I didn't join the revolution to read
3d 12h ago by slrpnk.net/u/andrewrgross in memes@lemmy.ml from lemmy.ml
I can just beat someone with praxis. Take that, theorists!
Surprise twist: I am aware anarchists like reading; I like reading; and I'm not actually an anarchist!
It's just a fun meme making fun of upright overly intellectual Marxist-Leninists (that part is sincere).
I know, I like the meme, and we can have fun here :)
You can't read a revolution into existence, but you can't have a successful revolution without properly preparing for it and studying revolution. You wouldn't want someone to perform surgery just because they want to help, they will almost certainly end up doing more harm than good. Revolution is the same way, we stand against the most brutal global system of imperialism, we must be prepared for it!
If anyone wants a place to start with theory, I wrote a new basic Marxist-Leninist study guide. Give it a look!
I appreciate the effort and I will check it out. However imo the original works (ie Marx, Engels, Lenin) are too dense for a begginer, I feel there has to be a softer learning curve, with more digested content. For example I'm reading the Vietnamese textbook and I think it does a very good job at explaining excerpts of the originals in accessible language. Denser doesn't mean more accurate or better in all cases, just generally harder to read.
The Vietnamese textbook is phenomenal! It doesn't touch the areas my list goes into though, and just focuses on dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and political economy.
Hey, I'm having the same issue with the denser works — what's the name of the vietnamese textbook?
Presumably "The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism"
https://www.lunaoi.com/product/the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-marxism-leninism-preorder/?sync-done
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Curriculum_of_the_Basic_Principles_of_Marxism-Leninism_Part_1
Thanks.
This is again part of the problem. You can understand the fundamentals of ML in like an hour or less. A quick start guide being like 12 hours long is insane.
I don't think that's accurate, though. How do you explain dialectical materialism, historical materialism, imperialism, why capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable, revolutionary strategy, and more in under an hour?
However else you explain any other concept, these are very simple ideas.
How so? How can you simplify them to take less than an hour?
Explaining it to them without the fluff?
Elaborate, how do you explain all of them in under an hour, even without fluff?
What are you asking for? Like my method of teaching?
I'm asking how you can fit the sheer quantity of raw information, effectively, into an hour. I'm entirely unconvinced that you could do so.
Well okay thats not something I could describe for you without actually doing it, and I’m not finna make an hour long course for you bro
Pick any of the core parts then, and try to accurately break it down into a small enough chunk. Explain dialectical materialism (not even historical materialism) in 5 minutes.
Too lazy
Cool, my latest effort to do so takes around 5-10 minutes to read, but I feel that I'm missing a lot of important factors.
I’m not finna make an hour long course for you bro
Cringe
You can definitely explain most of those in a way a 5 year old could understand in under 20 minutes.
Not dialectical materialism though. I've read about it and had it explained to me more time than I can count, and my brain refuses to hold on to what it means.
I wrote a basic guide on dialectical materialism. It's missing a ton, but should be enough to hopefully make it make sense to start off with.
Thanks. I'll try it, but I have zero faith it'll stick this time 😅
Haha, no worries! Really, it's about materialism in outlook, dialectics in method. The rest follows from there!
I read it. I've been reading a lot of complex systems science lately, and it seems to have a lot of overlap, so perhaps it will stick a bit harder this time. Thanks :)
No problem, glad it helped!
I’ve read about it and had it explained to me more time than I can count, and my brain refuses to hold on to what it means.
I had the same problem up in until I had Stalin explain it to me:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
(It's short, to the point and when one "hence" paragraph after the other comes, you will start to understand)
Alternativly if you're not the reading type:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HAEgTPK-oiU
(Taken from a vietnamese schoolbook)
From a Marxist-Leninist: there are some Marxist authors contesting the emphasis on the "dialectics" part of dialectical materialism. Paul Cockshott is a good example, you can search for Cockshott's criticism of dialectical materialism, maybe if the concepts don't stick to you you could have a more Newtonian materialist view
would you also try to cure cancer while ignoring all the research published on it?
Yhea, it's easy! If a patient asks you for help: you help them
With actual medicines, or horse dewormer?
You know, the communist nations, whatever their faults, have moved more people out of poverty than the rest of the world combined, helped many colonies achieve independence, and sent the first man and woman to space.
Whereas anarchist nations have- oh wait they don't even exist.
Maybe they should have read them books.
Username is kinda on the money.
Look at you cashing in for some easy puns
When you’re given the layup, you take it.
Counterpoint, you can understand the core points of socialism very quickly. One need not read 50 books before joining the conversation.
Right, but then you need to know how to make a proper analysis grounded in material reality, identify the main contradiction and organize effectively. All of this can't be taught instantaneously. Especially when someone isn't class conscious and has no background in leftist struggle. How do you explain to some sheltered worker that's doing more or less well what imperialism is, what it does, why it should matter to them even if they've been trained to think exploitation abroad is justified, how do you help them become effective in their organizing?
I come from a leftist background, I grew up hearing words like neocolonialism and understanding what they meant, I worked with a leftist (but not communist) org in the past, and even then there's a whole lot I didn't know or understand, and what helped me was to sit down to read and listen to my comrades. We can't build socialism just with vibes and ideals, we need to be grounded in reality.
I posted the meme as a lighthearted joke, but if I can be serious for a moment, the joke isn't that reading isn't useful. It's ridiculing the practice of approaching Marxist texts in a way similar to religious or academic study. It's also (lovingly) ridiculing mutual aid radicals with an overly simplistic worldview.
Reading is good. Although I recommend people read the things that they're interested in and that they think would help them in their goals, and not fall into the practice of assigning other people reading or falling into a mentality of chasing after a complete understanding of subjects no one can ever understand to completion.
Why wouldn't learning about politics in depth be like academic study, though? Learning about basically anything in depth is academic study. Sure, there are valid forms of investigation or knowledge which have been shut out from academia, but even if your preferred version of knowledge is more intuitive and experience based, eventually you've still got to share it with people and writing is much more efficient in reaching people than one-on-one.
Marxist texts should be studied academically and scientifically, but not dogmatically and inflexibly. Marxism is a science, not a dogma. Not everyone needs to read theory and be a revolutionary, such would mean revolution is impossible. However, if one is to be a revolutionary, they must read theory so as to guide their practice.
Firstly, by not intimidating them with a book list
If someone can't bother to read a single Parenti book, or even just listen to their comrades, I believe the main issue is a lack of motivation and commitment, not accessibility. No one expects you to read das Kapital before getting involved.
Some people aren't readers for reasons other than lack of commitment. This isn't welcoming.
That's why I said:
or even just listen to their comrades
But those of us who can read should so we can be as effective as possible.
they teach it in person, then in practice in good organizations. you can also find it in audiobook, video, lecture form... probably many more mediums, in every language for free. i get great explanations and resources when i ask here.
leftists go out of their way to make theory very accessible, you just have to want to know. are you not even curious about how we have achieved and built the stuff we did?
Wrong
Counterpoint, you can understand the core points of socialism very quickly
Disagree. We have been subjected to 100 years of anticommunist propaganda, you need a lot of study of theory and history to overcome that
Anarchists wrote books too ya know, you can't just escape reading by changing your allegiance.
The only real problem with the people who don't want to read theory is they just love talking over the people who did. The Dunning Kruger effect exists in revolutionary spaces.
Reading theory ≠ being highly competent, though. Dunning Kruger states that people with low competence (in specific areas) overestimate themselves, and highly competent people underestimate themselves.
Reading doesnt necessarily make you better at things (though obviously it can help). A community organizer that's been feeding the hungry for 40 years but has never read a political book will be more competent than someone who's read hundreds of books but never gone out and done stuff.
Both will be less effective than someone that balances both. It isn't either-or, but both/and.
Food pantries and soup kitckens have been feeding the hungry for more than 40 years and yet none of those places brought about political revolution. This is why theory is not negligible. If you wanna simply help the poor then a soup kitchen is fine, if you want a revolution you're going to need more than that.
Food pantries and soup kitckens have been feeding the hungry for more than 40 years and yet none of those places brought about political revolution
You, uh, might want to consider how that argument applies to reading theory. I'm all for people getting well-read, but if there is one thing that I've picked up from successful movements that bring change, it's that diversity of tactics is required because there are no golden roads to getting the work done, and you need many people all working in the ways they can towards the results the collective desires.
Depends what yah read though, doesn’t it
The all theory and no action crowd are definitely more annoying and proficient at taking over spaces and killing the vibe, in my experience (e.g. socialist alternative here in Aus)
The US military is always asking for recruits. If you don't read, you won't know that "helping them" means killing civilians.
Putting on my D.A.R.E. T-shirt and clutching my state issued copy of the Ten Commandments and snapping an Amazon Ring Camera on my front door, so I help the state identify any of those nasty, America hating Antifa I've been hearing so much about.
I'm helping!
Are there no anarchist books? I'm pretty sure there are and anarchy doesn't mean willful ignorance.
It's technically a work of fiction but The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin can maybe be considered an anarchist book. It does a deep delve into an anarchist society and how it could theoretically be organized. In my opinion it could also be interpreted as a critique, but I think it's stronger for it.
Fantastic book! For anyone interested, you can read it here.
On one hand it is incredibly funny that after such question only two books and one movie got mentioned by title in thread and two of which are a work of fiction, but then again, LeGuin is still better than Proudhon lol.
On the other hand, this anarchist society in Disposessed is a pretty good analogy in how it is essentially entirely on the mercy of the people on the Urras. Even the anarchist utopia is vulnerable. Also for some weird reason Anarres seems to represent USSR since it existence means states on Urras are giving workers some rights, analogically to Western Europe building social nets.
There's plenty, and they can help, but you ain't gotta read em. They're guides and ideas. Nobody ever told me I needed to read Proudhon to think the state's bad, and usually older texts become more of historical interest than theory interests. When I wanted to understand anarchism I was told to go out and engage in praxis.
Fully agree that that's the way to learn. Do praxis, theory will develop.
However, I recommend the bread book to anyone I think might enjoy reading something like it. It changed my life fundamentally to see some one lay out the math of how a society could function like that. As suggested above,nthe dispossessed is also an amazing work of theory disguised as a very fun sci fi read. I routinely quote "where do you go when you die in hell" ever since reading it
The Dispossessed hit me like a truck, but I wouldn't call it theory. It's political fiction that's subtle about it by using sci fi, but I think calling it anything but a novel/fiction does a disservice to such literature. It does that which all message based fiction aspires to: lies to you in a way that makes you think about the world and see everything differently. I love all of LeGuinn's books that I've read, though I felt Omelas was overrated. I'll also plug Graeber for easily accessible theory written in modern language for modern life. Bullshit jobs hit hard.
And yeah, theory matters, but only if you do praxis. Do the hungry care more about who you feed them, or that you feed them? Do your coworkers dream of a dictatorship of the proletariat or do they just want their voice heard in the workplace? If all you do is read theory, you're a book club. The least you could do is mail some dictionaries and whatever other books to prisoners while you discuss the theory. Offer them some zines while you're at it. What is in your heart and your mind are irrelevant until your actions reveal them.
Well said! And yeah, I was a little heavy handed calling the dispossessed theory. However:
Do the hungry care more about who you feed them
The rich!
Jesus Christ. Anarchists not beating the stereotype.
There are, and like any social/political group it’s not a monolith but has plenty of various subsections that would broadly be called “anarchist” but aren’t themselves all in agreement (and at times accuse others of not being “real” anarchists). This watered down meme is just [insert political group here] Utopianism jingoism. Of course people tend to help each other that are like them, leftists tend to be more likely to help outside their tribal communities, but the extent to how much they help and under what circumstances is not blind enabling. If I see a person drowning I’m not going to ask who they voted for before helping. If I see some Trumper with a flat tire… fix it yourself, asshole.
V for Vendetta?
Being on the receiving end of crowd control munitions is certainly a better education then any book.
If you're curious about theory there's tons of alternatives to books: podcasts, film, public speeches, community training/workshops, etc.
My suggestion is Women's War by Robert Evans on Behind the Bastards. I also suggest pretty much anything on https://channelzeronetwork.com/
If someone just shows up and participates with an open mind they're doing more than most. Anyone who would gatekeep because you didn't read such and such text should be promptly told to fuck right off because that's a caustic hierarchical bullshit appeal to false authority and kills engagement.
If you need a (text)book try The Ecology of Freedom - Bookchin. You could probably find other books here too https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom
If you’re curious about theory there’s tons of alternatives to books: podcasts, film
Lol
Robert Evans
LOL
I've really grown to like Behind the Bastards and Evans seems pretty based. Why lol?
Anti interlectualism is for losers
Stop avoiding your homework OP, read the damn theory!
Reality:
Anarchists have been robbing large oligopoly supermarkets in my city and redistributing the food to “community fridges” for a good couple years now.
Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today!
That's cool and all but that's local tier good-samaritan stuff. While it's good, it will never overthrow the system.
It’s absurd to not help someone now because you could also do something highly theoretical and better in the future. Both things should happen.
Condemning the world's largest resistance in its fight against the empire because of some "theoretical future" where Anarchists once again are incapable of organising any armed uprising because they don't have a leadership structure is the only thing that happens.
Some people want a revolution and some people want their community fed. These are not mutually exclusive and I’m happy people are doing anything at all instead of hooking themselves up to the short form content IV every night like the vast majority.
Its a common thing with the .ml to identity an issue and not act due to purity politics. Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).
We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
Its a common thing with the .ml to identity an issue and not act due to purity politics.
No? Marxists argue against purity politics all the time. "Left" anti-communism on the basis of existing socialist states not being perfect wonderlands is one of the biggest problems we have to tackle. Whenever a socialist country makes an error, or has not yet sufficiently advanced to the point of erasing problems caused due to uneven development, this is used as evidence that said socialist country is unworthy of support and therefore imperialist aggression is passively justified. MLs must relentlessly combat this.
Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).
Rejecting electoralism as a viable path does not mean doing so on the basis of "purity," but practicality. Vote in the primaries all you want, the ML argument isn't that this will make you "sinful," but that it won't ever be capable of enacting the change that is necessary.
If I need to change a lightbulb 20 feet in the air, and you come with a 4 foot stepladder, the lightbulb isn't changing even if you get closer. You have to drive to the hardware store, buy the 20 foot ladder, take it back, set it up, and then change the lightbulb. The stepladder being closer doesn't actually mean it gets you closer to your goal, that path is a dead-end to begin with, you cannot raise that 4 foot stepladder to a 20 foot lightbulb.
We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
Sure, and studying theory and applying it to our practice tells us what strategies actually work in the short and long term.
Vote in the primaries all you want
Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don't want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism's systemic problems.
I don't ever wonder why Marxists don't have electoral representation, we've known why for centuries, and it's because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It's utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he's appraised by western intelligence:
Who is "us?" What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it stands ml types won't be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about.
China is a socialist state run by communists, my point was about the reason Marxists are excluded from the electoral process. It has nothing to due with "purity," and is entirely due to the fact that we actually stand to change the status quo.
I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election.
No Marxist gives a shit about "purity." Marx laughed at "moralists," because that's not how Marxists see the world. We don't give a shit if you vote, what we take issue with is the idea that voting will get necessary change, be it short or long-term.
Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike.
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting? Take PSL, for example. They run candidates for exposure, and to prove the futility of using voting as a mechanism for change within capitalism. They also organize strikes, protests, and organize unions. This is a growing, effective movement.
As it stands ml types won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Again, you haven't proven any of your points on "purity." I don't know why I need to repeat this, but the point is that electoralism cannot bring change, not that it's "impure." Even if a Mamdani-style president were to be elected, the state would resist any meaningful change, see how Allende was treated for proof of this, or how Venezuela's democratically elected government still faces intense opposition from capitalists and compradors. Revolution remains necessary, and the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution 2 decades ago is why Venezuela's Chavista government is still standing.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position? It's about practicality. To return to the now tired metaphor I've been using, what makes you think a stepladder can reach the lightbulb 16 feet above it? Are you waiting for some mythical tall person, a legendary candidate, to be able to stand 16 feet above the 4 foot stepladder and change the lightbulb? This is "Great Man Theory."
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting?
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness. Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle. Your arguments about "the elite won't let us win" is meaningless too. Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position?
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness.
Marxists do not dogmatically oppose voting. Like the PSL example, we oppose the idea that we even can use electoralism as a vehicle for change.
Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle.
This doesn't follow logically, and further I already showed how PSL tries to get on ballots, but is rejected by the capitalist electoral system itself. You're continuing to argue against strawmen.
Your arguments about “the elite won’t let us win” is meaningless too.
How so? We have countless historical examples of the capitalist state crushing legal forms of "resistance," using the very same legal structures or even extra-legal structures, because said legal structures are designed to protect the system and resist change.
Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
This is a view entirely divorced from historical analysis of socialist struggles. I implore you, study socialist history.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
Then the MLs you speak of that oppose this use of electoral systems do not exist, and you are therefore arguing against ghosts and strawmen. Again, see PSL and how it treats elections.
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
You're discussing 2 different things:
-
Marxists opposing Electoralism as a vehicle for change, what you call "short term relief," which is a practical impossibility and not a question of "purity"
-
Marxists "opposing" using electoral systems for agitation and advertising our positions. This is utterly false, though, as the aforementioned PSL example proves.
I can't sprout wings and fly, but that's not because I'm unwilling to, it's just impossible, and therefore I suggest people stop thinking that they can do so to change the lightbulb. I'm more than willing to demonstrate the unfeasibility by jumping, and trying to do so, but these are separate ideas.
Marxists believe 2 things, neither of which have to do with "purity:"
-
Electoralism within capitalism cannot be used for change, not should not.
-
Marxist parties can run in elections to prove the former and advertise themselves.
You're arguing against a strawman that does not exist.
This doesn’t follow logically, and further I already showed how PSL tries to get on ballots, but is rejected by the capitalist electoral system itself. You’re continuing to argue against strawmen.
It does follow. If you have the numbers and willingness to show up it is obvious that you have to be taken seriously. It is also clear to your own movement and opposition that you have real strength to escalate if need be. Of course given that
we oppose the idea that we even can use electoralism as a vehicle for change.
Means you are going to no show and as such will never been taken seriously.
It does follow. If you have the numbers and willingness to show up it is obvious that you have to be taken seriously.
PSL, for example, is taken seriously more by showing up and protesting every time the US Empire does something vile. They have growing numbers because they don't treat elections as the primary vehicle for change, but more as advertisement, and instead focus on unionizing, protest, and striking. Showing up at the ballot once every 2-4 years is far less effective than organizing political education, protests, and organizing efforts year-round. This is strength, being able to organize a protest in less than 24 hours and have people on the streets shows enormous strength in logistics and discipline.
Means you are going to no show and as such will never been taken seriously.
Incorrect. To the contrary, the point Marxists actually oppose, that being showing up to elections only and treating it as the primary vehicle for change, is to doom us. Again, nobody is arguing that if someone casts a vote they are hurting the movement, just that they are basically wasting their time, especially in the US Empire where most states are solidly for one of two bourgeois parties.
Showing up at the ballot once every 2-4 years
And if they have the number you claim they do they should do so anyway and get some of their voice in office. It will be very helpful. Really what you are saying is that you have a very popular movement that is choosing to squander a major part of how influence is exercised. "Yeah we have lots of members who are willing to do all this much harder protest. Ohh no we are not willing to take an afternoon to vote as left as possible at least and certainly not make a formal party". Really stop and thinking about what you are saying.
Like I said, if you have the numbers it is clear that you are a real movement and you pulling more effort into telling me why you won't show up is telling that you don't and that you don't want to. Which is ironic that earlier you called out Geneva for only being interested in online activism.
And if they have the number you claim they do they should do so anyway and get some of their voice in office. It will be very helpful.
I haven't claimed any numbers, I've claimed growth. Secondly, Marxists are systemically shunned and prevented from actually running in any real sense. PSL tries, but is often kicked out of elections and off of ballots. This is the proof behind me saying that treating elections as a tool for change that can even work in the first place is futile.
Really what you are saying is that you have a very popular movement that is choosing to squander a major part of how influence is exercised.
No? I'm saying that PSL is growing, despite lacking an element you deem crucial (electoral success). They aren't choosing to squander anything, they are outright systemically rooted out from the electoral process by the legal system.
"Yeah we have lots of members who are willing to do all this much harder protest. Ohh no we are not willing to take an afternoon to vote as left as possible at least and certainly not make a formal party”. Really stop and thinking about what you are saying.
PSL is already a formal party. Taking an afternoon to vote however you want is going to have absolutely minimal impact on whether or not PSL grows, or the standpoint of their power.
Like I said, if you have the numbers it is clear that you are a real movement and you pulling more effort into telling me why you won’t show up is telling that you don’t and that you don’t want to. Which is ironic that earlier you called out Geneva for only being interested in online activism.
How is this ironic? You're continuing to see electoralism as the primary vehicle for change, and not organizing, striking, protesting, unionizing, agitating, and more. Do you consider all of those to be less than voting? If so, can you show where socialism has been solidified electorally? I can show you numerous countries where focusing on the areas PSL does has established socialism successfully, and 0 where voting has done so.
How is this ironic? You’re continuing to see electoralism as the primary vehicle for change
See I never said it was the primary way for change. That is you putting words in my mouth. I am saying that it is an important part to helping us get changed; particularly in the short term and to get as much legislation leaning as left as possible. Ignoring election is to not resist fascist and just let them waltz in without resistance.
Do you consider all of those to be less than voting?
Not at all, but if you can't get your group to vote; which is comparatively easy in the west then you have little credibility of doing the harder stuff. Which is where most ml are. No credability and purity politics (like here you are trying to make it seem I don't want change when i am reaching out to you to also participate in these methods with me as well, but you don't want to get your white shirt dirty or something).
See I never said it was the primary way for change. That is you putting words in my mouth. I am saying that it is an important part to helping us get changed;
Electoralism cannot get change. I've explained how and why, and you have not explained why you think, for the first time in history, we can get meaningful change via electoralism.
particularly in the short term and to get as much legislation leaning as left as possible.
When the candidates are pre-filtered, a filter that blocks groups like PSL, you cannot actually shift legislation. Instead, what impacts legislation is the level of millitancy and organization of the working classes. The state votes against the interests of the working classes, and for the interests of the capitalists.
Ignoring election is to not resist fascist and just let them waltz in without resistance.
Fascism has never been stopped at the ballot box. Fascism rises as a result of capitalist decay, and is stopped by force historically. Whether the DNC or GOP wins, fascism remains.
Not at all, but if you can’t get your group to vote; which is comparatively easy in the west then you have little credibility of doing the harder stuff.
This doesn't follow. If voting isn't allowed to change anything, then people are more likely to be apathetic about it. I've seen many people in the streets, protesting, striking, that did not vote or voted third party.
Which is where most ml are. No credability and purity politics (like here you are trying to make it seem I don’t want change when i am reaching out to you to also participate in these methods with me as well, but you don’t want to get your white shirt dirty or something).
No? I'm telling you to stop trying a failed and impossible strategy that has never worked in history, and telling you to roll up your sleeves and get involved in party building and organizing in real life, if you aren't already. If you are, then great, vote if it makes you happy. If you aren't, then you're just repeating the same mistakes reformists have been making for centuries.
Electoralism cannot get change. I’ve explained how and why, and you have not explained why you think, for the first time in history, we can get meaningful change via electoralism.
And because you don't show up in anycase you won't get change either.
Chairman Mao pushing the people to voting the Japanese imperialists and KMT fascists off the mainland:
Political power grows from the ballot box or something
I don't see mls driving out ICE from MN. Why would they? They can't even be bothered to vote; much less something that takes even more effort.
Ok just to preface I am not amerikkkan so outside looking on on your many issues.
But genuine question how do you see an ml? Can you read their mind? Or do you expect them to label themselves as such on a name tag or sign? What of the people who are for all intents and purposes ml but simply don't take on the label for one reason or another? Feels like you're making a lot of assumptions based on vibes.
Also another question. Voting isn't just voting under your system as I understand it. It's a multi year process of canvassing and related work. So if bourgeois-democracy has been shown to be a dead end repeatedly throughout history it feels like wasting the hundreds of hours to prep and do it is a real misallocation of resources no?
Spreading agit-prop, showing up for "protests" (parades in the American case from what I've seen (this is a whole separate tangent I could go on)) and generally teaching arming and doing socialist work seems much more valuable use of time. Not hyper familiar with American orgs so I would defer to the likes of cowbee to explain in detail what the orgs are actually doing with the saved resources.
Well the server you are on ends in .ml to mean marxist lenninist, so yeah they are kind of labeled.
Also another question. Voting isn’t just voting under your system as I understand it. It’s a multi year process of canvassing and related work. So if bourgeois-democracy has been shown to be a dead end repeatedly throughout history it feels like wasting the hundreds of hours to prep and do it is a real misallocation of resources no?
Im not going to repeat too much, but you can read more with my chat with @Cowbee@lemmy.ml on here. You do make a good point. It is a marathon and those take prep, but so does everything else we are doing. You are going to be reaching out and canvasing for your community food bank, your protests, and strikes. You don't have to go all out with spending money, but formalizing yourself into your own party, which we should, marks us as real players and able to make an unset election if we are not taken into some consideration.
Outside of elections we still have some formal places to coordinate our outreach and keep putting our name out there.
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml makes it out like I am saying we should only vote, but note I am not saying that. I am saying that ignoring elections is foolish of us.
I don’t see mls driving out ICE from MN.
Well the server you are on ends in .ml to mean marxist lenninist, so yeah they are kind of labeled.
Didn't really answer my main question since that doesn't really apply in the situation described.
I see.
MLs would want to build credibility of their movement and they would be advertising who they are. When they houthis walk the talk and lob missiles at Israel or ships they are clear that it was them and why they are doing what they are. That helps bolster their movement and recruit more people to do even more.
If you are the group doing the action you want it known so that you can keep growing.
An important distinction here is that Ansar Allah is a militant group while "ml" is simply a political descriptor. There is no group or party called ml. ML's make up a large portion of communist party and other groups membership alongside others who describe themselves with other labels.
Weather they are militant or simply political groups doesn't change what I wrote. Do MLs not want others to see they are the group that is walking the talk and get more people to join in? I don't imagine they want to have such a short reach.
No you're not understanding what I'm saying. "ML" is not a group in the fashion of Ansar Allah or Hamas or so on. It's a descriptor applied to an individual who is then a member of a group with others who may or may not also fit that descriptor. That group then does things and takes credit as a group.
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml makes it out like I am saying we should only vote, but note I am not saying that. I am saying that ignoring elections is foolish of us.
But nobody is saying we should ignore elections. We are saying elections cannot get positive change. This is a massive difference, yet you act like it's the same.
But nobody is saying we should ignore elections
And yet you put so much effort into telling me why you are not going to help us get the left most candidate possible. You're the one effectively saying we should ignore elections.
No, I'm saying you're fighting a losing battle by thinking you can get a left candidate through, so the way you treat elections should be to highlight the impossibility of getting a left candidate through so as to encourage actual activism.
Do it anyway.
No one is arguing that we shouldn't, which is my point. Are you allergic to actually engaging with the points at hand, rather than consistently making them up to argue against?
I am engaging at the same level you are.
No, you really aren't.
I feel I am. I have presented my case. You're the one that wants to be counter productive and making excuses for people to stay home. "There will be opposition", brov there will be in each case. Just take an evening to vote its a small ask; the fact its too big for you means we cannot count on you for the bigger stuff.
I don't see why you think lying about my position is doing you any favors, I already told you I voted. The fact that you put such a huge emphasis on voting and arguing for it means you likely cannot be depended on to actually take to the streets and roll up your sleeves.
Glad you did, please help encourage more people to do so as well. We could all have an even bigger leftist movement. Voting is only a small part of what we need to do, but we should not neglect it.
You're tiring. Voting will not meaningfully advance the leftist movement beyond advertisement, and acting like this stance is counter-productive is harmful to getting meaningful change.
It is still helpful to be heard and minimize harm. Its good that you are privileged and won't be targeted by ICE for example, but others are. Voting as left as possible shows that the overall population is not going to welcome them.
Enjoy your privilege @Cowbee@lemmy.ml, the rest of us do have to deal with the consequences of the elections.
Bold assumption that ICE isn't an active threat to myself and those I care about, and no matter what the election results show, ICE is still a bipartisan institution. What stops ICE is organizing, striking, and protesting, not whether or not I vote Green, PSL, etc. ICE doesn't give a shit who people voted for, they aren't a democratic institution, they are here to forcibly deport and kill people.
Enjoy your privledge, where you think voting is a meaningful way to resist ICE.
It is still helpful to be heard and minimize harm.
Voting does not accomplish that! Voting will NOT make you heard and voting will NOT minimize harm. Your insistence that it does accomplish these things is what is harmful.
Telling people to do useless things saps their energy away from doing things that actually are meaningful like organizing. Voting is used as a tool by the bourgeois to get people to think they "did their duty" politically, so they can relax and not worry about having to do more even though "more" is still the bare minimum (voting is less than bare minimum). You have been duped by the bourgeois. Smarten up.
Here is PSL organizing strikes and protests to kick ICE out of MN. Stop fighting strawmen.
Many groups are mentioned. Its not clear they are all mls.
PSL is the focus, and PSL is an ML party. Many of the groups mentioned are front groups, PSL has many, like CODEPINK and the ANSWER coalition. PSL also coordinates with other groups to more effectively push for change, rather than doing everything itself.
Lol, you tried to claim no mls were there, and then when got got proven catagorically wrong you tried to pivot to "they aren't all mls!"
They even made a MWoG post after this.
Oh fuck off, plenty of my Minnesota comrades who are out there fighting ICE are Marxist-Leninist. You dont "see MLs driving out ICE" because we don't fucking wear ID tags with our ideology on them, fuckwit. You're just making up shit and running with it (like that Marxists have some "purity" test against voting even though plenty did vote for De la Cruz but refused to vote for a fascist genocidal Democrat which is ACTUALLY what pissed of liberals like you).
Just because we have no interest in partaking in your meaningless ritual doesn't mean we aren't out there making up a good portion of the front line against fascism.
No, I absolutely show up, to protests, organizing, and other real-life methods of gaining real change and growing organizational power. It's not that voting doesn't work because Marxists don't vote, it's that Marxists don't emphasize voting because we know it doesn't work.
Very nice that you are an outlier, but that does not change my point in the slightest.
Consider this. Installing Linux is rather easy, but you do have to make an installer. Most people won't and that becomes a filter. If you can't get people to care enough to vote they are very likely not going to do anything else.
it’s that Marxists don’t emphasize voting because we know it doesn’t work.
enjoy losing out on more influence at the discussion table.
Very nice that you are an outlier
To the contrary, this is the mainstream Marxist opinion. You're fighting strawmen.
Consider this. Installing Linux is rather easy, but you do have to make an installer. Most people won’t and that becomes a filter. If you can’t get people to care enough to vote they are very likely not going to do anything else.
We don't need everyone to join the communist party. Instead, we need the party to gain the trust of the people and become the people's chosen party.
This method is tried and true.
enjoy losing out on more influence at the discussion table.
You haven't proven this, and are more proving my point. If you personally are not organizing in real life, and instead just voting and hoping other people do all of the hard work for you, then you aren't doing anything at all.
You haven’t proven this
What proof do you need that a massive and visible movement will have influence? That group being able to coordinate to show up for an election is also a demonstration that they can show up for other events like protests and strikes. It also shows the movement that they do infact have the strength. It shows the opposition that you do in fact have to be taken seriously. Like I have said all along, elections help build credibility. Not sure what proof you need on such an obvious statement.
You haven't proven that electoralism is a viable way to do so. Strikes, protests, unionizing, and agitating all show strength, and PSL as an example does try to run candidates specifically to prove electoralism does not work.
If you personally are not organizing in real life, and instead just voting and hoping other people do all of the hard work for you, then you aren’t doing anything at all.
I didn't say its the only way. We should be doing more than one thing at a time you know?
You've been arguing against Marxists for not doing enough, though, because we correctly recognize that voting will not bring change. If you personally are not organizing in real life, and instead just voting and hoping other people do all of the hard work for you, then you aren’t doing anything at all.
You’ve been arguing against Marxists for not doing enough
I am saying that they don't help contribute much to overall leftist movements and their lack of willingness to at least vote helps minimize our overall impacts as well. Like you said it happens ever 2years and you can't spare an evening for it? Are you that busy... and still have not much to show for it?
We can do more than one thing at a time and it is foolish to ignore elections completely.
I am saying that they don’t help contribute much to overall leftist movements
How so? The overwhelming majority of groups that have succeeded in establishing socialism have been Marxists. No electoralist progressives have been capable of establishing socialism and solidifying it, ever.
and their lack of willingness to at least vote helps minimize our overall impacts as well
Marxists do vote, though. As I already proved, PSL runs campaigns. Marxists do not think it is useful for anything other than exposure, however, which is why Marxists stress how important it is to actually do stuff like organizing.
Like you said it happens ever 2years and you can’t spare an evening for it?
If someone can't, there's no reason to scold them for it, as it doesn't make a practical difference.
Are you that busy… and still have not much to show for it?
I don't know what you mean by this, Marxists have established socialism in numerous countries and control the largest economy in the world by PPP. This is far more than any electoralist has achieved.
We can do more than one thing at a time and it is foolish to ignore elections completely.
Nobody is saying to, though, just that electione cannot bring positive change.
If you personally are not organizing in real life, and instead just voting and hoping other people do all of the hard work for you, then you aren’t doing anything at all.
Marxists do vote, though. As I already proved, PSL runs campaigns. Marxists do not think it is useful for anything other than exposure, however, which is why Marxists stress how important it is to actually do stuff like organizing.
And yet we have individuals like you asking people to just skip out and being counter productive to our overall movements. Show up anyway bud, its only an evening every 2 years (if you are american, but that doesn't change my point)
Show me exactly where I say we should skip out entirely. Show me exactly how I am being counter-productive.
Show me exactly where I say we should skip out entirely. Show me exactly how I am being counter-productive.
And you won't get the results you want because you don't show up to vote. Aka, you are being counter productive to your own ends.
I did not say we should skip out on voting there, I said voting is not emphasized by Marxists due to not being capable of delivering results. I don't know why you think that after centuries of reformists trying to vote for positive change that it will finally happen. Look at Allende, he was voted in and then immediately coup'd for it by Pinochet and the US Empire. Revolution is necessary.
Please show me one example of electoralism resulting in socialists taking power and being able to solidify it. Just one. Please also explain why you believe that this time it will be different and finally work.
ook at Allende, he was voted in and then immediately coup’d for it by Pinochet and the US Empire. Revolution is necessary.
A revolution could also be coup'ed therefore we should not make one by your own logic.
No? The point is that taking the system over on a strictly legal basis leaves the institutions intact that can revert it to capitalism. We learned this back at the Paris Commune, and learned it again with Allende. Revolution is necessary because we must smash the state and replace it with a socialist one, we cannot merely take hold of a capitalist state and morph it into a socialist one.
The point is that taking the system over on a strictly legal basis
You can't because you don't vote.
You can't otherwise because your movement can't even coordinate (or is to apathetic) to vote; much less to storm the capital.
You can’t because you don’t vote.
I did vote in the last election, and do vote. You're insistent on lying about the position of others even after we tell you. Further, you cannot take over the system legally and resist reversion, I'd love for you to give a single counter-example to what I already explained with the Paris Commune, Allende, etc.
You can’t otherwise because your movement can’t even coordinate (or is to apathetic) to vote; much less to storm the capital.
That's like saying the Marxist movement is apathetic to building the world's largest sand castle. Storming the capital isn't going to do anything at the moment because there isn't a clear vanguard party and the revolutionary moment isn't yet here, and even if everyone voted Marxist it still wouldn't change the system.
Are you allergic to addressing this?
No, and the fact that you keep making the same false accusation speaks volumes. Do you know how many days MLs give up organizing, year round?
Its not an accusation if you are putting this much energy into telling me why elections don't matter. At least do the minimum there and encourage your fellow MLs to do so.
The minimum is to encourage everyone to actually organize, voting is secondary at best to that.
Picking between two bourgeois parties is when the election doesn't really matter. I'm an anarchist and I'd rather vote for the MLs running in the margins than waste my vote on some capitalist
Just making up claims Cowbee never made because you can't actually argue against him
OK, so what are you doing to make a revolution happen?
I won't speak for Geneva (Geneva isn't a Marxist) but Marxists advocate for revolutionary party building. You can't force a revolution into happening, but you can absolutely prepare for one and build the organ needed to carry it out. Herr's a good diagram:
This explains the role of the party in forming a vanguard. This is the historically proven revolutionary strategy that has established socialism in many countries around the world.
I'm not condemning those actually fighting the empire for a start.
You do condemn those fighting the empire, though. That's why it's necessary to both read and practice, not coast by on instinct alone. You have decent political instincts, but instead you obsess over Bad Empanada thought and treat it as a substitute for reading, and posting as a substitute for practice. It's ultimately online progressivism at best, and is why it rings extraordinarily hollow when coming from you, especially as you haven't given any indication of reading or practicing, let alone both.
You aren't talking to a Marxist-Leninist, Geneva doesn't identify as such and does not read theory nor practice in a communist party. I do think Geneva's critique rings hollow, considering that.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
This is bullshit. MLs say we need to act and think more, and do so by organizing in communist parties. From the Black Panther Party to PSL in the US, communist parties have been doing real organizing work, and that's not to mention the orgs that have already succeeded like the CPC.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo
This is blind, vibes-based critique. "Authoritarian mindset" isn't a thing. The problems with organizing in the west are not due to lacking in imagination, to the contrary, western "left" anti-communists let their imagination lead them to opposing real, existing socialism.
you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
This is further bullshit. Marxists of the past that successfully established socialism weren't "pretending" to do so. Ironically, it's yourself that is idealizing them into "Great Men of History," and cutting out the billions of people that organized to create real socialism. MLs do not idolize Marxist figures, we study them, their contributions, their struggles, their successes and their failures, so that we can continue to sharpen our theory to guide our practice. Marxism is a science, not a dogma.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
I agree, though most of us that are committed enough are already organizing in real life too.
So in other words you like to conclude a lot from no info of what I do.
Anarchists try to not pretend to have the moral high ground while doing absolutely nothing to fight the empire difficulty level: impossible.
Answer my question then.
What idiot would snitch on their own activities for online karma points? Wait let me guess: Anarchists.
I'm curious what tendency of leftist you do consider yourself, if any. Clearly you're not an anarchist, u/Cowbee who I trust said above that you do not consider yourself a Marxist-Leninst. What tendency do you come closest to aligning with?
Geneva blocked me so they can't see what I write, but if I were to describe Geneva I would say generally anti-imperialist with strong Bad Empanada influence. Geneva frequently runs into problems due to not reading theory, though, and also often accuses allies of being enemies.
For example, Geneva will take any opportunity to bash China for not doing enough, even if they are helping, and has been banned from Hexbear for accusing users of being "transzionists," which is ridiculous. Geneva is frequently correct due to being anti-west, but without a strong basis in theory and practice this is as far as you can go.
What do you think anarchism is all about...?
Failing to overthrow the system
Usually, both Marxists and anarchists are aligned on believing systemic change is necessary, not just individual and local charity to patch holes in the existing system.
bro wat - I'm yet to see a socialist party group turn up to an anti-fash protest and put themselves in harms way to protect vulnerable groups instead of standing on the side lines selling political newspapers and dipping out as soon as their leaders decide they'd like to go home
There are plenty of Socialist revolutions but they happen outside of the first world. Coincidentally anticolonial movements are often opposed by Anarchist because the victims aren't perfect enough.
on the side lines selling political newspapers
Anarchist 'zines are literally a meme term
yeah that's fair - but I feel they serve different purposes?
like I see anarchism as a form of counterbalance to state power irrespective of where it is - without needing to be dogmatic
as in undeniably Uruguay is materially much better now than its ever been (while still being at the peak of it's colonial project even under socialist governance)
same with Bolivia giving relative power to indigenous peoples while improving living conditions even under a corrupt government
neither is perfect but vastly better than western powers seizing their resources and wage enslaving their populations - same goes for other socialist Global South countries
and yet I see the value of anarchist "purity" criticism in that it should continue to challenge all governments when the time is right - even socialist ones - as at the end of the day we all want a stateless society - and until then I dont see why anarchism and socialism can't strive to achieve that through productive structural tension?
Anarchists are a lot better than Liberals. But when push comes to shove, such as Iran getting invaded, many Anarchists are all too happy to hop on the imperialist fence and hold both-sides stories like it's a moral high-ground
and yet I see the value of anarchist “purity” criticism
That sounds fun and all but who is going to fight imperialism then? Are colonized countries going to free themselves because Anarchists blocked a weapons shipment but then the Anarchist opposes the resistance force fighting against the colonists? Fidel Castro sent fighters to support the imperfect ANC. Now that was some actual solidarity. Though we don't see much of that from "socialist" countries anymore either.
idk what anarchists you're around but all the ones I hang out with are vocally pro Iran even if they dont approve of the Ayatollah on principle - but yh I'd take mls over liberals any day of the week - I feel part of it is that anarchists aren't a solid block so while some may block shipments other might fight against what they see as oppression that on a geopolitical scale can result in helping colonial forces - idk we're all imperfect so I hope we can recognize that and through different means still continue to erode imperialism instead of fighting with each other at the benefit of colonizers
I think this joke is only 40% true, but also still very funny.
The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as a dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution. It is not just a matter of understanding the general laws derived by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin from their extensive study of real life and revolutionary experience, but of studying their standpoint and method in examining and solving problems.
And we need both, glad to have ya ⚒️🫱🫲🏴
@andrewrgross peak anti intellectualism.
@andrewrgross fascists don't read books either
I think you're taking the meme way too literally.
I'm not advocating for an illiterate revolution. Anarchists are famous for reading and writing a lot of manifestos too.
I do believe that there are a lot of overly intellectual Marxist-Leninists who need to go touch grass and actually practice more mutual aid among working class neighbors, though.
But I'm definitely not anti intellectual. (I'm also not actually an an-com. I just shared the meme because I agree with the broad sentiment).
There are some Marxists that don't put theory to practice, true, but the solution isn't to not read, but to do both. As a side-note, Marxist practice is less focused on mutual aid and more on organizing the working classes for revolution, though some ML groups like the Black Panther Party use things like free breakfast programs and such.
I mean yes but also don't be anti-intellectual if people have time they are plenty of books we should recommend.
I see letterkenny, I upvote letterkenny. I am a simple man.
“Wait a second…is that from the ‘83 tour?!”
I joined the anarchist revolution to lead, not to read. Wait, hang on...
Anarchists have their resources too, don't you think? Even being a anarchist takes some skill, after all.
Thank you for saying that.
Ugh, "I didn't join the revolution to read" is such a dumb statement.
Meh. Reading is over rated
Now getting high, that's got substance
I mean, standing in the shoulders of giants and all that. May as well lean into the human ability to be more effective by learning from generations of experience.
Anarchism has a good deal of theory associated with how a horizontalist society can come to be and function. It very much isn't just 'vibes," even if I disagree with it.
This is the most extreme form of vibes-based politics I think I've seen in a while. By that standard, schools should not exist. This is peak anti-intellectualism to the point of absurdity.
Have you actually read anarchist theory? I have. I don't agree with it, but the idea that education is an unjustifiable hierarchy is absurd.
No it isn't, you're inventing a concept and believing it to be the concept.
No, I am discussing anarchism the concept as it has evolved over time and has actually existed in real life, even if only for short periods. You've invented a brand new ideology that rejects itself as such and undermines its own premise.
No, you've confused yourself by dogmatically extrapolating what you think anarchy is from vibes and conjecture.
I don't want anarchy, I'm a communist. That doesn't mean I can afford to invent strawmen to argue against, I take anarchism seriously precisely because I don't agree with it. I evaluate it on its own merits and theory, not by my own invented strawman.
Hi cowbee! Hope you're doing well. Got an anti-anarchism spiel for me? I'm not gonna debate it really, I'm just curious on your thoughts. I see an optimal society as one with as little hierarchy as possible and anarchism as the most pure philosophy on achieving that.
I'm doing pretty well, thanks! Essentially, I disagree that anarchism is a viable path forward for large-scale change, and my reasoning for doing so is that production and distribution have evolved to become more interconnected, complex, and distributed, not horizontalist, individualist, and communalist. It therefore makes more sense to solve the contradiction between privatized profits in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the socialization of labor globally, by socializing the profits, ownership of production and distribution, as well as abolishing class.
Hierarchy isn't intrinsically bad, in my view. Organization with various levels emerges as a common structure in society over time often out of necessity, as production and distribution grows in scale and complexity. The solution to problems of class society isn't to attack the concept of hierarchy, but the material basis of class, that being private ownership of the means of production.
That's the gist of it, really, in a small bite.
I see the take! I may just be a bit too idealist to agree fully, but obviously that world would be way better than our current one. Thanks for sharing.
No problem!
No, it's nonsense and dishonest.
Nope, you're trying to impose your dogmatic, nonsense views on a real, existing movement. A movement that I believe has real flaws based on its real positions, and doesn't need someone inventing a new strawman.
This is nonsense, you're arguing that making a school is equivalent to necessitating everyone gets thrown into a mass grave.
Nope.
Unfortunately we have to live in the real world though. IMO anarchy will likely always be a direction rather than a position. I have a fearful inclination to belive that humans naturally form hierarchy and therefore we must learn how to mitigate that tendency. I can't imagine a better world appears from ignorance and vibes.
It's hard for me to imagine anarchy existing without a culture that believes in it and knows how to execute on it. That'll take a lot of hard work and knowledge to produce.
A lack of rules feels more like libertarianism than anarchism. Hierarchy will form if you just sit around and let it. Don't you agree?
The IT is basically whatever egalitarian system we know we can perpetuate. Being anti hierarchy is much more complex and active than just vibing it out.
Here are some starting points for ya lol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
I see how you could get them confused as they both are about minimizing governance. From my understanding libertarianism is more broad with it. Anarchism still tries to create an egalitarian society though while liberalism is extremely laissez faire.
The vast majority of anarchist have noticed that the world we live in is very unequal and have therefore concluded that it will take work to make a world without hierarchy. A quick look at the history books will show you that anarchist societies aren't the most stable. Now we've never seen an anarchist world so it is hard to say if that would be stable, but anarchist societies embedded in hierarchical worlds are tough to sustain.
Though I'm starting to think that you have really mixed together libertarianism and anarchism into something. So note that when I say anarchism I specifically mean realistic attempts to minimize hierarchy and not pure anti government.
Okay I've had an incling that you aren't arguing in good faith but now I'm convinced enough to say something. If you don't respond to my points about the effort it would take to realistically reduce hierarchy then I'll be out of steam.
The libertarianism parts are a side quest. The main quest is your belief that maintaining your ignorance is important for you to be anarchist.
I'll take that as a response.
"See that's the problem I have with this position. Knowledge is something you either have or don't. Its something that can be kept from you. If someone can be 'in the know' about anarchy by studying it, that creates systems of hierarchy and power. Defining it is intellectual oppression. It becomes just another form of political domination and control. Anarchy is, in fact, just vibes. "
This is ridiculous. There is no world where everyone could have perfectly equal knowledge. That is obviously an extremely silly hill to die on, and you are doing very little by trying to squash it on a completely individual level.
Why not work with others to try to bring equality in more tangible ways? Unfortunately you'd have to learn how to effectively run a mutual aid group. Wouldn't that put you 'in the know'?
Oh the horrors of learning to cook huge batches of food for your community. What a terrible form of intellectual oppression. We must sit still and conver our eyes for fear of doing something wrong.
Where's the reading list?
https://lemmy.ml/post/43309494
Guess I wait for the advanced page.
https://lemmy.ml/post/22417306
https://bulletins.hexbear.net/posts/readinglist/
You're going to trigger so many libs with this link.
We need good analysis to guide good praxis, but you can literally learn a lot of more advanced stuff from just listening to comrades, even if reading with comrades is even better.
Remember kids, you can't be a good communist if you don't have any skills. We already have people well practised at arguing on the internet.
This is audible
I like the anarchist tendency to encourage thinking for yourself because I think outsourcing political opinions and generally the narrative that politics is too complicated for the layman to fully grasp goes a long way in enabling a world where everything is treated as sophistry leaving gaps for people to blindly follow ideologues. Something similar happened with science and now we have folks ‘debating’ things that are clear as day if you just look.
Encouraging each person to think for themselves isn’t to say everyone should live in a private conspiracy. I think everyone should take a course in propositional logic or higher because it truly helps your brain sort through information more clearly and quicker, and makes you much sharper at catching sophistry.
In ourselves we should try to note when we hit that point in an argument when we are arguing just to win. At that point we should (potentially apologize) and bow out. Arguing just to win is unhelpful.
Theory is much more helpful once you have your feet under you. You are committed to dignity for all. That is a strong position to assess the world from. The categories are quite clear. Once you are here reading theory, especially examples of successful revolutionary projects, helps you understand the types of tools and approaches you might use (or avoid) to bring about change. It also saves lives to avoid strategies that commonly fail.
Neither theory nor science should be gatekept, but that doesn't mean studying both aren't still necessary.
Agreed, I just think we need to nurture how people relate to/ground their opinions before theory can take root properly. Currently both science and politics are treated like sophistry—it’s all a matter of argument
What I think is especially unhelpful is people who have not read enough theory to understand what they are talking about (let alone considered it in the context it was written), but they are passionate about an issue so they try to debate people using the logic of that theory and they end up just making the theory seem like nonsense because they didn’t understand it. Only in the context of debate does it make sense to argue for a theory you don’t really grasp. Debate is about winning an argument but not about what is ‘true’ or ‘right’. I would rather that person just stick to their guns on the basics of whatever the argument is over (ie. genocide is bad no exceptions). This way they stand firmly on their own feet but can also have confidence in their reasons even without a nuanced historical perspective of how things got to where they are.
Anyway I love reading and discussing theory and philosophy (including your guides) and find it extremely rich and rewarding. It should be used as fodder to help you think rather than a guidebook to inform what you should think.
What I think is especially unhelpful is people who have not read enough theory to understand what they are talking about (let alone considered it in the context it was written), but they are passionate about an issue so they try to debate people using the logic of that theory and they end up just making the theory seem like nonsense because they didn’t understand it.
This is very common, well said! And thanks for the complement. My goal is mostly to make sure people unify theory and practice, theory is a guide to action.
I mean I'm an anarchist and I got to my position by reading 🤷
My motto is similar:
Be kind.
Cocks gun
I'm done asking.
My motto: Rhetorically cocks gun
ICE Officer: Actually cocks gun
:-/
So many keyboard commandos. Vanishingly few actual leftist militants.
You can help. There is still time to be an actual leftist militant.
i like this one
it feels like "tolerate me or die"
Knowledge is important, but values and character are more so, IMO. Many complex ideas are founded on the belief of/are distilled from basic humanity.
More hands make less work. Pitter patter.
Lets get at ‘er
To be fair, big shoots has a very broad definition of friend, which is what they replaced "someone" with
This is me. Not into all the political theory, just want my fellow human beings to be treated with dignity and for everyone to have a comfortable existence.
Reading theory helps teach us how to best make that a reality.
Yeah, but so does just doing it. And talking to people about how to do it. The point isn't that people shouldn't read, it's that the should do (and shouldn't be prevented from doing because they can't or won't read).
One could say the same of surgery, that you can learn by doing, but like surgery, without studying what has already been discovered, you'll be hurting a lot of people unnecessarily to get there, taking a lot longer too. We need to do both.
Eh. That's the difference between a complex system (politics) and a complicated system (the part of a human body where surgery is relevant). It's easier to write a manual for a complicated system and have it be correct and valuable. Complex systems not so much, not lease because every context is different and local knowledge is extremely valuable.
I agree that theory is often useful. I don't think it always is though, and I think it can be misleading and wrong for a long time without anyone really noticing. I mean.. Neoliberal economics also has a lot of theory..
Theory is written with a purpose. Neoliberalism is wrong, but useful for maintaining capitalist hegemony. Correct theory is very useful.
andy how's your sperms
I don't get this. Can you explain this?
Oh sorry. In twin peaks, the character Andy has trouble with his sperms (and talks about it funny). Worth watching the show, if not just for that
What did you say? I can't read
Weirdly, none of the 80 books on the reading list will actually be by Marx himself
Wait til you find out how many books in the Bible were actually written by supernatural beings 😅
Why is that weird? Marx wrote in the 1800s, quite a few things have happened since then.
Because he's the M in ML
Christian teachings weren't written by Christ, people wrote about Darwinism that aren't Darwin, a person can be the namesake and originator of a philosophy but other scholars will continue writing based on their viewpoint.
You argue like Charlie Kirk. You think you have a clever gotcha and you can probably convince children with this, but there's no meaning. People don't read Newton when they study Newtonian mechanics either. Unless they're particularly interested; of course they can get something out of it, but you'd never start there. It's not weird to name a field after the person whose ideas kicked it off.
Marx was a social scientist, not a prophet. Marxism is a science, not a dogma. Marx's work should be studied, I feature his works in my basic Marxist-Leninist study guide, but that does not mean that Marx's words are holy. Marxist concepts have been extended and explained in ways more applicable to contemporary times, retaining Marxism as the foundation and applying it to present, ever-changing conditions. It's this flexibility and evolution of Marxism that turns it into a science, rather than a dogma.
One does not need to read On the Origin of Species to be taught and study evolution. Still a good idea to, but if textbooks that study the same basis and carry it forward to the modern day are created, then this is also good.
https://lemmy.ml/post/43309494
I'm in this meme and I like it.
Can't we just watch that one Zeitgeist indie documentary to find out the Venus Project is a thing, and then make open-source Star Trek real?
Anarchists usually don't need the kind of deprogramming of capitalist, monarchist, colonial, or imperial systems that socialist and Marxist theories typically focus on.
Is that why every anarchist I know tells me I'm insane and justifying the "evil Iranian regime" after I said the US/Israel shouldn't be bombing Iran?
[citation needed]
Bruh what
Yeah no I’m gonna step in and fully agree with you on the statement of “psychopaths shouldn’t be allowed to enact destruction on civilians.”
IDF, USA (and all its three letter agencies), whatever authoritarian fuckbags murdered Iranian protestors, etc.
It’s all bad. If these genocidal people who choose to reject their humanity have an axe to grind, they should be forced to do so amongst themselves.
Hiding behind bombs and armies is bullshit. Make the “leaders” go face to face, with little more than a rusty machete and keep the rest of the world’s people out of it.
When all the information you have about Iran comes straight from western sources that have lied about Palestinians for years you should take all claims about Iran (and Hamas) with a pile of salt. Otherwise you're a useful idiot both sidings issues that have to do with imperialism first and foremost.
I have multiple Iranian friends. No one in Iran other than religious fundamentalists liked Khamenei, or his government. But they also (justifiably) don't trust the west. They feel trapped. Khamenei being removed is a problem not because he's gone, but because he leaves a vacuum that might get filled with something worse.
Many people in Iran don't like their government, many do, there's a sample bias in that those who are more interested in western culture and more likely to learn English and talk to us are also more likely to be very secular (and sometimes, more propagandized by the west as well).
The main contradiction in the region right now is imperialism, after imperialism is weakened and the vassal states fall the people of Iran will be able to decide if they want a different government without US interference. As it stands now it's impossible for them to change their government and not be a neoliberal puppet run by compradors. Believe me I also want every Iranian to have as much freedom as they desire.
@ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works, maybe anarchists of the imperial core really do could use some colonialist/imperialist deprogramming.
I hear you, though I am more inclined to take a Gramscian view that cultural hegemony of capitalist/imperial core entities convert those anarchists to libertarians, or some form of compromised anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism. So I wouldn't call them anarchists.
But it's not a True Scotsman thing for me, so I don't fundamentally disagree with that perspective.
Agreed. And I think most of the anarchist-leaning folks I know would also agree.
"Fuck Apartheid South Africa and the ANC"
Your position is just support for the oppressor.
Uttering "fuck Hamas" in 2026 is the definitive evidence that you need to read theory. You're spreading Zionist propaganda.
Careful now, they don't take kindly to anarchists who don't obey the ghost of Stalin.