[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
    ·
    5 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
        ·
        4 days 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
            ·
            4 days 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
              2
              ·
              3 days 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.

              • JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                Žižek is a Hegelian, not a Marxist, and moreover is an [opportunist clown that capes for western imperialism through a “left” angle

                I know that Žižek isn’t an actual Marxist and I figured out that his writing is chaotic (also repetitive and hypocritical. (As a Slovenian) I also know about his affiliation with the “Levica” liberal party which is really far from a socialist party.

                The text was a good read and very concerning. I thankfully never was a Žižek evangelist.

                In socialism, it’s the proletariat that enjoys democracy, and its the landlords, fascists, and capitalists denied that right.

                I know about the participary democracies like in Cuba and understand the people aren’t actually living under a dictatorship (in the sense that rules are set by an uncontrollable force). I just tried to say, that the people don’t actually vote their leader and the authorities in power, the position was (for example in Venezuela, when it wasn’t fucked with by the US yet) inherited by the person the country’s leader chose.

                People’s way of thinking comes from their material conditions, not any intrinsic human nature.

                I’m confident to disagree with anyone on that point. Most of my relatives lived in Yugoslavia and still wanted private property (some people in SFRJ(/Y) still imported cars (because property made them feel superior) (even having to pay an outrageous after-tax price compared to a comparable VW Golf model produced in TAS or … well a Yugo, but still). Their priority when buying a car wasn’t their comrade’s financial wellbeing or the worker rights of an employee in a capitalist country, but their own public image. Also, practically everyone imported clothes from neighboring countries and didn’t give a shit about buying domestic. … Or somewhat likely, I’m just traumatized and can’t comprehend people being moral.

                Fuck it, I have to read Marx.

                Thanks for the stuff I need to research eventually.

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

                  You’re partially correct, partially wrong about socialist democracy. The people do elect and nominate candidates. What’s highly unusual in socialism is the kind of multiparty factionalism that is common in capitalist countries, as unity and cohesiveness is valued. Both policy and candidates come from the working classes, and those that are nominated to the party usually have to work their way up to the top, from the bottom. Xi Jinping is a famous example of this, going all the way up from his local council to the top of the CPC. Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance is an excellent view on this process (though the bit on the DPRK is now outdated, in 2024 they abolished the Democratic Front previously used to select candidates, and have now begun rolling out multi-candidate primaries in certain jurisdictions).

                  As for your point on Yugoslavia and people wanting luxury goods and whatnot, I don’t see that at odds with Marxism at all, nor with socialism. Just because the way we live and exist shapes how we think, does not mean we suddenly become selfless paragons in socialist society. The anecdote I linked regarding the Soviet Union didn’t mean people suddenly became completely devoted communists overnight, just that the people began seeing themselves as more of a cohesive whole than people in endless competition. Further, the Titoist model is something more critiqued by modern Marxists than supported (though many still do support it and as I understand many who lived in it thought it was an amazing system).

                  The alternative to people’s thoughts being shaped by their material conditions is a supernatural idea of ideas being prior to matter. I don’t mean to say biology has no effect on thought, but that matter is prior to thought, and this means we may make history, but we do not choose the conditions we are born and made in. If you want a place to start with Marx, I recommend the basic Marxist-Leninist study guide I made. You don’t need the whole thing to get an idea of Marxism, just the first couple sections can give you the big picture. It’s mostly designed for reading groups and individuals who want to join communist parties to have an idea about what they are getting into.

                  And no problem!