The “Founding Fathers” (rich slavers) had set up the “Democracy” (of the rich) with “Checks and Balances” to prevent the “Tyranny of the Majority” (Actual Democracy) precisely so the Capitalist Class (them) would remain in complete control. Considering this, it is very unlikely the modern Capitalist Class would somehow not be aware of the ways their own class has set things up to keep themselves on top and the rest of us underfoot. It is much more likely they know exactly what they are doing up on the stage, that all the real decision making is done behind closed doors, that the Billionaires and Trillionaires get the final say, and that the electoral clown show in the big party tent exists to fool the populace, only different from the start in that they got better at it. I remember when Biden straight up looked like he was having an orgasm in response to Trump “winning the election” as if it’s what he wanted to happen, like say, because it would mean they can get everything they want WITHOUT having to hide the shit they do, and so Trump also functions as a scapegoat, if they get everything the want to just “cast all the blame on Trump” Trump goes off to live in blood soaked luxury, having done his job, then the Democrats swoop in to “save the day”. Such a tactic can only work however if people fall for the clown show and don’t realize that it is the entire Capitalist system itself that is the problem and the only way forward is to overthrow it and replace it with a Socialist system.
While I don’t agree with the way Congress is arranged with a clearly establishment-favoring Senate, we shouldn’t take this to mean there’s no such thing as a tyranny of majority as we’ve literally seen it play out historically many times. Look at Jim Crowe laws passed by majority white populations that harshly kept black Americans down for years up into living memory. Or anti-gay laws… tyrannies of majority 100% happen and it’s a big reason why we have specific Constitutional rights that try to prevent it. Groups using democracy as a cudgel to smack down other groups certainly happens though. I would agree that the Senate is more about preserving current power structures than actually trying to prevent that though.
I also just don’t agree at all that Biden wanted Trump to win… I think this is a hammer looking for a nail and seeing one, honestly. We just aren’t going to agree on that point and aren’t going to see each other’s point of view, and we’re not going to be able to prove hidden intentions, so I’m not sure this point is worth harping on. What I would say is that as Democrats and Republicans are both neolibs, Democrats would sooner see a Republican elected over someone they deem to be an actual threat from the left.
This post is an excellent example of why reading Marxist Leninist Theory should not be treated as optional, there is so much wrong with the post I’m not even sure where to start, and I don’t really have the energy for it either, so unfortunately we’ll just have to leave it at that. (BTW Cowbee has an excellent guide to help you get started Basic and Advanced)
I’m very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting. It isn’t all correct. It has insightful points that should be incorporated into a more well-rounded worldview rather than slavishly adhered to. But I came here to avoid reddit passive aggressive toxicity, so we’ll just leave this conversation at that.
This wasn’t intended as an attack and I wasn’t trying to be passive aggressive, I was trying to help.
As someone struggling to over come life long crippling social anxiety, I’ve been trying to move from being a lurker to actually posting.
But it turns out that participating in discussion takes enormously more energy than just lurking, so I did not put in adequate effort into my attempt to help.
I was overwhelmed trying to parse your comment, I’m still terrible at breaking things down into smaller, easier to process pieces,
and so all the bundled up errors in your post was too much for me to try and break down and address, but I still wanted to at least try and help.
I was trying to read the rest of your posts in this thread, but I couldn’t get through them all as the way you look down on people hurts my stomach.
Please, we mean no hostility, so stop giving us yours. (thank you in advanced)
Theory is a guide to action, not a dogma. This is a core tenet of Marxism-Leninism. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other, truth comes from practice and this informs theory. How have you studied Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting, and what is incorrect about it? What is “missing” from it that a well-rounded view has? Perhaps the academic setting is impressing upon you conclusions friendly to capitalism and dismissive of socialism.
Unlikely, considering the professor was a communist who lived in China and did his PhD on the history of female silk workers in China.
I’m honestly not really interested in a wider conversation regarding the merits of Marxism and its variants at the moment. I might be willing to speak privately about my thoughts if you’re really interested in them, but I think in this forum it lends itself to dogpiling and I’ve already received comments I don’t consider very conducive to civil discussion, so I’m not going to engage here.
Communists aren’t a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.
Again, you don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but I would argue that you’re inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean. Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.
Communists aren’t a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.
I think you’re leaving such a narrow window for who is allowed valid thoughts on socialism as to be essentially exclusive to people you think are right, which doesn’t seem super useful or insightful to me.
Again, you don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but I would argue that you’re inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean.
The block feature is easy enough to use, and I’m happy with it. It isn’t really your business, honestly.
Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.
I didn’t really lay out an assertion though, the other person did. I just said I don’t buy their premise that my comment was an example of why study of Marxism-Lenninism is strictly necessary and why. The onus isn’t really on me to do anything, even in formal debate, which this is not.
I was interested in the initial conversation, just not the more general topic on theory that it was moving to. I think it usually ends up in navel-gazing at best and toxicity at worst, and I gave it up years ago. In person or private when there’s less want for performative argument and point scoring, it can be more interesting. The tone is just very different when people talk directly to you vs when they publicly debate you. Just my personal take, I just don’t do it anymore as I’ve gotten older.
Marxism is broad. There are correct lines, incorrect lines, and hotly contested lines. An expat from a socialist country that serves as an academic for a liberal university is going to have certain class interests and outlooks that set them apart from a communist building socialism in a socialist country. With only that information, there isn’t really anything else to help build a case for or against how Marxism was taught to you, through what frames, and in what manner and depth.
As for you making an assertion, you did:
It isn’t all correct. It has insightful points that should be incorporated into a more well-rounded worldview rather than slavishly adhered to.
You don’t have to defend this assertion if you don’t want to, but this is what people who understandably want to defend Marxism are going to latch onto and try to address. This is what manifests in “dogpiling,” when you have a clear statement like this one, but with little backing it beyond your experience with Marxism in western academia, this understandably causes people to raise issue with your claims. Block if you want to, but this seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too, raise your opinion on a subject and shield yourself from talking about it on a social media platform focusing on discussion.
Again, do what you want. Nobody should be forced to debate.
I’m very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting
I don’t wish to be dismissive I simply find it exceedingly hard to believe that in Amerika land of McCarthyism home of the red scare it is possible to achieve anything even close to a proper study of Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting.
Then you should probably reconsider if maybe your assumptions about my background were probably a bit too hasty and reconsider how you approach people going forward? I never said I studied it in America, and I do not live in America.
Not really the wild assumption you’re attempting to make it out to be.
we have specific Constitutional rights
You’re clearly Amerikan the vast majority of which have never left Amerika. My doubt in the proper study of Marxism-Leninism in academic settings also extends to every US client state (all of Europe including the UK, Japan etc.).
I didn’t say it’s a wild assumption, just pointing out this is why it’s probably a better idea to just… not make such an assumption in the first place. 4 million Americans live abroad, it isn’t exactly unheard of. But with this clarification, it is now clear the point is just to personally find justification to dismiss dissenting opinion. Which I’m not particularly interested in engaging with, so I’m going to just put an end to it here. Have a good one, though.
1%. 99% odds is really good for such low stakes assumptions.
But with this clarification, it is now clear the point is just to personally find justification to dismiss dissenting opinion.
No I just don’t like westerners diluting what it actually means to have received a true academic education in Marxism by parading around a nonsense credential from the core of anti-communism. And again I simply said I found it doubtful it was studied properly, as in with full context without some sort of at a bare minimum compatible left twist to at worst some capitalist bootlicking and NED tier nonsense added in “to give both sides” or such.
Which I’m not particularly interested in engaging with
Would hit harder if you had any engagement to speak of rather than stating vague generalities. You could have given some depth to what you studied and how etc show some bonafides yknow instead of dancing around the point so that you could run away feigning offense at someone making an assumption that is 99% precise.
The “Founding Fathers” (rich slavers) had set up the “Democracy” (of the rich) with “Checks and Balances” to prevent the “Tyranny of the Majority” (Actual Democracy) precisely so the Capitalist Class (them) would remain in complete control. Considering this, it is very unlikely the modern Capitalist Class would somehow not be aware of the ways their own class has set things up to keep themselves on top and the rest of us underfoot. It is much more likely they know exactly what they are doing up on the stage, that all the real decision making is done behind closed doors, that the Billionaires and Trillionaires get the final say, and that the electoral clown show in the big party tent exists to fool the populace, only different from the start in that they got better at it. I remember when Biden straight up looked like he was having an orgasm in response to Trump “winning the election” as if it’s what he wanted to happen, like say, because it would mean they can get everything they want WITHOUT having to hide the shit they do, and so Trump also functions as a scapegoat, if they get everything the want to just “cast all the blame on Trump” Trump goes off to live in blood soaked luxury, having done his job, then the Democrats swoop in to “save the day”. Such a tactic can only work however if people fall for the clown show and don’t realize that it is the entire Capitalist system itself that is the problem and the only way forward is to overthrow it and replace it with a Socialist system.
I don’t entirely agree.
While I don’t agree with the way Congress is arranged with a clearly establishment-favoring Senate, we shouldn’t take this to mean there’s no such thing as a tyranny of majority as we’ve literally seen it play out historically many times. Look at Jim Crowe laws passed by majority white populations that harshly kept black Americans down for years up into living memory. Or anti-gay laws… tyrannies of majority 100% happen and it’s a big reason why we have specific Constitutional rights that try to prevent it. Groups using democracy as a cudgel to smack down other groups certainly happens though. I would agree that the Senate is more about preserving current power structures than actually trying to prevent that though.
I also just don’t agree at all that Biden wanted Trump to win… I think this is a hammer looking for a nail and seeing one, honestly. We just aren’t going to agree on that point and aren’t going to see each other’s point of view, and we’re not going to be able to prove hidden intentions, so I’m not sure this point is worth harping on. What I would say is that as Democrats and Republicans are both neolibs, Democrats would sooner see a Republican elected over someone they deem to be an actual threat from the left.
This post is an excellent example of why reading Marxist Leninist Theory should not be treated as optional, there is so much wrong with the post I’m not even sure where to start, and I don’t really have the energy for it either, so unfortunately we’ll just have to leave it at that. (BTW Cowbee has an excellent guide to help you get started Basic and Advanced)
I’m very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting. It isn’t all correct. It has insightful points that should be incorporated into a more well-rounded worldview rather than slavishly adhered to. But I came here to avoid reddit passive aggressive toxicity, so we’ll just leave this conversation at that.
This wasn’t intended as an attack and I wasn’t trying to be passive aggressive, I was trying to help. As someone struggling to over come life long crippling social anxiety, I’ve been trying to move from being a lurker to actually posting. But it turns out that participating in discussion takes enormously more energy than just lurking, so I did not put in adequate effort into my attempt to help.
I was overwhelmed trying to parse your comment, I’m still terrible at breaking things down into smaller, easier to process pieces, and so all the bundled up errors in your post was too much for me to try and break down and address, but I still wanted to at least try and help.
I was trying to read the rest of your posts in this thread, but I couldn’t get through them all as the way you look down on people hurts my stomach. Please, we mean no hostility, so stop giving us yours. (thank you in advanced)
You’re saying we should Oppose Book Worship? That sounds like a pretty good idea, I’m down with that
Theory is a guide to action, not a dogma. This is a core tenet of Marxism-Leninism. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other, truth comes from practice and this informs theory. How have you studied Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting, and what is incorrect about it? What is “missing” from it that a well-rounded view has? Perhaps the academic setting is impressing upon you conclusions friendly to capitalism and dismissive of socialism.
Unlikely, considering the professor was a communist who lived in China and did his PhD on the history of female silk workers in China.
I’m honestly not really interested in a wider conversation regarding the merits of Marxism and its variants at the moment. I might be willing to speak privately about my thoughts if you’re really interested in them, but I think in this forum it lends itself to dogpiling and I’ve already received comments I don’t consider very conducive to civil discussion, so I’m not going to engage here.
Communists aren’t a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.
Again, you don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but I would argue that you’re inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean. Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.
I think you’re leaving such a narrow window for who is allowed valid thoughts on socialism as to be essentially exclusive to people you think are right, which doesn’t seem super useful or insightful to me.
The block feature is easy enough to use, and I’m happy with it. It isn’t really your business, honestly.
I didn’t really lay out an assertion though, the other person did. I just said I don’t buy their premise that my comment was an example of why study of Marxism-Lenninism is strictly necessary and why. The onus isn’t really on me to do anything, even in formal debate, which this is not.
I was interested in the initial conversation, just not the more general topic on theory that it was moving to. I think it usually ends up in navel-gazing at best and toxicity at worst, and I gave it up years ago. In person or private when there’s less want for performative argument and point scoring, it can be more interesting. The tone is just very different when people talk directly to you vs when they publicly debate you. Just my personal take, I just don’t do it anymore as I’ve gotten older.
Marxism is broad. There are correct lines, incorrect lines, and hotly contested lines. An expat from a socialist country that serves as an academic for a liberal university is going to have certain class interests and outlooks that set them apart from a communist building socialism in a socialist country. With only that information, there isn’t really anything else to help build a case for or against how Marxism was taught to you, through what frames, and in what manner and depth.
As for you making an assertion, you did:
You don’t have to defend this assertion if you don’t want to, but this is what people who understandably want to defend Marxism are going to latch onto and try to address. This is what manifests in “dogpiling,” when you have a clear statement like this one, but with little backing it beyond your experience with Marxism in western academia, this understandably causes people to raise issue with your claims. Block if you want to, but this seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too, raise your opinion on a subject and shield yourself from talking about it on a social media platform focusing on discussion.
Again, do what you want. Nobody should be forced to debate.
I don’t wish to be dismissive I simply find it exceedingly hard to believe that in Amerika land of McCarthyism home of the red scare it is possible to achieve anything even close to a proper study of Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting.
Then you should probably reconsider if maybe your assumptions about my background were probably a bit too hasty and reconsider how you approach people going forward? I never said I studied it in America, and I do not live in America.
Not really the wild assumption you’re attempting to make it out to be.
You’re clearly Amerikan the vast majority of which have never left Amerika. My doubt in the proper study of Marxism-Leninism in academic settings also extends to every US client state (all of Europe including the UK, Japan etc.).
I didn’t say it’s a wild assumption, just pointing out this is why it’s probably a better idea to just… not make such an assumption in the first place. 4 million Americans live abroad, it isn’t exactly unheard of. But with this clarification, it is now clear the point is just to personally find justification to dismiss dissenting opinion. Which I’m not particularly interested in engaging with, so I’m going to just put an end to it here. Have a good one, though.
1%. 99% odds is really good for such low stakes assumptions.
No I just don’t like westerners diluting what it actually means to have received a true academic education in Marxism by parading around a nonsense credential from the core of anti-communism. And again I simply said I found it doubtful it was studied properly, as in with full context without some sort of at a bare minimum compatible left twist to at worst some capitalist bootlicking and NED tier nonsense added in “to give both sides” or such.
Would hit harder if you had any engagement to speak of rather than stating vague generalities. You could have given some depth to what you studied and how etc show some bonafides yknow instead of dancing around the point so that you could run away feigning offense at someone making an assumption that is 99% precise.