Comment on Is it me or is everyone in hexbear insane?

• amberSuperMario@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  By “neat and easy” I mean, “The root of all evil is capitalism and we solve that with revolution”.

  This is exactly why they are responding to you as they are. This is not an accurate summary of the marxist position. You’ve built up a strawman to knock down to justify calling us cultish.

  Some basic questions that marxists are concerned with:

  • Why is a revolution necessary to begin with?

  • Who is exploited, and who is the exploiter?

  • What material conditions are necessary for a revolution to be possible?

  • How do you organize society post-revolution?

  • How do you prevent those who oppose the liberation of the proletariat from taking over your post-revolutionary society and destroying it?

  • How do we learn from the successes and the failures of history so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes?

  If you don’t understand the marxist position on these questions, yet continue to criticize us, then of course you will come to nonsense conclusions and just piss people off. You’ve made up a guy to represent us and then mock them.

  source
• TraitorToAmerica@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  By “neat and easy” I mean, “The root of all evil is capitalism and we solve that with revolution”.

  this isn’t what we believe once again. class society predates capitalism. you know nothing of marxist thought but arrogantly assign beliefs to us, but once again that is not “black and white thinking” on your part. we believe revolution is the solution because we believe that all evidence shows that the bourgousie will not let us take power peacefully, just like the bourgousie were forced to use violence to take power when they were oppressed by the aristocratic class. this is baby baby basic marxism and you don’t even know this and yet you deign to talk down on us? it’s pathetic, truly.

  “This person thinks this, so I will assign these other views to them as well, so that I may dunk on them”.

  this is a thing literally everyone on the planet does. When you see someone say they think gay people should die, is it unreasonable to presume they are a reactionary conservative and assume they have other wack beliefs? I see you making a smug liberal enlightened centrist argument, and thus I assume you are a smug liberal with similar beliefs. Why would I put the effort into getting your opinion on every single topic. why would you do the same for mine? that’s why you call me a tankie, isn’t it? there is someone I got into a slap fight up with further in the thread that is a liberal and tried to make me mad by saying that putin “fucked male prostitutes”. he assumed I would care because I am a “tankie”. Do I see smug pricks like yourself going around calling his ass a cultist? No!

  source

  • m_f@midwest.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    we believe revolution is the solution

    Yes, that’s the issue.

    smug liberal enlightened centrist argument

    That’s on you for assuming that just because you don’t like an argument it must be those smug libs.

    tankies of being bootlickers and what not: we

    I didn’t call you a tankie, you self-identified as one

    Do I see smug pricks like yourself going around calling his ass a cultist? No!

    I call out silliness when I see it, but most lib stuff that I come across is of the bland, inoffensive variety. I haven’t been checking this entire thread for everyone that’s wrong, I’ve spent enough time on this already.

    source

    • TraitorToAmerica@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes, that’s the issue.

      you, once again, are a liberal

      This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

      In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

      Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

      Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

      That group was annihilated.

      —Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method

      i have never seen anyone be able to respond to this passage (or the book as a whole). of course, you will probably just call me a cultist for using all evidence available to me that reform is not possible. I personally would not like for me and my friends to be annihilated, thank you very much! and if you actually are a liberal sealioning and thinks capitalism is actually cool I’d like you to explain how we will deal with climate change!

      That’s on you for assuming that just because you don’t like an argument it must be those smug libs.

      uh no it wasn’t because “I didn’t like your argument” it’s because liberals constantly use the “we are the only nuanced thinkers in the world smuglord” argument. Once again, it is reasonable to assume other people’s positions based off of things you’ve seen them say, every single person on the planet does this.

      Black and white thinking pops up again …

      …

      It’s another cult-like behavior that is rampant with tankies …

      I called myself a “tankie” because I wanted to get it over with, but you clearly agree that I am what you would consider to be a “tankie”. why use that label if you think it’s bad to assume people’s positions on things?

      I call out silliness when I see it, but most lib stuff that I come across is of the bland, inoffensive variety

      have you EVER been anywhere on the internet at all? I constantly see “black and white” thinking from liberals all over the internet. is it not black and white thinking to immediately accuse something of being “see see pee propaganda” when they see a post about something about china on reddit? did you see any of the threads about the DPRK’s olympics teams? etc.

      source
    • Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes, that’s the issue.

      Where along the Marxist theory of the State with respect to Revolution do you begin to disagree? Fundamentally? Is it with certain aspects?

      source