afronaut comments on Americans and socialism

[–] afronaut@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Mutual aid is NOT charity, and this is a fundamental difference. In fact, mutual aid is a fundamental component of grassroots organization and I’m shocked you are unfamiliar with the term with how much leftist literature you are sending me.

You seem to believe that theory is necessary to achieving class consciousness and I disagree. You sent me several links to books intended for already self-identified leftists to read. Me reading more books isn’t going to radicalize right-wingers, right?

You are right about “meeting people where they are”. But, we need to synthesize the information and translate it according to the individual we are speaking to. This isn’t “hiding” or “obscuring” anything. It’s relating to the person directly instead of hiding behind complex economic theory and terminology that may go over their heads.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

I'm familiar with the term Mutual Aid. I am aware that it is an aspect of grassroots organization. I don't see how it has relevance to what we are talking about, regardless of trying to build a gift economy on the ground.

Theory is necessary because it informs correct practice. The SRs celebrated an "end to theory," while Lenin and the Bolsheviks pushed for using every tool you could to your advantage. The SRs, of course, failed.

There's a difference between trying to relay complex theory to trying to hide that you're a Leftist or describe concepts while hiding the proper terms for them. You can explain concepts like classes without shying away from terms like "Capital ownership."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] afronaut@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

You keep using the word “hiding”.

If you say ‘water’ and someone else says ‘agua’, the meaning is not being “hidden”. It is simply not being communicated using the same language.

In this context, you are attempting to explain socialism to people using a vernacular that comes off as academically elitist to many working class people.

It doesn’t matter if the speaker is a self-identified leftist. It doesn’t matter how much theory they’ve read. Someone of the working class has the potential to attain class consciousness and develop a path toward revolution. We’re just not even close to a global consciousness yet.

Nation-states are in the process of being replaced by corporate-states. The masses are praising tech-elites and corporatists as ideal leaders. I think you’ll notice a trend among various kinds of “states” throughout history. People are being increasingly hostile to the concept of a state, and that is class consciousness. That hostility would extend to a Marxist-Leninist state as well.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

We aren't talking about Spanish vs English, though. You can simplify concepts like Dialectical Materialism without trying to rename or repackage it so that people already hostile to the concept don't reflexively reject it. People are smarter than that, even if theory can get complex people don't need new words for established terms. Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven't read theory from those who have, and places a confusing barrier in front of those who begin to read theory and would have to relearn terms.

Look to how Communist parties have communicated theory to the masses. Communist leaders and parties have always had to balance simplification for education with getting their ideas across, but never by replacing terminology. This separates the party from the people and disrupts the Mass Line. You are correct that people can understand these concepts without reading theory, but theory is still necessary, and creating needless sepparation drives division between the party and the people, rather than unifying them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] afronaut@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven't read theory from those who have

You’re still operating under the mindset that people need a specific theory, much of which has its own historical ties to political and academic elites. In reality, the working class and marginalized communities have created several ‘secondary languages’ outside of elitist tradition and decorum through slang and code-switching. It is here that the localized vernacular, the whispers of revolution, organically develop into physically organized revolution.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The theory people need is the one informed and confirmed by past practice and formed through their own experiences in applying theory to their conditions. Everywhere will be different.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] afronaut@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

The Haitian Revolution happened before the development of Marxist theory. The cataclysm of events that followed could not have been predicted but it’s what lead to the French and American revolutions.

Most of Marx’s key works were written after the Haitian Revolution and prior to the American Civil War, but he didn’t address either.

In my opinion, people do not need any predefined theory. There just needs to be a shared consciousness aligned with class interest. The Haitian Revolution was largely made possibly by the Polish who were sent there by the French to squash the revolt. But, the Polish were also seeking their own independence and defected to help the Haitians. This did not require theory just the shared concept of independence.

Eventually, the State will morph into a de facto Corporation that is no longer bound by geopolitical borders. The concept of nationalism will dissipate over time. Company towns will have their culture, customs, and traditions dictated by a top-down corporate structure; Mayor-Managers who work beneath District Manager-governors, who work beneath Regional Manager-governors who works beneath the Zone Manager-governors, who work brandy VPs, the Board, and the CEO-dictator. Corporate police will exist to protect corporate interests and will be present domestically and internationally. They would not need to identify themselves nor the employer financing them.

I believe it will be somewhere during this late-stage of global corporatism that we will begin to see a true socialist revolution— where each individual working class person recognizes their role, the power, their ability. And, are able to communicate and organize utilizing their role. We aren’t there yet but I believe we are building the society we wish to see each day with every effort of resistance.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

It's pretty undeniable that learning from the successes and failures of previous revolutions increases your chance of success. The Haitian revolution in particular was one of National Liberation, the likes of which Marxists like Frantz Fanon have spent lifetimes analyzing. It isn't about finding "predefined theory," but not reinventing the wheel every time. See what can be universalized, see what can't be, and work from there.

Again, though, I recommend you dive into the myriad factions at play in the many successful Socialist revolutions we have seen. Many factions supported the idea of "general radicalization," like the SRs, but ultimately it ended up being the more organized and dedicated to theory that successfully guided revolution.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent