A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Politics isn't a sport, and the political compass shit is just the sorting hat for (Western) Poli Sci majors.
I am a Marxist-Leninist with a lot left to learn (and read). I was a sort of ultra-left "Marxist" (firmly in compatible left territory) until I started lurking on here and reading comments by Cowbee and other comrades.
until I started lurking on here and reading comments by Cowbee and other comrades
oh cool, which "sub-lemmy" was that?
Here you go. Cowbee is just a regular user (or maybe rather a legend). Seems that you are moving in the right direction (by which I mean to the left), but I would say that you have far to go still. Good luck!
Hey comrade, just want to mention that I made a new, cleaned up guide and that the one you linked is going to go through a major revision sometime in the future. And thanks for the kind words!
150-or-so years ago, Karl Marx developed a scientific method for understanding socio-economics and translating common political goals towards collective action. Most of the conclusions he came to through this scientific method have borne out in the decades since, a few have not, but the method itself is, I believe, concrete.
As the years went on, additional theoreticians - especially Lenin and Mao - have further developed his theories.
But I think the key is to never be dogmatic - that different times call for different approaches, that sometimes you need forced collectivization, but sometimes you need the New Economic Policy. Sometimes you wage a protracted peasants' war, sometimes you elect Sewer Socialists.
A lot of people can get too caught up in the tendencies and sub-tendencies. I believe that all Marxists should be part of a single Socialist political party where disagreements are handled internally by rigorous debate and elections among Communists.
Communism. Mostly Marxism-Leninism with a bit of Infantile Disorder and antilericalism.
Libertarian and Liberal are not the same thing
And thereβs nothing normal about Libertarians π
Me myself Iβm so woke that my liberal neighbours watch under their beds for fear that I will shiv them in the night
thereβs nothing normal about Libertarians
why do you think so?
Because they're right shills who hijacked a political philosophy
which political philosophy did they hijack?
also what does "right shill" mean?
Murray Rothbard (who is among the most influential in right wing libertarianism) started using the term "libertarian" to hijack it from Joseph Dejacque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque who was an anarcho-communist
The libertarian party in the US is basically the GOP by another name (think fascist Spain as it related to Nazi Germany).
Here is the worst example
http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Rand-Paul-412492
"But when someone is said to be shilling for something or someone there is a distinct note of disapproval, and often the implication that the act is somehow corrupt or dishonest, or that the product or person being promoted is not to be trusted."
Because all Libertarians experience that have been made turns out to be scams to swindle money out of gullible middle class people.
The fact that hardcore Libertarians tend to be pro-contract slavery, pro weird pedophilia views and against environmental protection.
All in all, Libertarianism is inherently flawed and lead to a kind of facism or contract feudalism. It only reproduces ways of control that it tried/say it want to abolish
I'm a Marxist-Leninist! Not really based on "preference," though, but on the overall coherence and practicality of Marxism-Leninism. I agree with the dialectical materialist method, Marxist economics, the Leninist analysis of imperialism and organization, and socialism as a scientific field. I support AES states (Actually Existing Socialism, where public ownwrship is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state), including the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, and Venezuela (which is more almost AES IMO but on the right track).
One thing I would suggest is viewing the state not as something outside class struggle, but deeply involved within it. The state under capitalism has a bourgeois class character, it exists to reinforce capitalism and keep the working classes suppressed. Under socialism, however, the state exists to keep the working classes on top, and this is necessary as we gradually collectivize production and distribution to establish communism. This is the Marxist conception of the state, and how we can achieve statelessness realistically by eroding the basis of the state, class struggle.
If you want a place to start with Marxism-Leninism, I made a basic Marxist-Leninist study guide. Feel free to check it out!
Shrek is Love, Shrek is Life
It's simple, it's easy, it's to the point
π£π’π²π‘ππ© π±π₯π’π¬π π―ππ±π¦π ππ²π±π¬π π―ππ πΆ
middle-ages peasant village sub-reddits (also called lemmy ideology)
I prefer to talk specifics about issues rather than adopt labels. Labels are often victim of whatever the other person thinks the label means. Once the labels come out, they can be conversation enders.
I still have a lot to learn and at times it's overwhelming. I'm a socialist.
I do think labels are helpful for coming to a coherent understanding. Rejection of labels and focusing only on details can lead us to not notice how these details intersect and interconnect, leading to counterposed beliefs simultaneously held. Some people will reject the convo outright based on label, but these people likely aren't going to be swayed anyways, and are looking for an excuse to end the convo. That's why I just openly state that I'm a Marxist-Leninist, it helps explain my views in a more concrete way than needing each bit to be teased out over the course of a convo.
IRL though I tend to not bring up that I'm an ML unless I am at a protest or event or otherwise trust the person deeply.
People who start with preconceptions based on labels can still be swayed. It just becomes an uphill battle of figuring out what they think the label means and dispelling those before getting to the meat of the discussion when you can instead just start on the meat.
Too many labels out there. Ask me my opinion on any issue and I will tell you honestly. I took a quiz once and it said I was a filthy socialist.
I wouldn't trust quizzes when it comes to political ideology. Quizzes try to take your latent beliefs and force them into categories, but these beliefs may be contradictory. Ideologies (in theory) attempt to proceed from a given baseline, and find correct answers given that baseline. For example, Marxism and its various tendencies all proceed from the acceptance of dialectical materialism, the scientific approach to socialism, and Marxist economics as the basis. A quiz may think someone is a Marxist, even if they don't actually agree with any of those, assuming they have similar policy preferences.
Iβm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.
I believe Mao contributed greatly to the Marxist-Leninist philosophy and gave the movement great importance and knowledge for modern society.
Egaltarian
it's great that you are growing and evolving! there's a lot of good reading (both short and long, light and dense) at:
I don't agree with the lists categorizing socialism as "state capitalism" and trying to force Marxist analysis into an anarchist framework, when the conclusions of Marxism fundamentally point towards one unified system of collectivized production and distribution while anarchism is more about local communalism and horizontalism.
anarchism
why ? it's the only thing that's worked long term (150,000 years)
Historical anarchism isn't the same as modern-day anarchism, though. As production and distribution became more complex, different forms of organization came about to suit the level of the productive forces, giving rise to class society. We cannot use historic hunter-gatherer anarchism as proof of modern-day anarchism working at scale, as the material conditions are entirely different. That is, unless you're talking anarcho-primitivism, in which case I think being able to manufacture things like insulin is necessary.
I want a Tlatoani. I want to be assigned a house in a neighborhood in an Altepetl.
I am a pragmatist. My decisions on issues are entirely based on context. Right now I believe we need government services for necessary things to increase because the free market isn't providing them due to misaligned incentives, and if we don't want to live in a complete shithole world that needs to change. Absolutely nothing is preventing us from living in a complete shithole. There's no higher power out to save us. So we better step up and organize to save ourselves.
Syncretic collapse mongerer and socialist solarpunk AI utopian on the net π
Democratic Socialist in bed ποΈ
I used to be something of an anarchist before the brainrot set in in my mid-20s.
Culturally I shill against luddism, degrowth, climate/animal/vegan/preservationist/NIMBYist shit.
I'm pro giant skyscrapers everywhere, mega buildings, mega cities, utilitarianism and brutalism in architecture, pro piracy, pro-gentrification, pro-alienating liminal spaces, pro-grid and anti-car city design, and pro AI democratising the artoid crafts to the masses.
In short: DLSS 5? Yes because it makes the games look objectively better in every way.
DLSS 1-4? No, because it adds smear and visual artifacting that brainwashed console children don't see because they only watch slop shorts in 480p jpegs on they phone and have never played a real video game.
Hopefully we all transcend mortality soon, except the rich, who must be eaten.
I'm also for more vaping, more drugs (except weed and alcohol) and less slave morality amongst the proletariat.
What's your reasoning for pro-piracy?
The crime of theft is depriving another person of a possession they have, the dynamics of piracy are completely different.
First - piracy is taking a copy of something that can be produced ad-infinitum. No actual thing is taken from anyone.
Second - the idea that it's depriving someone of hypothetical income doesn't hold because often times thing X being unavailable via piracy isnt going to mean the pirate is going to pay, they are just gonna pirate thing Y instead or even just get nothing at all.
Think about it - if dominos pizza was free, I'd eat it a lot more. I'd probably get fat, too, because it's literally free so I'd eat more. But as it stands it isn't, and I dont eat it. On the whole I probably eat less total than the amount I would eat if it were free.
The point is - the inherent abundance of digital goods is an inherent behaviour changer and introduces a completely different dynamic than what we're used to IRL. The scarcity in the digital world is absurd and artificial and it's stifling human potential to make the line go up.
And third, and this is adjacent - copyright is just absurd to me, it is deeply absurd to me that one could claim ownership over something immaterial as intellectual property in the first place, ideas are not things, they do not belong to anyone, it's pure category error to suggest otherwise, imo. Not that obviously artists or scientists shouldn't be credited for coming up with ideas or something but that's a job for historians, not the police.
Intellectual property's only benefit is that it really shines a light on how capitalism is not at all some inevitable product of human nature, but in fact requires heavy enforcement and ultimately a threat of violence (prisons) to protect the elite's ownership of the means of production and the economy at large.
I'm a realist, I guess