this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
138 points (74.8% liked)
Memes
56186 readers
1018 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
100% not a psy-op or collusion. They really just both bought deeply into the shift to neoliberalism in the 80's, and it has so defined politics for the last 4 decades that few politicians have wrapped their heads around the fact that the continual rejection of both parties by the people is really a rejection of that neoloberalism that we're clearly in the death throes of. Trump succeeded not because every person who voted for him was a racist (I mean, that's definitely a big cadre among his supporters, but it isn't what got him in), he succeeded because people are so desperate to end the neoliberal norm that's crushing everyone that they'll vote for a guy that literally soft-pedals fascism over another neoliberal.
But I really do think the majority of them are true believers. They've been born and raised in that politically environment. It's all they know and they really can't imagine anything else, even if it's really only been a few generations ago that things looked very different.
The "Founding Fathers" (rich slavers) had set up the "Democracy" (of the rich) with "Checks and Balances" to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority" (Actual Democracy) precisely so the Capitalist Class (them) would remain in complete control. Considering this, it is very unlikely the modern Capitalist Class would somehow not be aware of the ways their own class has set things up to keep themselves on top and the rest of us underfoot. It is much more likely they know exactly what they are doing up on the stage, that all the real decision making is done behind closed doors, that the Billionaires and Trillionaires get the final say, and that the electoral clown show in the big party tent exists to fool the populace, only different from the start in that they got better at it. I remember when Biden straight up looked like he was having an orgasm in response to Trump "winning the election" as if it's what he wanted to happen, like say, because it would mean they can get everything they want WITHOUT having to hide the shit they do, and so Trump also functions as a scapegoat, if they get everything the want to just "cast all the blame on Trump" Trump goes off to live in blood soaked luxury, having done his job, then the Democrats swoop in to "save the day". Such a tactic can only work however if people fall for the clown show and don't realize that it is the entire Capitalist system itself that is the problem and the only way forward is to overthrow it and replace it with a Socialist system.
I don't entirely agree.
While I don't agree with the way Congress is arranged with a clearly establishment-favoring Senate, we shouldn't take this to mean there's no such thing as a tyranny of majority as we've literally seen it play out historically many times. Look at Jim Crowe laws passed by majority white populations that harshly kept black Americans down for years up into living memory. Or anti-gay laws... tyrannies of majority 100% happen and it's a big reason why we have specific Constitutional rights that try to prevent it. Groups using democracy as a cudgel to smack down other groups certainly happens though. I would agree that the Senate is more about preserving current power structures than actually trying to prevent that though.
I also just don't agree at all that Biden wanted Trump to win... I think this is a hammer looking for a nail and seeing one, honestly. We just aren't going to agree on that point and aren't going to see each other's point of view, and we're not going to be able to prove hidden intentions, so I'm not sure this point is worth harping on. What I would say is that as Democrats and Republicans are both neolibs, Democrats would sooner see a Republican elected over someone they deem to be an actual threat from the left.
This post is an excellent example of why reading Marxist Leninist Theory should not be treated as optional, there is so much wrong with the post I'm not even sure where to start, and I don't really have the energy for it either, so unfortunately we'll just have to leave it at that. (BTW Cowbee has an excellent guide to help you get started Basic and Advanced)
I'm very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting. It isn't all correct. It has insightful points that should be incorporated into a more well-rounded worldview rather than slavishly adhered to. But I came here to avoid reddit passive aggressive toxicity, so we'll just leave this conversation at that.
Theory is a guide to action, not a dogma. This is a core tenet of Marxism-Leninism. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other, truth comes from practice and this informs theory. How have you studied Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting, and what is incorrect about it? What is "missing" from it that a well-rounded view has? Perhaps the academic setting is impressing upon you conclusions friendly to capitalism and dismissive of socialism.
Unlikely, considering the professor was a communist who lived in China and did his PhD on the history of female silk workers in China.
I'm honestly not really interested in a wider conversation regarding the merits of Marxism and its variants at the moment. I might be willing to speak privately about my thoughts if you're really interested in them, but I think in this forum it lends itself to dogpiling and I've already received comments I don't consider very conducive to civil discussion, so I'm not going to engage here.
Communists aren't a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don't have to speak if you don't want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.
Again, you don't have to speak if you don't want to, but I would argue that you're inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean. Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.
I think you're leaving such a narrow window for who is allowed valid thoughts on socialism as to be essentially exclusive to people you think are right, which doesn't seem super useful or insightful to me.
The block feature is easy enough to use, and I'm happy with it. It isn't really your business, honestly.
I didn't really lay out an assertion though, the other person did. I just said I don't buy their premise that my comment was an example of why study of Marxism-Lenninism is strictly necessary and why. The onus isn't really on me to do anything, even in formal debate, which this is not.
I was interested in the initial conversation, just not the more general topic on theory that it was moving to. I think it usually ends up in navel-gazing at best and toxicity at worst, and I gave it up years ago. In person or private when there's less want for performative argument and point scoring, it can be more interesting. The tone is just very different when people talk directly to you vs when they publicly debate you. Just my personal take, I just don't do it anymore as I've gotten older.
Marxism is broad. There are correct lines, incorrect lines, and hotly contested lines. An expat from a socialist country that serves as an academic for a liberal university is going to have certain class interests and outlooks that set them apart from a communist building socialism in a socialist country. With only that information, there isn't really anything else to help build a case for or against how Marxism was taught to you, through what frames, and in what manner and depth.
As for you making an assertion, you did:
You don't have to defend this assertion if you don't want to, but this is what people who understandably want to defend Marxism are going to latch onto and try to address. This is what manifests in "dogpiling," when you have a clear statement like this one, but with little backing it beyond your experience with Marxism in western academia, this understandably causes people to raise issue with your claims. Block if you want to, but this seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too, raise your opinion on a subject and shield yourself from talking about it on a social media platform focusing on discussion.
Again, do what you want. Nobody should be forced to debate.
But this is a counter to their assertion, which they would have to prove first, even in a formal setting. Which again, this is not. Are you bugging them to prove their assertion? Why or why not?
I literally did not raise this topic, I responded to someone else who moved the topic to this and why I don't agree with them. That comment, by the way, was a similar offhand opinion about why they think I'm wrong with nothing supporting it but their opinion. I don't think countering it withe same minimal effort is out of place or on me. You're free to disagree. The topic I was discussing is whether the tyranny of the majority can exist or not. That, I could understand wanting to prove, but I did indeed open with what I feel are solid examples thereof. I can think of non American examples though too if that's the issue.
I'm not talking to Meow, and this is not a formal debate setting. I agree with Meow, and am fine to back up Meow's points if you wish, after all, I put together the reading guides Meow mentioned. That's my personal investment in this discussion, defending the utility of guides I put together (even if the advanced list isn't really a list at this point but a remnant of the prototype basic list).
I feel that if you want to avoid discussing Marxism-Leninism, it's better to not make a counter-assertion at all, and instead just indicate from the get go that you don't want to discuss it. I agree with Meow that it's critically relevant to the discussion at hand, though, which is why it was brought in.
With respect, I'm just not interested in reading guides as again, whether people choose to believe so or not, I actually have studied this in an academic setting and am satisfied with that. I understand your passion, but Marxism, socialism, and leftism absolutely inform my politics, but they aren't my entire life and I think too many people use them as a source of identity that ends up trying to conform to a label rather than incorporating ideas into well thought out positions. I say this as someone who probably strayed too close to that in my youth as a firebrand and just don't see the point in my old age. It just leads to ulcers and infighting, IMO. I did extend the offer for private discussion if is really that important, but I really do find the tone that is struck very different when people are talking one on one versus, even subconsciously, trying to make points that win upvotes a la reddit. Take that initial reply I took issue with... would anyone really bother privately messaging this? "Hey, I'm not really going to elaborate, but I really disagree with you, go read this other thing"? I've never encountered such a thing and I think we can agree that would come across a bit... unhinged. But it's par for the course with these kind of discussions in public forums and is uniquely bad in Marxist circles IMO.
Note that I'm not saying any of this is you, but I do think this might be true of the person who leveled it at me in the first place (which might be unfair, but I think is no more unfair of an assumption than those made about me).
Feelings noted, but I think that point can simply be taken back one more step: one shouldn't make snappy, bad faith assumptions with no actual support aside from the weaponizing of a guide someone on the Internet has written as a cudgel to dismiss people they disagree with. I feel you're being unfair in your application of who should and shouldn't make an assertion based on who you happen to agree with. So we just don't agree with each other's position here, and that's fine.
Surely you can also see that, by positioning yourself as old and experienced, ie wiser, you are speaking condescendingly towards those you disagree with? I'm fine to take this to DMs, if you wish, but my preference is open discussion as the main purpose of discussing Marxism, and the merits of it, is to create more comrades.
You've already shown yourself to be fairly obstinate, and likely aren't going to be swayed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't onlookers. There's no karma on Lemmy, upvotes do practically nothing (by design), but people are swayed and convinced when they see effective and sensible points being made.
In other words, I focus on swaying onlookers, rather than the person I am directly talking to. Far more effective use of time, unless the person I am talking to is willing to have an actual discussion (which is rare).
I also disagree that the guide was being used as a "cudgel," the point being made was that Marxist theory is useful. The guide was given as an avenue to explore theory, not as a way to "debunk" you. The point stands without the guide, that Marxist theory is useful, and your counterpoint dismissed it by saying you studied Marxism in a liberal, western academic setting, a setting well-known for distorting Marxism, blunting and defanging it.
Do you not think you're being a bit condescending yourself in suggesting people go read a guide written by you in order to have a discussion with you? I think you're holding yourself and people who agree with you to a very different standard than those who disagree with you.
Regardless, my intent isn't to really be condescending, but you've been pretty tenacious in asking why I won't debate you... what else am I to do but explain why I've reached the position I have when you keep pressing and say that I should do a thing I've decided against doing as a rule?
Physician, heal thyself. You've pressed me for... what, half a dozen comments now? On literally nothing but saying I should debate you or others when I don't care to and explained why. I think you're quick to see qualities in others that you aren't realizing you have yourself.
I'm very aware of that, that's exactly what I'm uninterested in. I've moved past "debate" in the sense of a public disagreement and an attempt to sway people to my side... used to do that a lot, but I'm just over it at this point. I'm interested in real conversations and attempts to understand another person and another point of view, I explicitly do not like the kind of conversation that happens when people are trying to convince a third party. I think it lends itself to toxicity, condescension, basically the worst qualities that people associate with redditors, for good reason.
Okay. I disagree with your disagreement :). I think not offering any substantive rebuttal and simply saying "you don't know theory, go read this" is definitely a cudgel to dismiss opinions a person doesn't agree with without putting in any effort, and it's obviously a performative thing for onlookers. If you disagree, I'm comfortable with that.
I never once suggested that people need to read a list compiled by me to have a discussion with me, so I'm not sure where that came from. The list isn't a prerequisite for discussion, neither Meow nor I implied that. I also said you're completely okay to not discuss with me, I also despise debate culture, getting cheap "wins," etc. I just pointed out why people may be "dogpiling" you, as you said. I'm fully comfortable with not having a discussion with you, I've said so multiple times, so I'm also not sure why you describe me of not understanding why you don't want to. I do understand.
You were upset because you felt I was trying to position myself as wisened in order to be condescending. I'm pointing out that this wasn't my intention, I was doing so to explain why I don't do public debates regarding Marxism anymore, which you were arguing that I should probably be doing. You could not have understood that before I explained it, because you have no clue what my intentions are without me telling you, man..... I'd suggest the inability to admit you didn't know something as impossible to know as my personal reasons for not doing something is indicative of the bad faith this conversation has developed into, even if it didn't start that way, so I think this is the end, bud.
I'd further suggest you really consider your own obstinate behavior in arguing for hours with someone about why they won't argue with you before casting that particular stone.
Have a good one, but we just aren't looking for the same kind of conversations, man. I'm not interested in the debate that you are.
I don't know what your intentions are, and I didn't suggest that I did. I understand why you don't discuss Marxism, you told me already. I'm not sure why you think I'm forcing you to "debate me," I already explained that it's fine not to. Really not sure what you're trying to do here.
I don't wish to be dismissive I simply find it exceedingly hard to believe that in Amerika land of McCarthyism home of the red scare it is possible to achieve anything even close to a proper study of Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting.
Then you should probably reconsider if maybe your assumptions about my background were probably a bit too hasty and reconsider how you approach people going forward? I never said I studied it in America, and I do not live in America.
Not really the wild assumption you're attempting to make it out to be.
You're clearly Amerikan the vast majority of which have never left Amerika. My doubt in the proper study of Marxism-Leninism in academic settings also extends to every US client state (all of Europe including the UK, Japan etc.).
I didn't say it's a wild assumption, just pointing out this is why it's probably a better idea to just... not make such an assumption in the first place. 4 million Americans live abroad, it isn't exactly unheard of. But with this clarification, it is now clear the point is just to personally find justification to dismiss dissenting opinion. Which I'm not particularly interested in engaging with, so I'm going to just put an end to it here. Have a good one, though.
1%. 99% odds is really good for such low stakes assumptions.
No I just don't like westerners diluting what it actually means to have received a true academic education in Marxism by parading around a nonsense credential from the core of anti-communism. And again I simply said I found it doubtful it was studied properly, as in with full context without some sort of at a bare minimum compatible left twist to at worst some capitalist bootlicking and NED tier nonsense added in "to give both sides" or such.
Would hit harder if you had any engagement to speak of rather than stating vague generalities. You could have given some depth to what you studied and how etc show some bonafides yknow instead of dancing around the point so that you could run away feigning offense at someone making an assumption that is 99% precise.
You're saying we should Oppose Book Worship? That sounds like a pretty good idea, I'm down with that
This wasn't intended as an attack and I wasn't trying to be passive aggressive, I was trying to help. As someone struggling to over come life long crippling social anxiety, I've been trying to move from being a lurker to actually posting. But it turns out that participating in discussion takes enormously more energy than just lurking, so I did not put in adequate effort into my attempt to help.
I was overwhelmed trying to parse your comment, I'm still terrible at breaking things down into smaller, easier to process pieces, and so all the bundled up errors in your post was too much for me to try and break down and address, but I still wanted to at least try and help.
I was trying to read the rest of your posts in this thread, but I couldn't get through them all as the way you look down on people hurts my stomach. Please, we mean no hostility, so stop giving us yours. (thank you in advanced)
A distinction without a difference. There is no need for collusion when you're moving in the same social circles, meeting the same people, having your campaign funded by the same social class with the same needs and objectives.
And yes, Trump was a mold breaker there, but only as a facade, the reality is not that Trump is "rejecting" neoliberalism, it is that neoliberalism is breaking apart, by its own incoherence, in the US as everywhere else.
To deny the difference is to deny what makes the spectacle compelling
Second part first, agree totally. I don't mean to suggest Trump truly represents some sea change against neoloberalism... but his rhetoric was very much a rejection of a lot of it. He's absolutely a liar in terms of actually representing change from the status quo... he's a pure kleptocrat, plain and simple. But the point is that facade is what resonated with people because even those without the knowledge base or words to form why they're over neoliberalism, are very much over neoliberalism. Regular people, not, not just political nerds.
First part, hard disagree because it informs strategy on how to move past it. If you believe both sides are colluding to keep the masses down and there's no real electoral path to improvement... well, we're at the stage of violent revolution and there's no point faffing about further. Neither of us are out there with rifles yet, so I'd argue neither of us really, truly thinks that's the case yet. Because that actually does happen in places like Gaza, and for good reason - they literally have no other recourse. We've got the table tilted against us, but ultimately we can and do upset the institutional power still. Trump, while he didn't represent real change, was absolutely totally rejected by institutional power in his initial run and managed to win by establishing a faux-populist cult of personality... that literally could not have worked if electoralism was truly totally dead.
I do believe we are at the stage where this is the only means of change. We're not doing it because most people are still delusional (or generously, "hopeful") that we are not, or don't even think about changing things at all by desperation / capitulation / ignorance.
Then why aren't you out there doing it?
I just think it pretty clearly isn't the only way to fight established power when we saw a person that was hated by most establishment powers at the time of his first election and who spent half the money campaigning ended up beating them. Sure, he was obviously not interested in real change, but the fact is they didn't want him in and he got in anyway. Americans are done with neoliberalism and are desperately looking for alternatives. Even worse ones...
Why do you assume they aren't? Because they can type comments?
Because nobody is.