Kool

5y

trotsky fishing

space0cadet

5y

.... GET THE F*** OUT OF HERE!

Kool

5y

tankies had to watch the ccp disappear a tennis player who accused a top official of sexual assault and responded by saying 'usa politicians do sexual assault as well' c'mon bro this can't be your actual ideology

americana

5y

The CCP disappeared a tennis player who made several public appearances and said she was fine multiple times, including a statement from the IOC chairman who verified her safety

Scratchin Mamba

5y

Guys I heard Kim Jong-un died is this true?

krishna bound

5y

I'm not sure if I'd say that, that's a bit of an exaggeration. There are young kids or idiots on twitter or middle class LARPers in Portland or something who skew in that direction but its not like they have any material difference vs actual movements inherently. Like if every kid on twitter suddenly became a ML or Maoist or something overnight its not like theyre gonna start a revolution and topple the US government or something like that.
Socially it's way more true that what ""killed"" Leftism as a type of more political apparatus in the west per-se was the re-focus from economics and political frameworks into bs psychotherapy and questionably valid cultural a***ysis from the 60s.
the fact you end up with mainstream "marxists" like Zizek or something instead of political actors like idk even a Gonzalo (just using an example because he started as a professor - not that im a gonzalo thought person lol) is somewhat proof of that. The US/CIA involvement in funding post-modernism and stuff is definitely true but its only to some extent, its not a be all end all, and anyway it mostly falls with people like Foucault who had influence but didnt necessarily identify as Leftists anyway.
People like Lacan and Marcuse are way more of better examples of peoples whose philosophies were not only extremely influential but also incredibly detrimental to political conceptualizations.
Marcuse for example said himself that he basically hated the working class and didnt think they were capable of any form of revolution and thought rallying college kids under arbitrary social causes was a better starting place for a revolution. You can kinda see how that abstraction became literal decades later.
I don't think all of post-modern thought is complete bs by any means, some of its quite interesting, but its inception definitely lead to the flanderization and the commodification of "leftism" as an identity or commodity rather than a real political movement.
When it comes to "pop-anarchists" as is probably a good word for them, while they definitely damage/taint the "image" per-se, it's not like there's an organized left in most of the west (US specifically) for them to tank, and even if there was, the pre-existing biases against the Left stemming all the way back towards anti-Left attitudes in the US would probably fill that gap anyway. Not every anarchist falls under the "pop-anarchist" label, and i'd probably bet a good chunk of them don't and are just the equivalent of neutral political actors, which isn't really much of a differentiator besides at worst causing more arguments online.
I think in terms of "poisoning the well", the only thing I'd maybe agree with is there's a very specific strain of anarchism which for sure really harmed the kind of ancestry of leftism philosophy, but philosophy is (more than not) detached from political action anyway in modern times
Of course, that all said, all of this isn't in a vacuum, and is of course paired next to actual geopolitical factors, like US involvement and intervention abroad, the liberalization of china, fall of the USSR, etc.

Slurrin

5y

What’s the issue w/Lacan?

the reds

5y

Disclaimer: not an anarchist, trot, demsoc, or whatever sect.

Why do so many “tankies”, who consider themselves Marxists, refuse to a***yze ML states objectively? A successful revolution completely blinds them to the fact that ultimately these projects all eventually collapsed or had to adopt a radically different political economy. Not to mention the people who waste all their time defending the human flaws of those leaders, a lot of them spend their whole day defending or “disproving” the excesses and failures of those projects. After getting rid of the anti-communist propaganda, you still have to reckon with very real excesses and ultimately either a collapse or a transformation into something else.These countries achieved revolution but at the end of the day the goal is world communism. If nothing bad ever happened in let's say the USSR, its political economy was the objective true application of Marxism, and it STILL collapsed, then what would that say about Marxism?

Regardless of their achievements, at the end of the day you have to keep in mind that these projects ultimately failed and they have to be surpassed. If the Stalinist model worked out and we were in communism right now it would have all been worth it, but it obviously didn’t, for a variety of reasons that can’t just be waved away with copes “Khruschev f***ed it up”. That applies to basically everything too, not just 20th century “Marxism-Leninism”. I would say a lot of these reasons aren’t even “mistakes”, they were historical conditions or things so determined as to be impossible to avoid or overcome. It would be hard to ask Soviet Planners to rise above 20th century computer technology or ask the German socialist party to make Europeans less nationalist.

But it doesn’t matter if it's “unfair”, that doesn’t mean it's something you can ignore. Just because it can be explained away doesn’t mean it stops being a problem. I think this post is already long enough so I won’t touch on things like objective wrongs that were less determined, but let’s just say that becoming a hooting and hollering defender of everything that's branded as communst is anything but “Marxist” or “Materialist.”

Inb4 “but what about China and Cuba”,​

VA7a

5y

went to my local walmart and they have a book calling Biden a Communist lmao

VA7a

5y

went to my local walmart and they have a book calling Biden a Communist lmao

the reds

5y

Disclaimer: not an anarchist, trot, demsoc, or whatever sect.

Why do so many “tankies”, who consider themselves Marxists, refuse to a***yze ML states objectively? A successful revolution completely blinds them to the fact that ultimately these projects all eventually collapsed or had to adopt a radically different political economy. Not to mention the people who waste all their time defending the human flaws of those leaders, a lot of them spend their whole day defending or “disproving” the excesses and failures of those projects. After getting rid of the anti-communist propaganda, you still have to reckon with very real excesses and ultimately either a collapse or a transformation into something else.These countries achieved revolution but at the end of the day the goal is world communism. If nothing bad ever happened in let's say the USSR, its political economy was the objective true application of Marxism, and it STILL collapsed, then what would that say about Marxism?

Regardless of their achievements, at the end of the day you have to keep in mind that these projects ultimately failed and they have to be surpassed. If the Stalinist model worked out and we were in communism right now it would have all been worth it, but it obviously didn’t, for a variety of reasons that can’t just be waved away with copes “Khruschev f***ed it up”. That applies to basically everything too, not just 20th century “Marxism-Leninism”. I would say a lot of these reasons aren’t even “mistakes”, they were historical conditions or things so determined as to be impossible to avoid or overcome. It would be hard to ask Soviet Planners to rise above 20th century computer technology or ask the German socialist party to make Europeans less nationalist.

But it doesn’t matter if it's “unfair”, that doesn’t mean it's something you can ignore. Just because it can be explained away doesn’t mean it stops being a problem. I think this post is already long enough so I won’t touch on things like objective wrongs that were less determined, but let’s just say that becoming a hooting and hollering defender of everything that's branded as communst is anything but “Marxist” or “Materialist.”

Inb4 “but what about China and Cuba”,​

Synopsis

5y

so basically you just wanted to post to post

the reds

5y

As opposed to posting for noble intentions like you 🙏🏾

americana

5y

socialism isnt noble nor is it aiming to be

the reds

5y

Disclaimer: not an anarchist, trot, demsoc, or whatever sect.

Why do so many “tankies”, who consider themselves Marxists, refuse to a***yze ML states objectively? A successful revolution completely blinds them to the fact that ultimately these projects all eventually collapsed or had to adopt a radically different political economy. Not to mention the people who waste all their time defending the human flaws of those leaders, a lot of them spend their whole day defending or “disproving” the excesses and failures of those projects. After getting rid of the anti-communist propaganda, you still have to reckon with very real excesses and ultimately either a collapse or a transformation into something else.These countries achieved revolution but at the end of the day the goal is world communism. If nothing bad ever happened in let's say the USSR, its political economy was the objective true application of Marxism, and it STILL collapsed, then what would that say about Marxism?

Regardless of their achievements, at the end of the day you have to keep in mind that these projects ultimately failed and they have to be surpassed. If the Stalinist model worked out and we were in communism right now it would have all been worth it, but it obviously didn’t, for a variety of reasons that can’t just be waved away with copes “Khruschev f***ed it up”. That applies to basically everything too, not just 20th century “Marxism-Leninism”. I would say a lot of these reasons aren’t even “mistakes”, they were historical conditions or things so determined as to be impossible to avoid or overcome. It would be hard to ask Soviet Planners to rise above 20th century computer technology or ask the German socialist party to make Europeans less nationalist.

But it doesn’t matter if it's “unfair”, that doesn’t mean it's something you can ignore. Just because it can be explained away doesn’t mean it stops being a problem. I think this post is already long enough so I won’t touch on things like objective wrongs that were less determined, but let’s just say that becoming a hooting and hollering defender of everything that's branded as communst is anything but “Marxist” or “Materialist.”

Inb4 “but what about China and Cuba”,​

the reds

5y

As opposed to posting for noble intentions like you 🙏🏾

americana

5y

regularly criticizing (succesful, mind you) socialist states does nothing for us when when we, as imperial citizens, need to a***yze and build socialism in the imperial core based upon imperial core conditions. Especially within an anticommunist digiscape as permanent as the english Internet, its more important that ideological momentum is compiled and propelled in parallel to material momentum than it is to remain in critical reflection of the past since capitalists will do anything and everything to f*** over communists, including forming coherent arguments.

The eventual dismantling of these states isn't something that necessarily disproves the tenets of Marxism, and the USSR wasn't necessarily an objectively close emulation of marxist theory as liberalization occured. There's also a LOT of criticism out there regarding what led to the downfall of the Third Internationale in writing. I simply think its more productive to a***yize today within Marxist/ML theory and build from there than criticize and adapt the models put forth by the USSR since we're a radically different place materially

Synopsis

5y

well youre the only one who presented a post as some sort of serious a***ysis

the reds

5y

Are you the judge of that too now? You're a real mind reader.