In the case of Russia, Hexbear largely hates it, they just believe it to be working against NATO. As for the DPRK and PRC, Hexbear defends AES over Capitalist countries, and that includes Anarchists.
It’s impossible to be an Anarchist and side with Western Hegemony.
You don’t need to side with any hegemony but defending countries that would and have killed anarchist movements makes you less of an anarchist than one that does defend any western power.
Ultimately advocating for anarchist ideals is more likely to work outside of authoritarian governments so I cannot understand how hexbear can defend those. But then again people vote against their interests all the time so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
defending countries that would and have killed anarchist movements makes you less of an anarchist than one that does defend any western power.
Western powers kill Anarchists too, to a greater extent. If you do not understand this, you are not an Anarchist.
Ultimately advocating for anarchist ideals is more likely to work outside of authoritarian governments so I cannot understand how hexbear can defend those. But then again people vote against their interests all the time so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
Anarchists picking Socialism over Capitalism and Imperialism makes sense
I need some evidence to believe that authoritarian nations kill and surpress anarchists less than others.
You’re an Anarchist, all nations should be authoritarian if you were consistent with your views. If you legitimately believe Socialism to be more authoritarian than Capitalism you’re LARPing as an Anarchist.
Also none of those nations offer socialism any more than anyone else.
I’m guessing you aren’t an anarchist because that’s mostly about unjust hierarchies, not conflating the word authoritarian.
Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.
I’m guessing you aren’t an anarchist because that’s mostly about unjust hierarchies, not conflating the word authoritarian.
I’m a Communist that works with and speaks with Anarchists.
Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.
Then you need to study up on AES countries, as there have been and continue to be Socialist countries, despite them not being Anarchist.
A state largely governed by a Communist Party that practices strong central planning and works against bourgeois control is Socialist. As an example, the USSR, where there were large implementations of democratization:
Hah, I grew up in the soviet occupied Estonia, democracy did not exist and neither did socialism. Advocating for anarchist ideas also got you locked up. I know enough about countries dressing themselves up as socialist to not fall for it. Socialism does not exist without workers democratically controlling the means of production.
In the case of Russia, Hexbear largely hates it, they just believe it to be working against NATO. As for the DPRK and PRC, Hexbear defends AES over Capitalist countries, and that includes Anarchists.
It’s impossible to be an Anarchist and side with Western Hegemony.
You don’t need to side with any hegemony but defending countries that would and have killed anarchist movements makes you less of an anarchist than one that does defend any western power.
Ultimately advocating for anarchist ideals is more likely to work outside of authoritarian governments so I cannot understand how hexbear can defend those. But then again people vote against their interests all the time so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
Western powers kill Anarchists too, to a greater extent. If you do not understand this, you are not an Anarchist.
Anarchists picking Socialism over Capitalism and Imperialism makes sense
I need some evidence to believe that authoritarian nations kill and surpress anarchists less than others.
Also none of those nations offer socialism any more than anyone else.
You’re an Anarchist, all nations should be authoritarian if you were consistent with your views. If you legitimately believe Socialism to be more authoritarian than Capitalism you’re LARPing as an Anarchist.
Citation needed.
I’m guessing you aren’t an anarchist because that’s mostly about unjust hierarchies, not conflating the word authoritarian.
Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.
I’m a Communist that works with and speaks with Anarchists.
Then you need to study up on AES countries, as there have been and continue to be Socialist countries, despite them not being Anarchist.
A state largely governed by a Communist Party that practices strong central planning and works against bourgeois control is Socialist. As an example, the USSR, where there were large implementations of democratization:
And large reductions in wealth disparity:
Despite overall GDP growth:
Hah, I grew up in the soviet occupied Estonia, democracy did not exist and neither did socialism. Advocating for anarchist ideas also got you locked up. I know enough about countries dressing themselves up as socialist to not fall for it. Socialism does not exist without workers democratically controlling the means of production.
Are you capable of addressing what I said without resorting to anecdotes?