• darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Deprogramming people from milquetoast liberalism to program them into equally empire-friendly (and ultimately more dangerous) ultra-lefti-ism. Very cool.

  • Jesus fucking christ

    there is so much to unpack here lmao. I am too tired and relaxed to do it all, but just the first point, implying Mao or Stalin were nationalists in any sense other than some kind of opportunistic building of “nationality” to ignite it into full on proletarian revolution, like, fucking read a single text you lib shits, lol. W*stern “leftists” deserve the same hellfire as libs, they are just smug ideology shoppers

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Started with them try to lecture me about my understanding of Mao. These people learn a bit about a lot of stuff and then use it to troll people who actually support the real movement for socialism.

  • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I love how these guys will talk about Stalin and Mao being un-marxist for being practical and pragmatic, especially funny in the case of Stalin, because he was only continuing on with programs that Lenin had already started.

  • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Post-marxist hegelian thought”, sometimes I think that philosophy was a fucking mistake. But then I remember that this idiocy is mostly confined to fans of postmodernism and the like.

    • Giyuu@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yeah fetishizing philosophy is fairly common in western spheres. But we Marxists are not philosophers, we are scientists and with that comes observations and experimentation (real world implementation, praxis, etc ).

      I come from a natural sciences background so my honest feelings is that a lot of that pre Marx stuff is, while nice to know, not particularly necessary.

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s just important to know how the theory has been developed over time, and stress how even the development of dialectics is dialectical itself! Everything is a process.

        Marx didn’t develop dialectics in a vacuum, it was developed by building up from Hegel’s dialectics, which in turn were built from someones else. And surely, people will continue to develop dialectics by building up from Marx. It’s all a process.

        We have to respect the previous philosophers for being part of the process but we must not idolize them, even Marx. Even if Marxism (dialectical materialism) may seem as the end of philosophy, there will come a time were someone builds up from it and renders it obsolete. It hasn’t happened but it will.

      • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I come from a natural sciences background so my honest feelings is that a lot of that pre Marx stuff is, while nice to know, not particularly necessary.

        Same. I’ve always been suspicious of pure philosophy and i still am.

        For me one of the best sentences that Marx ever wrote is the last point he makes in “Theses on Feuerbach”:

        “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”

  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Deeply unserious people.

    If you’re gonna be an ultra at least offer a proper critique. These lazy anticommunists don’t even inform themselves before flapping their gums.

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I wasted a fucking hour on this guy. I argued for a while about imperialism being the primary contradiction before I realized he thinks all modern economic modes and equally bad. Doesn’t help he’s a slow typer. lenin facepalm

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        This guy needs to read works by Marxists, his analysis sucks and is conceding massive ground to bourgeois ideology.

        In order to truly understand this contradiction, the most explosive contradiction capitalism has engendered, the centers/peripheries polarization must be placed at the heart of the analysis and not at its margin.

        "But after a whole series of concessions, the forces of the Left and of socialism in the West have finally given up on giving the imperialist dimension of capitalist expansion the central place that it must occupy both in critical analysis and in the development of progressive strategies. In so doing, they have been won over to bourgeois ideology in its most essential aspects: Eurocentrism and economism."

        The very term imperialism has been placed under prohibition, having been judged to be unscientific. Considerable contortions are required to replace it with a more “objective” term like “international capital” or “transnational capital.” As if the world were fashioned purely by economic laws, expressions of the technical demands of the reproduction of capital. As if the state and politics, diplomacy and armies had disappeared from the scene! Imperialism is precisely an amalgamation of the requirements and laws for the reproduction of capital; the social, national, and international alliances that underlie them; and the political strategies employed by these alliances.

        It is therefore indispensable to center the analysis of the contemporary world on unequal development and imperialism. Then, and only then, does it become possible to devise a strategy for a transition beyond capitalism. The obstacle is disengaging oneself from the world system as it is in reality. This obstacle is even greater for the societies of the developed center than it is for those of the periphery. And therein lies the definitive implication of imperialism. The developed central societies, because both their social composition and the advantages they enjoy from access to the natural resources of the globe are based on imperialist surpluses, have difficulty seeing the need for an overall reorganization of the world. A popular, anti-imperialist alliance capable of reversing majority opinion is as a result more difficult to construct in the developed areas of the world. In the societies of the periphery, on the other hand, disengagement from the capitalist world system is the condition for a development of the forces of production sufficient to meet the needs and demands of the majority. This fundamental difference explains why all the breaches in the capitalist system have been made from the periphery of the system. The societies of the periphery, which are entering the period of “post-capitalism” through strategies that I prefer to qualify as popular and national rather than socialist, are constrained to tackle all of the difficulties that delinking implies.

        • Samir Amin, Eurocentrism, For a Truly Universal Culture
        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is basically what I was trying to say. The reply I got was “you’re not a Marxist, you’re a nationalist. If you fight US imperialism “””other imperialisms””” will fill the gap.”

          • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The counter point to that would be analysis on “sub-imperislist” countries and regional blocs, of which many Marxists, including Amin, have covered over the last 50 years. But I don’t think that they will be able to understand it if they can’t understand imperialism first. Because, well, most sub imperialist blocs tend to align themselves with Western interests in the bigger picture at some point or another, as the global capitalist imperialist system led by the triad of the United States, Western Europe and Japan is the dominant imperialist force in the world.

          • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Funny how these guys living comfortable lives in western countries have discovered that the One True Form of Marxism just so happens to be one where they can continue to live their comfortable cushy life and do absolutely nothing to further socialists causes.

  • olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    are they trots or something else? im reading a little book called What is Dialects by Alexandre Konder, a brazilian author, he goes to similar points, he says that there was metaphysics tendencies growing in communists parties around europe, especially in germany with Berninstein, then Lenin dissed the shit out of everyone in What is to be done, to correct these tendencies, that made possible due to Lenin deep understanding of hegelian dialects, then everything went to crap when Stalin came to power because he despised theory, but had a amazing ability to make didactic examples like in the text historical materialism and dialectical materialism, but still weak on hegel, something something that paved way to revisionists like kruchov to rise.

    i felt compelled to translate the part and bring to you guys, but coincidentally the subject came up, so, what is the deal with that? is any of this true that stalin wasn’t up in theory and didn’t understood stuff?

    • Soviet Pigeon@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Bernstein was someone with an quite bourgeois mindset. He is mentioned enough in “What has do be done” and Renegade Kautsky. Give those books a chance and read them, they are not hard at all.

      is any of this true that stalin wasn’t up in theory and didn’t understood stuff?

      I would more like to encourage you to find it out. Even if someone will tell you, that it is true or not true, you are just relying on those words.

      • olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve been reading a little, i got recommended the mentioned texts here on lemmygrad, not gonna lie that trying to learn philosophy has been a frustrating endeavor, to the point that i don’t even know how to properly judge the quality of theory he produced, so i do rely on other people to help sort some thoughts.

        i do know his about his achievements as a leader and why west demonizes him so much, ik it is stupid to use liberals as a compass, anyway, i will keep trying to read more.

        • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Theory is judged in practice, if it doesn’t work it’s left behind, if it works it continues to be developed.

          “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” - karl marx

    • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      everything went to crap when Stalin came to power because he despised theory ???

      Is this a different Stalin they are talking about? Or are they talking about the actual historical Joseph Vissarionovich who was an avid reader and had an entire library full of books, who wrote multiple books on Marxist-Leninist theory, on Soviet economics, on philosophy, etc.? Come on, even all the anti-communist historians who call him a dictator don’t deny how much of a nerd and a bookworm he was.

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You see there are 2 Stalin. The material Stalin, a successful revolutionary that led the Soviet Union to a higher stage of development, and the metaphysical Stalin, developed by the anti-communist scholars and resentful politicians, that was reduced to literally Hitler.

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes there are trots, but this specific individual was like “stop trying to put labels on me, I’m just a Marxist,” acknowledging the Trotskyism and left communism are dead and they don’t technically identify with them.

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Annoying they won’t accept a label, but what do I expect from a troll. Shouldn’t have made the conversation go there anyway.

  • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    NATO leftist is a NATO leftist. I for one am shocked. A lot of baby leftists from NATO and NATO-adjacent countries start out this way. Whether you want to spend your time deprogramming them (if they’re even open-minded enough for that) is up to you