Deleted member 37235
Guest
Ok? Sometimes in political discussions you make arguments not just assertions backed by goodwill emanating from your rear end. What's your stake in this other than appearing like you're somehow above everything?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ok? Sometimes in political discussions you make arguments not just assertions backed by goodwill emanating from your rear end. What's your stake in this other than appearing like you're somehow above everything?
I didn't mean anything malicious by what I said.
You can chill.
Deleted member 37235
Guest
Like I said, I didn't mean any malicious intent. It was in a joking manner.
I wasn't mocking the content of your post.
Deleted member 37235
Guest
I apologize for overreacting then, I chalk up to the fact that I was labeled a tankie before in this very thread for arguing a similar thing. I really hope I didn't come across the wrong way, then again I'm a Trot so everyone thinks we're assholes anyway.
It's okay! I'm actually conflict averse 99% of the time. I was just trying to be funny (and failing).
But now I want to know what a Trot is. Google isn't showing me anything.
Trot==Trotskyist. I forget the specifics but I think it's a vanguardist tendency, and I *do* remember that it definitely broke from Marxist-Leninism because Trotsky broke off from Stalin. Or Stalin tried to break a hatchet off in Trotsky's skull. One of the two.
Deleted member 37235
Guest
Trot is a (usually) derogatory term for a Trotskyist, and Trotskyism is the political theory/practice associated with them. Historically it comes out of the break with Stalinism in the Communist International, and attempted to regroup itself outside of it. The break happens in 1927 and the ice picking happens in 1940, so definitely before.
None of that probably explains what Trotskyism actually is, what makes it a trend per se but I'll come back in a longer post.
None of that probably explains what Trotskyism actually is, what makes it a trend per se but I'll come back in a longer post.
If I recall correctly, Trotsky advocated for a "permanent revolution" to establish socialism is societies that may not have achieved the needed level of capitalism.
OP
OP
Stalin pretty much opposed a bunch of stuff that Trotsky wanted (militarization of the working class, nationalization of agriculture) and then shanked him and stole the ideas for himself once he cemented his power. The difference is that Trotsky was more committed to internal party democracy, although if you want to be cynical, he had to be since he was the underdog.
Though the real big difference between them was permanent revolution vs. Socialism-In-One-Country.
Though the real big difference between them was permanent revolution vs. Socialism-In-One-Country.
Deleted member 37235
Guest
OP
OP
I try to be nonsectarian. I'm skeptical of literally every socialist faction!
I don't really know which sect I'd fall into because lately I've not really considered myself a true socialist since I don't partake in any activism. And what matters most is doing something. The working class man/woman with no reading background at all yet goes on strike is infinitely more socialist/true to the cause than a person who has read a thousand works yet has never got off their chair.
Deleted member 37235
Guest
I have no doubt that's true and that's the correct instinct to have.
(for Pekola ) Read this for now to get a sense of things: https://www.leftvoice.org/why-trotskyism
I wonder why he felt so hopeful even after having to flee and being afraid for his life.
I wonder if he'd feel so hopeful were he alive today.
I've often wondered if "vanguardism" and unreasonable self-confidence turn up more often together.
I don't know...Plenty of women plenty of women suffer from impostor syndrome and will often undersell themselves.
I don't think that makes them moderates. People wage their own quiet battles everyday. Which is why I think intersectionality is important.
In order for "revolutionaries" to emerge, they must realize their own worth in a world that has deemed them to be wanting.
Sorry, I had in mind the difference between rank and file revolutionaries and a leader like Trotsky but I failed to express it. When you get to that level you're probably high off your own farts. It takes a lot of self confidence to lead a socio-political revolution. Rank-and-file tend to have more ordinary concerns like what you said. This is why, while there's a lot of socdems/demsocs, there's only one AOC, so far.
That's not to diminish the importance of rank-and-file. Popular revolutions are built off the backs of the base, not the singlehanded accomplishments of visionary leadership. But there is a distinct personality difference between people who stand on the podium and people who sit in the audience.
Fr. New YouGov poll: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n0eqovafro/econTabReport.pdf#page199
"47. Socialism - Favorability
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of socialism?"
Highest favorability is in the highest income bracket (+100k) where 37% hold a very/somewhat favorable opinion...
Race cat breakdown very/somewhat favorable : very /somewhat unfavorable %
white: 29:51
black: 36:16
hispanic: 26:36
edit: usual disclaimer:
"When you think of socialism, what comes closest to your idea of what socialism means?"
A large welfare state and significant government regulation, funded by high progressive taxation: 36%
An economic system where most property is owned collectively and not by individuals: 20%
A centrally planned economy with an oppressive one party state: 12%
Not sure: 33%
The "Are these examples of socialism?" statements are also a hoot
"47. Socialism - Favorability
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of socialism?"
Highest favorability is in the highest income bracket (+100k) where 37% hold a very/somewhat favorable opinion...
Race cat breakdown very/somewhat favorable : very /somewhat unfavorable %
white: 29:51
black: 36:16
hispanic: 26:36
edit: usual disclaimer:
"When you think of socialism, what comes closest to your idea of what socialism means?"
A large welfare state and significant government regulation, funded by high progressive taxation: 36%
An economic system where most property is owned collectively and not by individuals: 20%
A centrally planned economy with an oppressive one party state: 12%
Not sure: 33%
The "Are these examples of socialism?" statements are also a hoot
Last edited:
I must admit I've read nothing of the family. I've gotten stuck in a reading rut. I was reading something else and told myself "I'll finish this and then get on to the family! Yay!"
I have finished neither and stopped reading altogether. Please throw corn in my direction as punishment.
I have finished neither and stopped reading altogether. Please throw corn in my direction as punishment.
Last edited:
As some of you may have caught, I'm thinking of starting a thread clarifying the definitions of various socialist terms, in the vain hopes that maybe I won't feel like I'm about to shit blood every time someone creates a thread about socialism.
Personally, I'd have a bit about how socialism ISN'T state ownership of companies, isn't a welfare state, isn't a centrally planned economy. I'd honestly go into how socialist theory predates Marx, not just because it's interesting but because people don't really... get the whole deal. I'd honestly even sneak in a bit about the definition of anarchism and maybe Bakunin's split with Marx during the time of the First International, simply because it's germane to understanding socialism and anarchism alike.
I'd have a bit about the difference between private property and personal property (for God's sake we don't want to take your toothbrush).
I'd have a bit about dual power in the Proudhon sense versus the Lenin sense, especially if that's going to be a thing the Black Socialists of America want to promote.
I'd have a bit about how a stateless society is not the same as a society without government, and maybe expound on the goal of a stateless society in general.
Can anybody else think of any specific things they'd want to see covered in a thread specifically targeting confusion about socialist terms, or have anything they'd want to contribute to the above points?
Personally, I'd have a bit about how socialism ISN'T state ownership of companies, isn't a welfare state, isn't a centrally planned economy. I'd honestly go into how socialist theory predates Marx, not just because it's interesting but because people don't really... get the whole deal. I'd honestly even sneak in a bit about the definition of anarchism and maybe Bakunin's split with Marx during the time of the First International, simply because it's germane to understanding socialism and anarchism alike.
I'd have a bit about the difference between private property and personal property (for God's sake we don't want to take your toothbrush).
I'd have a bit about dual power in the Proudhon sense versus the Lenin sense, especially if that's going to be a thing the Black Socialists of America want to promote.
I'd have a bit about how a stateless society is not the same as a society without government, and maybe expound on the goal of a stateless society in general.
Can anybody else think of any specific things they'd want to see covered in a thread specifically targeting confusion about socialist terms, or have anything they'd want to contribute to the above points?
I think it'd be more productive (as far as an undertaking like this can be productive) if you simply laid out some authoritarian "socialist" states and confined them to their own label (Stalinism, Maoism, Chavismo, Juche, etc). I can already see the bickering from a hard line "what is and isn't socialism" thread, it involves a lot of no-true-scotsman from detractors and supporters. If you look at that capitalism thread/poll by Oheao you can see that the vast majority of people can't even "properly" define capitalism.
Marx, Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky, DSA, BSA, your own, Bernie's, Ocasio-Cortez's, demsoc vs socdem, etc.
Marx, Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky, DSA, BSA, your own, Bernie's, Ocasio-Cortez's, demsoc vs socdem, etc.
OP
OP
Here's Engels talking about how state ownership is not the same as socialism, from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
Don't forget to bring up Posadism and Maoism-Third Worldism!
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Chpt. 3)
www.marxists.org
Don't forget to bring up Posadism and Maoism-Third Worldism!
I just googled him...idk. Like, dude straight up had the whole mad scientist look about him lol.
If you're gonna do a write-up about socialism, please don't scare people. If a child can't understand it, then we're dooooomed 😵
OP
OP
Posadism is unironically meme socialism, you don't have to worry too much. It's an in-joke because Posadas was BUGFUCK. Besides, I have some personal life stuff going on so I'm going to have to take it slow. I'll be sure to post updates as I work through it and get the opinions of people who know this stuff better than I do.
In the meantime, please enjoy this emblem created by the artist behind Night In the Woods for the DSA Posadist Caucus, a very serious organization that definitely exists. I do appreciate just how much of Posadism they managed to get into one image.
Posadism is unironically meme socialism, you don't have to worry too much. It's an in-joke because Posadas was BUGFUCK. Besides, I have some personal life stuff going on so I'm going to have to take it slow. I'll be sure to post updates as I work through it and get the opinions of people who know this stuff better than I do.
In the meantime, please enjoy this emblem created by the artist behind Night In the Woods for the DSA Posadist Caucus, a very serious organization that definitely exists. I do appreciate just how much of Posadism they managed to get into one image.
Omg the UFO and the Dolphin...I'm gonna cry 😂
I can't claim to know what people back in 60's felt like, but I'm thinking people saw Posadas as a bit of an oddball?
I mean even today, someone saying "so yeah, after the nuclear war we'll have communism and we should get the aliens on our side when they make contact" would be looked at funny.
Pretty much! Communists in the 60's, Trotskyists especially, were pretty maligned as you might imagine, and they were like "You're, uh... not... helping." The Sixties was a bit more open to that kind of stuff, but only so much. Didn't help Posadas pretty much ran a cult. Most sane people thought nuclear war was an absolute catastrophe, even back then.
In marxist terms, "sect" is more useful than the term "cult" considering Marx had a lot to say about the former and you can analyze posadism through that also
I wonder how heavily they'll lean into the class war aspect.
Edit: Actually I've never looked at Snowpiercer through a Marxist lense....but.....holy shit!
Edit: Actually I've never looked at Snowpiercer through a Marxist lense....but.....holy shit!
Last edited:
This is a pretty insane scene for a bunch of reasons. But one thing that sticks out in particular is that Tilda Swinton looks so much like Ayn Rand here.
Hey guys. I'm still sitting through some personal stuff, but I've managed to do writeups on some socialist tendencies and I've done a bunch of research. I've been going through chronological order, so I decided to describe three major pre-Marxist leftist tendencies that had major influence: Fourierism, Blanquism, and Mutualism. Here are those:
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Yep. Especially when a lot of them seem more concerned with being intellectually and morally superior than actually coming up with productive methods to improve things.