• AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    21 hours ago

    A lot of Marxists tend to look rather poorly at any mixed Socialism blends as either heretical or as liminal states with Communism as a complete end goal instead of being legitimate in their own right.

    Additionally, those instances delete any comments that don’t align perfectly with their agenda, and routinely ban people who want actual discussion. So they’re not a place to discuss ideologies, they’re a place to pat each other on the back and talk about how smart and right they are.

    • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 minutes ago

      They’re gonna screenshot this and circle-jerk all over it. I guarantee it. Because that’s all they do. They’re not interested in actually implementing incremental steps toward socialism, and also not interested in growing the left so that a revolution is possible. So they’re just miserable little fucks who shit on everyone who’s not a bloodthirsty tyrant.

    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It really is a hype based philosophy. I look at Marx as a bit of a stochastic terrorist of his time. His ideas aren’t dangerous particularly taken with a grain of salt but because they are written to lead one to become angrier and angrier without being given an outlet to work towards things on a constructive way Communist communities start hopeful and sour over time.

      He always dances around how that limiting of other classes authority and individual inequities is going to be handled because the answer… Is violence. A generous read is that he is naive to believe everyone will see he’s right and kumbaya the whole thing into existence but more likely because of the language he uses other places he’s flat out for the nessisary purge required to achieve his aims.

      Issue being is anarchic mobs are generally fairly weak… So to make a successful change you basically need paramilitary leaderships and military like heirachy to achieve that purge… And then so far in history that paramilitary heirachy never has effectively dissolved after the fact because if everybody is doing communism correctly creating competeting heirachy is antithetical… You are just supposed to ignore that the paramilitary heirachy that becomes the state isn’t strictly playing by Marx’s rules either but by then a population isn’t in a position to argue.

      • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        Which is why the gradual cultural changes until we have the numbers to overcome the capitalists approach is the answer. It’s not “extreme” or “cool” or “tough” or “glorious” but it is going to be the only effective long term method of achieving lasting socialism.

        We saw how merely electing a black man set off the reactionaries and got Nazis marching in the streets again. Imagine the reaction to an actual attempt at violent revolution when we don’t have the numbers to support us?

        And how do we get the numbers, eh? By calling liberals “shitlibs” and banning them from discussion? By eliminating the possibility of bringing them further to the left?

        We need numbers and overall cultural changes. Which is FINALLY happening thanks to social media.