Coal mining enthusiast
50/50, you either guess it right or you dont
Banger
"Wealth Hoarder" isn't the best term, given how it could also include decently affluent working class people who have a decent amount of savings. They technically hoard wealth for themselves albeit to a lesser extent, but are these people problematic/part of the problem?
Also, it was a rhetorical question, the answer is bourgeoisie (or capitalists if you don't want to use 19th century English). It's definition literally is the employers and people who own and run companies/factories, and rentiers who live off of rent (so landlords). Instead of describing an action, it does something better and describes their material position, what they have.
In a number-go-up kind of sense, yeah - it's inherently gamification of social media and it is fun for some of our brains. However, I also think that karma or any other kind of "engagement accumulation" turns social media from a place of discussion into a competition for attention, where you're more incentivized to post solely for upvotes. Only a small minority takes posting seriously like this I admit it, but it does make the experience worse for everyone.
That's not to say the mindset doesn't exist without karma, only that it gets amplified.
To be incredibly pedantic (and I love being pedantic), this means that billionaires specifically are the problem, right?
What about medium/large business owners who are far from being billionaires, or small business owners who are trying to get their business off the ground, are they not also problematic given how they still exploit workers to the same degree (or even to a larger degree like small businesses, given how they enjoy a lot of discriminatory legal exemptions worldwide and have to cut labour costs in order to compete better) and are more likely than not to support reactionary rhetoric that divides the working classes further due to their class position?
If only there was a word to encompass all of them
Honestly, this applies to EU too. There are still communists out there in real world (mostly found in university groups, labor unions or just some very niche book clubs), but way fewer than when compared to 20th century thanks to the efforts of red scare, the hellscape of "socialist" regimes, etc. There's also the fact that if you want to be a communist, you need to go way out of your way to seek the theory and groups and actually study rather than having the ideology imposed onto you (but exceptions apply, like how Marxism-Leninism and Maoism can definitely be cultish).
Also, "liberal framework" in my comment was referring to viewing politics as choosing between good or bad, treating the system as being a fair, neutral arbiter, and it's how majority view electorialism since that's what is imposed onto us. Doesn't really have to do anything with progressives being referred to as liberals in the US, but just taking liberal democracy at its face value.
no way, bernie is actually based??
(Though to be honest, I don't get Bernie hate that much - sure, he's a bourgeoisie liberal and the perception around him being some revolutionary socialist is just outright false, but he lowkey might be the only 'sane' liberal out there in the US)
I'm not an american (but anti-electoral nonetheless), and I do get the critique and think it is perfectly valid if one views things through liberal framework - vote for the lesser evil, minimize suffering, not voting is letting the bad candidate on getting the upper hand, etc.
However, this isn't an objective position but an ideological one, as it operates within lesser-evilism, coalitionism within capitalist institutions and having a definition of "the left" that generalizes them to essentially having to be "pro-democracy somewhat progressive liberals", and any deviation makes them into a troll or a right winger or something like that.
What is important to realize is that most leftists aren't liberals - in fact, many leftists, particularly Marxists, view elections as:
- A way to legitimize the class rule that leads into passivity among the working class who are being ruled over, essentially recognizing that this "tool that we are given" is just an illusion and leads to neutralization of worker power,
- Enabling of 'capitalist-tribalism' in the form of "which capitalist manager do you support" which is seen in US through party loyalty and basically disarming the working class from realizing their own interests.
Essentially, their goal isn't to just "vote for the lesser evil" or "achieve the maximum good through the means we're given" but to abolish the system entirely, and electorialism/voting is counter-productive in that regard due to legitimizing effect that it has that I mentioned previously. This does go against the "liberal left" and their goals, and being on the same political wing does not automatically mean there's an alliance or shared goals, nor does it mean that two positions aren't going to have antagonistic goals.
Besides, why blame the left for the electoral failure who abstained from voting? Why not blame MAGA for voting in an enemy that goes against your interests (as in, people who have actually voted)?
EDIT: Reading some of the comments over here, and what the fuck. Automatically labeling people as bots or trolls for daring to commit the crime of 'wrongthink' is definitely dehumanizing and the most toxic I've seen beehaw be. It's fine to disagree, it's fine to choose not to engage, but making a post calling a certain somewhat niche political position out, having people such as myself try and explain that this position is more complicated, then going full on "nah I'm right, you're wrong, everyone who disagrees is now blocked and also not human or Russian/Chinese agents" is genuinely loser behavior to put it bluntly, especially on a "Chat" community where discussion is expected.
Uncropped tweet, it's Dec 2019
That's pretty normal, we all do stupid shit as kids because of our environments/friend circles or just general growing pains.
Recognizing that what you've done is actually horrible is the most important step in terms of maturing and growing up, though of course it's not the full battle. After all, how would someone change for the better if they don't have such realization?
All in all you're likely not a bad person, just someone who needs to/is in the process of maturing.
Not an anarchist, but I think this is an excellent write-up, good job.
Though, I could argue that points 2, 3 and 4 aren't necessarily exclusive to ML's but rather the online ideology cultures as a whole - Anarchists, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives or Nazis included. There's always going to be terminally online people who make political ideologies as their personality and attacks upon them being taken as personal attacks, and this doesn't apply to ideologies exclusively but rather to hobbies like video games as well. However, both from what I've seen and experienced, it is just a phase that does blow over - after a while the enthusiasm subsides, other interests start taking priority, and while the ideas do stay, they do become less prominent and room opens for a more nuanced discussion.
Speaking of YouTube channels, I like Josh Strife Hayes when it comes to talking about toxic masculinity, bad role models, becoming a more positive and better person - things like that, though he mostly does this on streams, clip channel of which is Josh Strife Says.
I like this video in particular, but there are other clips that speak about similar topics.
Been there, all depressed because of current state of the world, and learning that the "solutions" or "ways out" by the media are false or just delaying the inevitable/distractions, and judging from your comments you might be feeling the same thing.
However, if you do that, not only would your daughter suffer but the world would also lose someone truly radical in today's society, someone who would truly sees past the ideology and propaganda we're subjected to. If everyone like that were to off themselves or start heavily abusing substances as a tool of escapism, the world would never change and people with a future ahead of them like your daughter would be doomed for certain.
It's important to cling onto hope - a better world is possible and you can be a part of building it, both individually but more importantly, collectively. Drop subtle hints in your conversations about what you think is wrong nowadays, who the real enemies you see are, plant the seeds in your colleagues and hope they'll come to the same conclusions by themselves. If you see any resistance organizations aligned with your views politically, why not join them - after all, you're not alone. Point is - there is still hope for change.
Though if it works and it does make you feel better, you can also start focusing on positive/good news, even though I'm skeptical it would work, pandora's box and all. Maybe even seek counseling or therapy if you have access to it.
I don't have enough hubris to say that I have all the answers, especially when it comes to the way forward - this is something that's up to the revolutionary party collectively to decide, but I do disagree with the ML's theory and methodology, especially with "Socialism in one state" or the 'worship' of State Capitalism. However, if you had a gun to my head, I'd probably manage to squeak out something possibly infantile like this:
When it comes to proletarian revolutions that attempt to build socialism, internationalism is a necessity (both to allow international trade to help meet everyone's needs and weakening of the capitalist global order and reducing them as a threat) - once proletarian and an international party takes power, the focus should be in coordinating/exporting the revolution worldwide mostly via the support of proletarian movements, else it will get isolated, start playing for survival, have to adapt to capitalism and eventually collapse or degenerate as seen historically.
Also, instead of treating state capitalism and markets as a transitional phase that is constantly expanded/built upon, it should instead not be viewed as legitimate and rather something residual, to be replaced as soon as possible. In theory, this should allow for a certain amount of goods to be produced for use, and goods that are more scarce could be produced as commodities and rationed through money.
Once sufficient economic restructuring for transition towards socialist mode of production is done, that's when the transition towards non-accumulative labor vouchers can be done, which should eliminate the law of value and capital relations.
I don’t think it’s particularly productive to back up controversial claims within the Marxist current with statements like “it’s clear that xyz” or “it’s without question.” These topics are controversial because they aren’t clear and are questionable claims.
I really appreciate this and you are right - the claims I made do go against ML theory, and whether something is right or wrong in this case is dependent on one's views and perspectives (as in intra-Marxism) rather than cold, hard, unquestionable facts. I will definitely try to avoid such loaded language in the future.
In essence, I do largely agree with you - the material conditions in the historically socialist countries (USSR specifically in this case but can also more or less be applied to others) be it their peasant problem or being isolated due to international revolutions failing did require them to do what they had done and develop using state capitalism or "building socialism in one state", and they were successful in that regard. Same applies to the anti-colonial national liberation movements - they were successful and historically progressive and indeed should be celebrated.
However, the issue that this is a win for (state) capitalism and all the baggage that comes with it rather than actual socialism, given how socialist mode of production was never realized and arguments such as "people's billionaires who will get punished by going against the party" or "the economy was nationalized" don't define socialism. Wage labor remained (therefore surplus extraction too), commodity production and markets both within the country and interaction with international capitalist world market had remained (Why Russia isn't socialist talks about this). One could also make an argument that even in those countries where capitalists got done away with (which is a proletarian W) but state capitalism persisted, the functions of the capitalist remained and were carried out by mere managers, like how Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific points out:
Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.
And again to reiterate, rather than being a win for socialism, it's instead a win for a regressive form of it which is state capitalism that's comparable to social democracy.
As about your point about the rejection of AES, that's not my argument at all - instead of rejecting any attempt outright and waiting for a perfect revolution, one should instead support all revolutionary attempts but, most importantly, realize when the revolution had failed/ended instead of clinging onto false hope which is something that ML's tend to do at least from my perspective. Of course, when a revolution fails depends on ones perspective, but from mine it's when the proletarian revolution (which must be internationalist) fails to spread and a country has to start fully focusing inwards for its survival within global capitalism and the inevitable participation in it, like what happened in USSR in 1920's - at that point, it's only a matter of time until the country falls to revisionism, degeneration of socialist ideas and the aforementioned full reintegration into global capitalist system.
That being said, I really do appreciate your responses, even though some of them might be too long for me to respond to.
Love how the exact same thing is now being said about the US lmao (the collapse part at least), I LOVE the media machine
Oh I absolutely agree, my comment was mostly just a joke.
But that would mean I'd have to start supporting JD cause he finally did something good.... (i dislike organized religion)
Just because something is initially successful doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, and I'm saying that as a proponent of a vanguard party or similar form of centralized organization, given how it's a necessity post-revolution.
USSR's revolution was successful thanks to the Bolshevik Party, but after a while it was clear that the party had replaced the proletariat as the ruling class and instead had started to direct/rule over the workers (in order words, the party became Substitutionist). Later on, the party had fully succumbed to revisionism and eventual collapse. Similar thing happened to China, and even though the party didn't disappear, it's without a question a bourgeoisie party and you'd need insane amount of misinterpretation of Marxist theory to claim otherwise.
For other revolutions like in Cuba or Vietnam, even though the same thing applies right from the get-go (given how Stalin is a revisionist), one could argue that they weren't Marxist revolutions, but rather part of anti-colonial wave of the 20th century that's more in the ballpark of "bourgeois-nationalist revolution". Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh was particularly explicit about this.
And to go back to the first point I made, a fun example that would push this kind of logic would be what's happening to US right now - Trump has successfully gone into power twice now, it doesn't automatically mean that his success means that he and his policies are correct.
If you're torrenting and got some extra hard drive space, a good practice is to copy paste the game into another location and play for there. That way, you can modify or have the game update all you want without stopping seeding (as you need all original, unmodified files to seed), and you also have a backup in case something goes really wrong.