Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dialectical wrote (edited )

You have to grow out of this liberal way of seeing things....

Understand this:

Your entire approach is to treat very serious political issues like some needy teenager's identity quest.

There's Marxism, which is a science proven correct on multiple occasions and developed by the historical class struggle, and there's "anarchism".... A juvenile petite bourgeois fantasy that has never been implemented because it's a foolish bit of idealism for middle class white kids who fear violence and would sell out any revolution to the fascists in an instant to avoid losing their trust funds.

If you can't see the difference between these two inherently opposed things, it is likely because you're petite bourgeois in reality.

Come to if you want to really learn about politics. This place is for ridiculous liberals who think politics is about stealing pokemon cards/makeup, spray painting bad words about the police, and sharing pointless memes about feminism and sexuality.


ziq wrote

would sell out any revolution to the fascists

What is projection?


[deleted] wrote (edited )


Dialectical wrote

I tried to downvote you but instead it upvoted and now it won't let me downvote.

Anyway, you shouldn't dismiss everything I said so haphazardly. If you go through point by point you can see it is all 100% true.

  1. Treating politics like a quest for an identity is foolhardy. Either you want to overthrow the capitalists or you don't. The only way to do it is through Marxism.

  2. Marxism is a science. Why would anyone deny it? Dialectical materialism even influenced the ways fields of study like biology, physics, and engineering were pursued in the USSR.

  3. Anarchism has been shown to be a petite bourgeois pursuit by countless Marxist thinkers. Anarchism only hinders socialist revolutions. This youtube video will help you understand as a short introduction, but to truly overcome your condition, you will need to actually read Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin and other Marxists.

  1. When we seek solutions to the problem of capitalism, for someone to settle on "anarchism" as a solution would require them to have a petite bourgeois mindset. There's no way for someone who understands dialectical materialism to then see "anarchism" as a solution to capitalism. Rather, it is a furthering of the reactionary capitalist agenda. You must develop an understanding of the material conditions in this society. The concept can be applied on various scales to apply dialectical analysis to all sorts of contradictions within capitalist society. This is the science behind Marxism, something "anarchism" completely ignores in favor of liberal feel-good platitudes.

redgreenexplosion OP wrote (edited )

But has Marxism ever been implemented? What makes Marxism so successful? All the Marxist states in the world have a clear class structure still. Even if it's correct in theory, it hasn't created communism yet.

You know, I doubt all of the workers that pulled off revolutions without knowing theory behind it would hate being called liberals /petite bourgeois. I get that theory is important, and I’m still learning about it, but to write those off that don’t know the theory as well but genuinely strive for revolution is unfair to us. Isn’t the whole point of the vanguard party not to make the masses masters of communist theory but to make them revolutionary?


Dialectical wrote

To blame Marxism because we have yet to achieve full communism is illogical. It takes a lot of time to defeat the reactionary elements in society and to educate the masses so that they may be properly prepared for the next stage in the class war that will eventually lead us to communism. First we have to overthrow communism and establish a Marxist state through revolution, something that has eluded us in the West. Only then can we begin to prepare for communism.

I suspect you are hung up on aesthetics and on looking the part, but not really doing the work to understand class dynamics and material conditions. You have to read, read, read if you ever hope to create communism.


redgreenexplosion OP wrote

This is really not true. I don't care about aesthetics. I hate that everyone assumes I’m struggling between the two (anarchism and marxism) because I have no knowledge of theory and I only care about aesthetics.

I’m reading plenty of theory, but on both sides. Just because I’m learning by asking questions and talking to people, doesn't mean I’m not also reading theory or that I only care about aesthetics. If you’re going to claim there is only one right way to do things, that’s just going to make me see you Marxists as being bossy and demeaning, and I’m not here to be talked down to or to be told things have to be a certain way (dogmatism). I’m here to build a better world with my comrades.


hermit_dragon wrote

Sorry but at 'Marxism, which is a science' I choked on my popcorn and now I have to laugh until I puke.

It's not that it couldn't be categorized as such (I mean, a social/political science or philosophy) - it's more that that's what you care about and think is a winning argument that cracks me up.

You: 'What will convince the anarchists to take ML seriously? Oh I know, reify it as a science full of le logics and reasons, approved of and codified by the academy of peers! Sneer that any disagreement with this glorious doctrine is juvenile and classed! Then I will link them to a Youtube video, their tiny minds will explode with scientific understanding, and my great and effective argument will have been made!!!!'

Way to win friends and influence people >_>

I will take this kind of ML seriously when they learn to be faaaaaaaaaaaar more critical of the academy, and academia, and the power structures/hierarchies inherent to them. Which will be never, I hope my readers understand.