1454
But "socialism" is a scary word
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
1454 points (97.2% liked)
Memes
46029 readers
2757 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
My friend, there is an ideological ocean between "workers should collectively own the means of production" and "we need an authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence to enforce communism."
I mean this with all sympathy, after all, I used to share views similar to your own before I started taking Marxism seriously, and to dismiss you would be to dismiss myself, and thus the capacity for change. When you simplify Marxism to "workers should collectively own the Means of Production," you remove the entirety of Marxism, as such a thought was common even pre-Marx. When you simplify AES to "authoritarian states with a monopoly on violence to enforce Communism," you assume greater knowledge of the practice of building Socialism than the billions of people who have worked tirelessly to bring it into existance for the last century from the inside, not criticizing from afar.
With all due respect, and no "I've read more than you so my power level is higher" nonsense, have you read Marx?
With all due respect to theory, I've seen too much of it shit all over people who lack education, context, or ability to understand, and basically leaves those people out of the conversation and acts like their opinions don't matter because they haven't read the right books or have the right education.
The differences between academic unions and blue-collar unions were always stark to me, and when there was ever any connection between the two, the academics would roll their eyes and be dismissive of the blue-collar people, who may have not always been theory conscious but were good people, a la Samwise Gamgee (in terms of Tolkiens ideas of the kind of good, kind, but simple people he met in WWI). Constantly telling those people that they don't know enough to be involved isn't ever really a positive way forward, in my opinion, and anything where it's forced from the top-down on those people instead of having their input is something I'm against, sorry. You can't explain away taking away people's right to input in their own governance with theory, to me.
I've read some Marx, but never got my hands on an unabridged copy of Capital, nor did I finish it because it was pretty tedious. I personally think Debord had way more profound things to say, and Society of the Spectacle is the most dog-eared book I own. Mixed with McLuhan's Understanding Media, I'm actually partial to think communications might actually be neck-and-neck with commodities in terms of importance of understanding them. I mean, Debord thought that too, which is why he thought he would be remembered for his board game Kriegspiel, (a war game focusing on lines of communication) not for SotS.
I am not trying to tell you that your opinions are "invalid" or "worthless." You raise a good problem well known by actual, practicing Marxists about Western "Marxists" that seek to endlessly critique society without changing it. However, it would be a mistake to not learn from Socialists in the past and present who have a wealth of experience and lifetimes of analysis to draw from. Rather, my goal isn't telling you that you don't know enough to be involved, but that I think you are making a critical error in attacking Socialists based on what I believe are misconceptions and misunderstandings, and this hurts leftist movement.
I think if you made an effort to understand what these billions of Socialists believe in and are committed to, you would better understand if their ideas and systems are valid or not. I think without reading theory that you are only going to have an incomplete and partial view, and this, while not delegitimizing your opinions and views, certainly harms the integrity. Celebrating an "end to theory" was something the Socialist Revolutionaries adhered to pre-revolution in Russia, and this was proven a mistake, while the Bolsheviks' strict adherence to theory and mass worker organization proved correct.
Bud, I'm reading theory, and you're literally telling me I'm not reading the right theory.
Kinda? If you want to have an opinion of Marxists, I would read Marx and historical accounts by Marxists to even understand better what they are trying to do better, rather than Anarchist critiques of Marxism. Your initial comment came out attacking Marxists, so I tried to contextualize that more.
I don't know how to more emphatically tell you that Debord was such a Marxist his many of his theses from Society of the Spectacle literally were copying/detourning Marx lines. His "plagiarism is necessary" thing is something he lived up to when writing the book. Like three quarters of things in the book are other writers words twisted into what Debord wants to talk about. The Lettrists/Situationists were literally building on what came before.
Sure, and I am telling you that based on your assertions thus far he evidently isn't enough to actively take a hostile stance towards Marxists.
I have known Marxists, and they didn't self-ascribe the term "tankie" to mean "Marxist." In fact the ones I've known would bristle at the suggestion.
Clarify the difference, then, because whenever anyone seems to do so they end up just clarifying a tiny minority of western orthodox Marxists as "real Marxists" and the billions of practicing Marxists as "tankies."
No country has made it to a Communist mode of production yet, only Socialist, and all countries use violence to perpetuate their systems. By that metric, anyone who supports any Socialist country is a tankie. No, China isn't perfrct, but it's much better than western countries on average. You only seem to accept perfection as valid.
Just quoting myself here because yeah dude, all countries are guilty of this and it makes me ill. Just because I was born into a specific country doesn't mean I have some fucking grand allegiance to it. The US is categorically the worst and most despotic country on the planet and it's where I'm from, no argument. I'm from the tippy top of the worst of the worst. Sorry, not sorry, I don't really have a voice in any of it.
Am I, or am I the only one here dreaming of anything outside of what already exists? Like I said, we have a different opinion on centralization versus decentralization and I don't think that's going to change, and that deeply impacts how we both view these issues. You'll just have to accept that when you say "centralize with democatic controls so no one can take advantage" to me that's Utopian thinking. (Because once it's centralized and a bad actor somehow does take over, then you can't decentralize it quickly.) That's acting like you already have the perfect solution. That's not critiquing the status quo. Sure China is better than the West, but that doesn't mean China can't be better than it is now. And dear God, I hope that for China, because the West sure ain't up to the charge of leading the world through climate change and mass extinction.