[characters surround a flowchart]

Do you agree with me ideologically?\

  • No: Then you are not a leftist\
  • Yes: Proceed

    Did you ever disagree with me online?\
  • Yes: Then you are not a leftist\
  • No: Proceed

    Have you ever read theory?\
  • No: Then you are not a leftist\
  • Yes: Proceed

    Did you reach the same conclusions as me?
    No: Then you are not a leftist
    Yes: Proceed

    Do you believe in left unity?
    Yes: ??? -> just kidding -> loop back to the same question
    No: Proceed

    Are you to my left or to my right ideologically?
    Right: Then you are not a leftist
    Left: I hate you because you are a tankie -> Bruh -> Then you are not a leftist
    We agree: I hate you because you are a liberal -> Wait what -> Then you are not a leftist

    https://thebad.website/comic/true_leftism_flowchart
  • bunkyprewster@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m currently reading Zizek’s “Less than nothing” and he criticizes Marx for not being Hegelian enough. Resetting my thermostat now

      • bunkyprewster@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thanks. Very helpful.

        But still to.be honest, Marx always feels 100% solid to me when explaining capitalism, but on much less solid ground when predicting the future.

          • JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            20 hours ago
            1. “The revolution will definitely happen spontaneously.”

            2. “People actually want a fair system and definitely don’t just wish to feel superior.”

            EDIT: Wanted to leave just thease two and be cynical but didn’t want to be dick.

            My counterarguments (from my limited philosophical education (never read Marx, but read Parenti and Žižek))

            • the small minority that actually doesn’t hate communism needs to resist passively or aggressively to enact change (instilling class consciousness will never work because people still dream of being better than their neighbour (or more often the minority they don’t like(since chauvinism still exists under different political system, the capitalists just abuse it (they didn’t invent it)))) (ah shit, the second point). And no, voting only works in a limited manner. You can’t really vote for anything farther left than the dem-socialists (AKA “definitely not the social democrats”).

            • this is not a communism counterpoint. In my opinion communism is needed precisely because people are more often than not selfish.

            To point out for anyone unsure: “The dictatorship of the proletariat” isn’t an actual rule of the proletariat, it’s a dictatorship which tries to repress the capitalists and the self proclaimed “capitalists” (without capital) and other reactionaries to try and make life better for the proletariat (at least if someone doesn’t fuck up or the “that specific country” and it’s allies doesn’t sabotage it [ Parenti - To kill a nation ], also the Cuba blockade stuff.

            This are my personal thoughts. And it’s way too chaotically written (fuck).

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Off the bat, this is bafflingly wrong in a few areas, but you seem to be aware of the problem already. Parenti is less a Marxist and more of a “pro-Marxist,” he supports Marxism and revolution without being an actual scholar of Marxism. Žižek is a Hegelian, not a Marxist, and moreover is an opportunist clown that capes for western imperialism through a “left” angle. As such, you have a few critical flaws in your points.

              The revolution will definitely happen spontaneously.

              This isn’t the Marxist point. Marxism is not determinist in this manner, the point is that as the contradiction between socialization of labor and privatization of profits grows, revolutionary pressure will increase. Spontaneity can only get you so far, though, ultimately you have to organize for revolution, and create the vehicles for aligning the working classes. All successful revolutions have relied upon such mechanisms.

              People actually want a fair system and definitely don’t just wish to feel superior.

              This is again, not a Marxist point. People’s way of thinking comes from their material conditions, not any intrinsic human nature. This is well documented by Anna Louise Strong, a Statesian journalist that spent a great deal of time reporting on revolutionary governments in the 20th century:

              The difference appears in the use of pronouns. People under capitalism are contrasting “I” and “they.” “Too bad it couldn’t have been on my land,” a man remarks of a California oil-strike. Soviet folk would be hailing “our new oil-wells”; to them the idea of a private oil-well is already as quaint as a private postal system. I note a remark about American unemployment: “If it gets any worse, they’ll have to do something.” Who is this ultimate, uncontrollable “they”? The term betrays the class society of which the speakers are unconscious; they are waiting for some boss to act. To hear a debate: “Is America going fascist?” and think how much less passively Soviet folk would word it. “Shall we go fascist? No. Then exactly how shall we prevent it?” Soviet folk say “we” of one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Uzbek cotton-pickers, toiling under the sun of Central Asia, say: “We are conquering the Arctic; we rescued the Chelyuskinites.” Ukrainian farmers who never went up in an airplane talk of “our stratosphere records” and “the loss of our Maxim Gorky airplane” as they take up collections to build ten new ones. But even Mrs. Roosevelt asks me: “Are Russian peasants getting more reconciled to accepting direction?” I feel the hopelessness of language as I answer: “No, they are learning better to organize and direct themselves.”

              I know it’s a bit of a meme for people to say “ours” and “we,” adding “comrade,” but it genuinely is the lived experience of people living in socialist society. This was written in 1936, in a book titled This Soviet World. The important note here is that the way we think depends on the way we live, the way we produce and distribute. People want to get more than their neighbors not because of any intrinsic desire, but because capitalism molds humans to do so. Just as capitalism molds humans, so too does socialism, in a more communal direction.

              The role of the vanguard is to educate the rest of the working classes, bringing them up to their level of political engagement and knowledge. This is why Anna Louise Strong said the Russian peasantry were learning better to organize and direct themselves, not merely to be led passively. This ongoing pedagogical obstacle is the chief concern of communist parties, and it actually does work.

              As for the dictatorship of the proletariat, it’s the dictatorial rule of a class over the rest. It isn’t a dictatorship outright, in that it’s democratic for the class in power. In capitalism, democracy extends to capitalists alone. In socialism, it’s the proletariat that enjoys democracy, and its the landlords, fascists, and capitalists denied that right.

              All in all, I know saying “read Marx” is a meme, a horribly ineffective one at that, but I do think that if you have problems with an ideology, you should actually visit the source.