What is a Wrecker according to Hexbear mods?

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 15 小时前

What is a Wrecker according to Hexbear mods?

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 14 小时前

Those discussions were before the the switch to Harris. Although the same logic still applies.

The mods of this place are rightly nudging me not to rehash political discussions. If you want to continue this conversion, feel free to DM me.

TheLastHero [he/him]@hexbear.net · edit-2 12 小时前

Nah I don’t really want to talk about electoralism either. We do that enough amongst ourselves lol. But you seem earnest enough so I’ll give you an effort post about this.

Not a mod, but probably the reason you were labeled a wrecker is saying stuff like “You just want to shoot people. You want people to die due to fascism” and “This is your 100th chance to not come off as a fascist supporter.” “this whole post is psy op”

like there you are, you’re lying and slandering us. all you’re missing is a part where you call us Russian bots or Cee-Cee-Pee agents. We’ve heard it all. We don’t need or want to hear it again. It’s boring and annoying to us.

Here’s how I see your core problem, if you will allow me to try to read your mind and put some words in your mouth like you did to my comrades a couple years ago: you liberals understandably feel powerless about this decay affecting the nation, the world. Your politicians, political systems, who could supposedly do something about it seem completely unaccountable and inaccessible, or if they aren’t they usually only provide lame excuses. Now you don’t have to accept this framing they provide, we don’t, but you largely do.

But this feeling of powerlessness and anxiety you have is still there, so to ameliorate this you target those who are accessible, the annoying tankies who love arguing on the internet, thinking if you sway us into “getting with the program” and supporting Kamala you are doing something productive, coalition building, deradicalizing, whatever you want to call it to feel good- you are taking back control.

But this is a fiction, what you and I are doing here, posting, its basically entertainment with a dash of socializing. Nothing we are saying here matters to the enormous forces governing all of our lives, if hexbear.net dropped an offical endorsement for the democrats Trump would still be president. Even trump himself, for all his dictatorial ambitions and constant media presence, is pissing in the wind of forces beyond his control- history, economics, civilizational inertia. No one can control them, we’re all along for the ride. Read some Marxist theory if you want the specifics.

We posters on hexbear try not to worry about this lack of control, and just want to have a good time with our leftie friends while we’re here, that’s what social media is for. And fun for us also includes dogpiling on randoms drifting in and scolding us about it. But when it becomes not fun anymore and they crash out, call us slurs or fascists, etc we just ban them and get back to it. We call this wrecking because we think it’s a funny term to use basically. You don’t have to worry about we think about you, and you don’t have to think we’re funny, but I certainly think that our way is more personally fulfilling than engaging in the same argument again and again on twitter yelling at funhouse mirrors and bots hoping that it will achieve anything.

TLDR: wrecking is killing the vibe, we’re all just posting, don’t let it stress you out.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 12 小时前

Great, sorry for wrecking the vibe. The language used against me seemed to indicate there was something more serious going on. Even now I am having several more nuanced discussions with others at Hexbear.

As for calling people fascist I just want to lay this popular reply from the post I got banned from: https://midwest.social/post/36684138/20421459

Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.

So it kind of seems like Hexbear can give it, but not take it.

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · edit-2 11 小时前

Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism

That is a quote from J. V. Stalin and his writing entitled Concerning the International Situation:

Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.

Please don’t hesitate to read the whole text; it should only take you about 40 minutes to do so. This isn’t some phrase that manifested out of thin air. It has historical context, and it is still applicable today. As I have come to describe the situation in the states, Democrats are the carrot, and Republicans are the stick. Democrats trod out small concessions or the hope of small concessions, while the Republicans meet no resistance in their aim to roll back reforms. As some liberals have taken to calling it, “The Ratchet Effect.” There is more to this, however, because the Republicans being the stick means that they are also the disciplinary wing of the two-party system. They are given the tools they need under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and when the poor get a little to uppity, the Republicans (being the heel to the Democrat’s face) use their power to punish anyone trying to make real change. This is why people are so “heightened” when Trump is in office, because they do the dirty work. If Democrats did the same, there would be no release valve in the system, no “calm waters,” but during those calm waters sections of the government (such as ICE) get increases over increases in a bipartisan way.

But none of this is conspiracy in the traditional sense; it isn’t closed-door agreements and secret handshakes. This behavior is born out of the root cause of the issue, which is the belief that private property must be maintained above all else and that private property must generate infinite growth. In the context of the post you’re referring to, these concessions being made by Mamdani are the result of the Democratic operators having control over his campaign. He has to align with their interests, both foreign and domestic. His messaging is being pulled to the right to align with the Democrats. This alignment process is what keeps us in the system we have today, where nothing seems to get done and things only appear to get worse.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 11 小时前

Ok, fair, so what is the end goal here?

Tear everything down and then build up what? If it isn’t another Democracy (I mean a political system in which voting and representation dictates who has power), then I am not interested. Why have a revolution under a fascist dictator if you are just going to get another fascist dictator or maybe a non-fascist dictator?

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · edit-2 10 小时前

See, this is part of the problem; you have a very shallow understanding of the material realities of the places you are implicitly criticizing. You also have a very narrow view of what “Democracy” is and how it should function, as well as a very misguided definition of Fascism. This kind of muddying of terms is what leads to conflict. When two people attempt to communicate in what is obviously the same language, yet there is a discrepancy between the depth of understanding of the words and concepts being used, it can become nearly impossible to effectively communicate.

If you want to get a primer on the world view, a go-to suggestion is always Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (about a two-hour read). Though you could also read something like The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels, Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein, or Why Marxism? By R. Day for something more modern. If you do not want to read, that’s fine. I’d suggest Michael Parenti’s “Yellow Parenti” Speech

The reality is, our current systems and institutions are hardly Democratic. This was designed from the onset by the founding fathers, the landed class of colonial settlers, but I won’t speak for the likes of John Adams; I’ll let him speak for himself:

May 26, 1776

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the [agreement] of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must [agree] to every act of legislation?..

Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who [are poor and do not own property], are also [unfamiliar] with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? …Few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level.

From the onset, all voting rights beyond rights for the propertied class of America were won through struggle and concession, often violent struggle. We live in a class society, where one class dictates to the other how life will be and how things are going to work. Only through struggle against the propertied class has the working class gained anything. If you want a little taste of what I’m talking about every day, check out A People’s Calendar. All states are a form of dictatorship because all states uphold class society; it is which class uses their dictatorial powers that must be changed.

The institutions you hold so close could even remain intact. A four year voting cycle, even with an electoral college and a supreme court, the only thing that would change is which class is deciding which people fill those roles and to whom their activity benefits.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 8 小时前

How about this I was talking with someone else from Hexbear.

According to them, the plan is to get rid of Capital. Once that is out of the picture Democracy is good. Do you agree with that position? I have no problems getting rid of capitalism.

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · 8 小时前

Good, so that begs two questions:

How do you think you get rid of Capitalism?
Once you get rid of it, how so you defend against its reimplementation?

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 7 小时前

Ahh, now we getting to it!

How do you think you get rid of Capitalism?

Well there are 3 ways I can think of.

Violent Revolution
Peaceful Revolution
Vote it out.

If I had a magic wand, I would do 2. Given I don’t have a magic wand. I think given our current, material conditions, I would shoot for 3. Finally, I think, if all else fails, I would join in 1.

Now I am familiar with the problems of 3. You really need to have a voting population who is on it. In it to win it. Understand politics. That is a very big ask, and I am not sure we got it. Also the longer we sit in 3. The more people suffer though this fascist situation we have. So that is pretty horrible. On the plus side, maybe if we sit long enough in 3, 2 will happen, but there is no guarantee.

So I find this a hard question to answer, it requires a crystal ball. I don’t know how many lives would be harmed in either direction. If I knew I would pick the direction with the least amount of violence towards the least amount of people.

Once you get rid of it, how so you defend against its reimplementation?

If you are talking about have some kind of democratic or representative system. You would need to propagandize that this system that no longer exists is bad and we shouldn’t try to re-implement it. Bad actors will be pushing for it.

Otherwise you could go the authoritarian rout and somehow keep that out, but kings fell to Capitalism before.

So it is hard. I don’t really have a good answer here either. My though would be to kick the can down the road. I will try to get rid of Capitalism with my generation, how to keep it dead, that is a future generations problem.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 9 小时前

I think you have confused my pro Democracy stance for a pro US right now Democracy stance so this doesn’t really address my post.

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · edit-2 7 小时前

Again this is the problem, you can’t separate the then from the now, that’s not how history works. The democracy you support isn’t different then the democracy that exists “right now”. The foundations of the democracy you support creates the conditions for the democracy you don’t support now. They are linked through the development of history and through the crisis of Capitalism. There is no returning to some idealized version of American democracy that you support because it doesn’t exist. It only exists in your mind, as a figment of your imagination, built from the memories of times where “politics” didn’t impact your life. For millions of Americans, this is the America they know and have always known.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 7 小时前

I think what I am trying to get at, is that if I was in charge and had to not be in charge soon magically. I would choose a democracy. I would get rid of first past the post, the electoral college, and the two party system. I would try to create a fair and equitable society.

As I understand history the original decision for the electoral college was due to people in charge thinking that not everyone’s vote should be held with the same weight. This is not something that I believe.

Now in my new country, could people vote back in the electoral collage and first past the post, sure, but there isn’t much you can do about that without causing other problems.

TheLastHero [he/him]@hexbear.net · 12 小时前

so idk if you know but that’s mutation of a famous quote from the Comintern, almost 100 years old now. I assume you’re probably a social democrat since that’s pretty much the left edge of acceptable politics in the USA. If you are, you should consider doing a little reading about the historically famous, deathly feud between Communists and Social Democrats. The German KPD and SPD and Gustav Noske specifically. You may understand where this apparently confusing hostility comes from after that, because a lot of clueless social dems assume that because they are the “closest to the left choice” that communists should at least like them more than we do.

What they’re saying is basically, “these reformist politicians would also kill us, like the fascists would, if it meant they got to hold office, you can’t trust them”, and if you’ve seen the way some of the modern liberal-left talks about “tankies” I don’t think it should be too surprising that we are still saying this. However in real life I’ve not seen this impede very much cooperation anymore, mostly because real social democrats (not new laborite neoliberal imperialists) are only slightly more relevant than communists in the west anymore

You also dove right into the middle of one of our ongoing “struggle sessions” re: Zohran (big debate), and we are in there dishing it out to each other and those can get a pretty hot. Would not recommend wading into the deep end like that if you don’t know what you’re getting into, not my favorite thing to do personally, but others like debating more than me

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 11 小时前

@RedWizard replied with a similar post to yours at the same time. So I don’t want to create duplications: https://midwest.social/post/36730554/20440762