas and argued for the necessity of the use of state violence on the part of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
When the proposed “solution” of the ML(M) would be to place me in a fascist regime with a red coat of paint and oppress me (if not outright murder me in the name of the revolution), I will fucking call them red fash.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com What's that a solution to? You're constantly paranoid about leftists coming for you, but never over anything specific. Solutions are things applied to perceived problems, so what problem is it you imagine you're creating?
Lenin, writer of anarchist praxis is a good one.
for some reason does more massive rants against cowbee.
We salute our legendary posters :07:
Never ending praise for cowbee in the posting trenches!
Idk if should be in different comm but with this and their support of angry quoka user getting worrying
rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances’ admins or moderators.
I think this is skirting the line, it would be a good practice to not do memeing, baiting or non-constructive commenting in that thread.