Edit2: the ratio is amazing. I’m exhausted. This has quadrupled my hexbear time for the day and I will be limiting myself for a bit lol. I feel like we got somewhere in a couple of good threads thanks to Hellinkilla and ratboy. Good luck, comrades.
Edit: the rant wasn’t clear enough. In Previous struggles users have expressed frustrations with how mods/admin decisions are made. I would like to discuss how they are made and hear from them. Mods have also stated before that they wish we could be better, I’d like to hear how and know how they think this should be approached.
Rant/effort post coming:
What’s the follow up to the recent problems with how mods/admins have handled recent issues? Did I miss something? Can we get some explanations about how this site is structured and what roles we see for admins/mods generally?
history of struggle session, not necessary but gives context
We had a fairly large and fairly one-sided struggle session a couple weeks ago. Z_Poster was banned (and still is, as far as I know) and the emoji was added. Some users (thinking of @hellinkella, smong others) did some effort to really parse out where the pain points were and who was involved (largely Zionism inherent in some positions, Jewish exceptionalism). Only the emoji and banning occurred with no other promises/ideas from mods/admins.
There then followed a leak of mod logs where opinions were still very different than the userbase. I would encourage people not to open it or ask for it, please, and especially not to share it. But I think a significant amount of us did see messages that, regardless of context, gave an image of admins/mods that think the userbase hates them, disagreed with the userbase in significant ways, and which wants to steer us in a better direction. The mod chat was also absurdly active at the time, but there’s been little talk about what WAS discussed, only discussions about what was missed, where more context is needed, and things that were not done in a timely manner. This was not further discussed. (Personally I’m super appreciative of you all, doing work I don’t want to do on a website I enjoy thoroughly, and don’t hate any of you–including previous ones I’ve argued with, but would like to see some changes which will follow below and hopefully other comrades will add to it/change it for the better).
We had an EM/POC post which was tangential to that, but where there seemed to be large support for the userbase with regards to the ideological differences between mods/admins and the broader userbase. There was also a banning for which apologies followed quickly, but which indicates the structural failure more generally. There were of course other topics covered, which I won’t speak on here. I didn’t see any solutions proposed and accepted, from any of the topics relevant to this post. (Please correct me if I read this thread wrong, don’t want to speak for you, EM/POC comrades.)
Was there a follow up? Is that coming? Is the discussion behind the curtain of the mod chat? I understand you all have lives, so don’t spend all your time working on this, but some knowledge of how you’re working would be good. Otherwise it feels like purposeful pushing back of feedback/decisions so that we will forget the passionate feelings or give up. If that’s the goal, it’s a horrible strategy and should just be explicitly told. “3 months after a struggle session is the earliest we will make changes in processes” is better than nothing.
I would also recommend we have an open discussion about the direction of the site. It seems the mods/admins have indicated to have better ideas for what we can be (I remember this from the “dunk” discussions too), but have not made clear what their position in that is. Enforcers? A vanguard (with our input as leading determinant)? A different vanguard (against our input for but in our interests)? Theoreticians that have the ideas but want the users to take the lead? Knowing this would make clearer how to interact with you, and how to make our experiences better. Maybe we do need growth and improvement, but we haven’t been clear about how, and talking down is how most have experienced that. I already love this place, so when I’m frustrated I don’t think of leaving. But that’s not universal
I’m not relitigating that situation itself, I’m personally fine with how it turned out and just click whatever I feel like.
Again, it’s just that it was entirely unclear how the decisions were made. When is it massive enough to make such a decision? Why is there sometimes a vote and sometimes it’s just “the masses have spoken” without such?
I could agree with every decision and still be frustrated that things just happen without me understanding if my input had any impact, right? Was it yelling into the wind and nobody should’ve bothered? I don’t believe that, but I haven’t been told why anything was ever decided! The original decision to not do the emoji also just happened because there wasn’t pushback (again, not relitigating that decision), but is that also a policy that things are allowed until someone complains? If so, fine I guess, but how many people do we have to have complain to change rules? How many to get a person banned? How many to reverse a change?
We don’t have to have perfect answers for everything, but its constantly frustrating to only get a whiff of an answer to half of the stuff, with seemingly no reaching out to bridge that gap. I made this post in the hopes to discuss that gap and how it works.
Maybe this all stems from me not being a forum person, because I only ever cursorily participated as a child/young adult and never did Reddit except to read the top 5 posts every once in a while. And only found hexbear a few years back after Chapo because I was searching for a place to be a commie.
And how to raise issues in an orderly and comradely fashion that doesn’t result in a giant shit show fight.
From what I have briefly observed the best way to get things done on this website is to stir the pot in the most dramatic way possible.
Law of the Forum
If this is just acceptable, I guess so yeah. Then we just have to do struggle sessions every time there’s anything needing changing. I find them really annoying, and hated my first participation last time. Got dragged in because I commented early without knowing it would become such a shit show.
But if that’s what we’re just saying is how it works
Oh right I see.
The impression I have is that consensus in the team is the preferred method used until something occurs that threatens the integrity of the site, at which point it becomes an authoritarian dictatorship to resolve the issue in one direction or another because SOMETHING has to be done and doing nothing is never an option.
I don’t have special knowledge though and am not in the admin team.
What I do know about part of this was that one of the issues in the past was a hidden ideological struggle between MLs and another group that considers the US to be settler-colonialist and that the only position to take against white people in america is the same position that palestinians take against israeli settlers in occupied Palestine. This disagreement is pretty well described in this article: https://fightbacknews.org/articles/marxism-leninism-and-the-theory-of-settler-colonialism-in-the-united-states
The hardline ML side of that conflict ended up winning I think. Partly because I was unbanned and wouldn’t have been unbanned if the other side won.
Information about that conflict was probably largely kept internal because it wasn’t well known in the community, had occurred in a very hidden way with MLs not even realising it was ongoing until very late, and ultimately probably felt an internal thing didn’t need litigating too loudly publicly or else it might’ve been picked up by wreckers and expanded upon.
My understanding is that issue is dead now but I don’t have internal information, I’m pretty content with how it ended though especially as one of the people who attacked me the hardest was literally a US troop.
I had no idea about this example! Interesting. I’ll have to read the full article.
But even if I agree also, if there’s just a wider acceptance that it’s fine not to know, and the admins get to act as benevolent dictators (to the best of their abilities and ideologies), I’m fine with that! But could it be at least told when that’s the way it’s handled? Just a “if you disagree, become a mod, it was a backroom decision and it won’t be changing”. I’d appreciate it more than having threads about input and struggle sessions where nothing is really stated about this.
The way it went down on the site was that a group who believed in the Settler theory were essentially calling everyone who advocated standard ML theory racist. Because MLs are generally very willing to be open to issues framed around making poc comfortable on the site this resulted in nobody noticing it was actually an ideological conflict between a divergent group and the ML position. This went on for months unnoticed. Once the MLs realised that this is what was actually occurring a real turnaround occurred on it and the ML side won. Basically MLs were losing a sectarian struggle because they didn’t even realise they were in one.
The tl;dr of this conflict is basically that one side thinks america is like israel and palestinian settler theory therefore applies to poc fighting in america (against white americans). Hardline ML theory finds this reactionary and incompatible with marxism, it is emphatically stated in Stalin’s “Marxism & the National Question” sections 4+5.
have you investigated Indigenous Land Back movements within Turtle Island?
Not familiar enough with the US struggle for indigenous people to say anything except that indigenous groups like the one with Nick Estes are probably right. If the interpretation of Stalin is in line with those, I’m probably down.
Thanks for the description. Is it also clearer what my problem is generally in this thread? You’ve been very engaging and I’m not feeling like many are picking up what I’m saying
I think your problem is that you want to understand how/why decisions/conclusions are made and think that this isn’t clear sometimes.
I think it’s mostly consensus except where there’s a huge issue and then it’s dictatorial. I don’t know if my word is good enough to satisfy you on that but unless Carcosa drops in here to confirm it I don’t know for sure.
If I’ve got that wrong and there’s something else, then I don’t know and I’m not getting it fully.
I think that’s a possible answer to one form of this problem! The problem is a disconnect, more generally, between mods/admins and users that results in, among other things, unclear reasoning for decisions! It also results in the mods/admins talking about making us and the site better despite users’ desires. It also results in struggles sometimes generally because of slow responses from mods/admins.
My point is more: if these are the what’s/why’s/how’s of decisions, how did we arrive at that and how can we make that work best? Simple things like the mod logs with the rules is already a method to solve it, but if there’s struggle sessions about “why’s” then we can do better. We solved the ideological struggle session about Zionism (likely? But still don’t have the feedback to know yet), but people were very frustrated in the moment with it, and that could’ve been avoided with changes to such rules/methods/processes.
Without giving too much info, this is very related to my professional work, with systems engineering, complex systems management, work proces management, design process development, are all things I deal with daily across multiple companies, government orgs, and such. I’ve been seeing this for a while but didn’t care to mention it until recently realizing I was waiting on more info and hadn’t heard anything. Since then it’s been bothering me. The language I’m using is different (both literally and I’m trying to remove all jargon) but I’m generally capable in this field, so that’s pretty frustrating
I think one of the problems you’re going to bump up against if you’re dead set on getting a hard written set of what’s/why’s/how’s is that the site has a very real problem with dedicated wreckers who pop up from time to time who want nothing better than to have this kind of information in order to pick at weaknesses. The less information the wreckers have, the harder it tends to be for them to pick at weaknesses in the structure of things.
Definitely a sensible worry! Is this what admins/mods are thinking about when not posting explicit rules?
I generally agree with not having only explicit concrete rules (like the word filter can be circumvented pretty easily, wish it was easy to make similar words go away without grabbing too many real useful ones). But then having some process to decide the spirit of the rule would still be better, or at least a discussion about the spirit of that law how the mods see it! An example, Z_Poster definitely evaded bans previously, but ignoring that, would evading the 2nd to last ban specifically with regards to the emoji have been satisfactory? Like van evasion because of a wrongful ban is something that seemingly most said was fine, at least in the struggle session.
The Red Nation and others would disagree with the FRSO take Awoo linked and are fully in support of the idea that the US is currently a settler colonial nation and needs to be completely decolonized.
My best reference for this is Losurdo’s Class Struggle which would give the framework that people/nations can be multiple classes at once (varying over time, location, functional situation, etc), with direct contradictions between some, cross-contradictions within others, and needs to be understood in that whole. Dismissing the US as a Settler State is wrong if anyone does it. Making that the entire basis of the revolutionary process would also be wrong, because there are more class dynamics than that. Principal contradiction doesn’t mean the others disappear or are ‘not important’, it just means that they can become a part of another, and solved as a part of that other. Idk what the principal contradiction is, which is why I think commie indigenous groups would probably have the best positions (inhabiting both revolutionary classes in both of the 2 largest contradictions discussed). But I’m not gonna get into the weeds any further than these general statements. Not my expertise!
When did any of this happen? Every time I’ve seen that reactionary article mentioned literally everyone is dunking on it
The only people that dunk on it did nothing except read quippy social media titles framing it badly and relying on people not actually reading it because the article is largely correct. If your position is that you think white americans should be fought by poc in the same way that israeli settlers need to be fought by palestinians you will lead people in america to ruin because that is a blatantly absurd and unwinnable theory.
This is all I will say on this. Sectarianism is not allowed on the site and this is a sectarian struggle between the ML position and a maoist / ultra divergent idea from marxism-leninism. The people advocating for this have been, in my experience, maoists, gonzaloites and anarchists. ML orgs have taken positions against it quite rightfully.
I’ve never heard anyone suggest this position, ever. The idea of settler colonialism doesn’t advocate for the elimination and removal of settlers, we’ve already seen this play out in South Africa where white people still exist. I’d be interested to see where these conversations happened and who was advocating for such a thing. This is always the reactionary white position when this topic comes up, “so what you want to kick all the white people out?” No, this isn’t what people who understand settler colonialism advocate for by and large, again I have never seen a serious person who is involved in this movement suggest such a thing aside from maybe joking behind closed doors after being annoyed by cracker shit. I can’t speak for random people on the internet but just because those people suck and have bad takes doesn’t mean that the US isn’t a settler nation.
and no, I read that article when it first came out and made a long comment on why it is bad. It literally asserts an inherently racist notion of a Chicano nation, erasing dozens of Indigenous nations in the process. I am an ML who has argued with ultras, maoists, and anarchists here nearly every month and the US is a settler colonial nation which needs to be decolonized. If I remember correctly you are from the UK, maybe that’s why you don’t have any context for this reality, but as an ML organizing with MLs from colonized nations in the US, I know very well about this subject, have taught about it extensively after learning directly from the leaders of the movement and know very well the nature of settler colonialism and the importance of understanding the settler colonial context of the US and why it is still affecting our organizing here and now.
This isn’t the topic of the thread so no pressure to have this conversation here but I don’t know a single self identified American ML who rejects that the US is a settler colonial nation. The only people I’ve ever met in the real world of US organizing who have rejected this idea are DSA members and anarchists. I’ve never met an ultra in real life, only on the internet. FRSO is a tiny organization that barely exists and just because they wrote an article doesn’t mean they are correct.
edit: Also the Black Belt theory was developed by Harry Haywood while he was studying in the USSR and so the idea that settler colonialism is anti ML is just incorrect. Harry Haywood was advocating for the Black (New Afrikan) nation at the time with the approval of the soviets while Stalin was still running the show. The terminology of settler colonialism wasn’t developed at the time but the idea that there are colonized nations within the US that have the right to self determination was not controversial for the Soviets, it was in fact the CPUSA that rejected it which caused a big split at the time
edit edit: here’s my comment breaking down why that article is trash: https://hexbear.net/post/4043628
edit edit edit: comintern’s resolutions on the Black national questions : https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/1946-1956/roots-revisionism/chapter-13.pdf http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CR75.html#s2
Good job that’s not what I’ve said, nor does the article claim that it was not founded as one.
I literally just told you I’m not having this discussion and you’ve just dumped a whole wall of text on me, knowing I don’t fucking want to reply to it, while saying a bunch of shit that warrants reply. Can you respect when someone says not now nor here? You slyly shove a point about doing it via PM in the response so you acknowledge that I said not to do this then you just went ahead and did it anyway.
I’m going to bed. Engaging with what can only be described as a sectarian line struggle on this site will not lead to anything good. It’s against site rules for a reason.
I refuted all your points but I get if the amount of text was too much for your to read through, and the reason I said it is a settler colonial nation is because the claim is that despite being founded as one, that is somehow no longer relevant to the organizing context here.
I’m allowed to respond however I want and you don’t have to respond, this is an internet forum and I’m not just replying to you for your sake but also for anyone else who is around who might want to know more about this. I’ve seen that article mentioned multiple times and didn’t see any line struggle, and also am passionate about the subject because it directly impacts my life and the lives of everyone I care about, so the idea that there was a secret underground struggle session pit going on here at my favorite hexbear.net internet website about one of the most important communist things I care about was compelling enough for me to speak openly. You don’t have to read what I say, you can even block me if you want. I didn’t mention anything about a PM, I just made it clear that I don’t expect you to read or reply due to the setting it has come up. Expecting me not to respond as I wish without explicitly using the “disengage” option or some variation that makes it clear and then getting worked up about me not meeting your unexpressed expectation doesn’t really make sense to me. Generally I like your posts and haven’t really had any negative interactions with you, and I don’t think I said anything hostile, it doesn’t really feel warranted. They are long posts but when I see a long post and don’t feel like reading I just don’t and move on, sometimes I come back to it but most of the times I don’t.
It isn’t a “sectarian” line struggle because you said you are ML and so am I and literally everyone else I know who includes this analysis within their greater analysis, your idea that it is an “ultra” position is potentially wrong and perhaps you are just assuming that because you are an ML the things you believe are ML and the things you haven’t learned or adopted are some other thing that isn’t ML. Plenty of MLs from TERF island think advocating for trans people isn’t ML, and they are wrong too.
What part of fuck off I do not want to engage do you not understand?
The part where I have to listen to your petulant demands instead of using the disengage option or anything resembling a reasonable approach to talking to people. It’s not surprising you don’t have a good grasp of ML theory since you are incapable of respectful communication, the very basic foundation of organizing. A revolutionary theory based on bringing people together doesn’t really work when you are incapable of communicating
Crackers still existing in South Africa (or at least the ones who held power in the previous era), I hold, is actually a problem lol. Not to get off topic, but I just think that South Africa, Palestine, and the US should all be treated very differently because of the way that the Land Question relates to them! Max Ajl is my reference for this conversation. I do think South Africa failed to actually meet the standards of ending settler colonialism, because there are still Boers that need to be "kill de Boer"ed lol
But I think the point is just that the Palestinian struggle against settler colonialism will look different than the indigenous/POC one in the US because there are so many fundamental material differences.
yes of course, each organizing arena needs its own analysis. and yes I agree that the SA decolonial process didn’t actually get completed, but the mentality of crackers and Boers can be eliminated from society without eliminating the people.
Definitely. And to some extent will be true in Palestine too. But it’ll look differently every time in strategy, tactics, on the ground operations, and context. Complex world we live in, eh?
it’s so difficult to imagine