2
This is good discourse. I appreciate it and learned a lot.
A lot of the socialists on Lemmy.ml are MLs (hence the domain) and many of them are authoritarian leftist or at least sympathetic to the authoritarian reformism of that of Stalin. I personally prefer the Beehaw socialism community as it is inherently anti-authoritarian. Lemmygrad is a tankie infested cesspit with brainrotten propaganda regurgitators who have never read theory and struggle to fit the definitions of Leftists.
im so glad that people here dislike that tankie hellhole, because i tried to join and had a terrible experience.
@ivereadalltheory @CharmingOwl yes MLs are authoritarian, im not sure why this surprises you. Engels wrote about authority quite a lot and id reccomend giving his work 'on authority' a look; its at most a ten minute read
tho i have seen my fare share of poor takes coming out of lemmy
I've read On Authority. There's good reason for my identifying as a socialist rather than a ML. I don't necessarily have a fundamental disagreement with the use of authoritarianism, however the way in which it has ever been implemented has been abominable and the defense of that by most MLs I've interacted with leads me to detest them when they're aware of what they're doing or assume they're an idiot who's fallen to the USSR billboard propaganda aesthetic if they're not.
... let's get some historical conditions straight: USSR was a wartime communism born and deformed by Western invasion (from USA and allies, no less) and persisted under a state of seige, so it didn't have the luxury of a more democratic communism envisioned by Lenin. Even today, aligned with Trotskyist permanent revolution everywhere but their own govts, the same usual suspects are angling by invasion or insurgency to break up and loot Russia (along with China) who isn't caught off-guard this time. Existential then, existential now.
I would also love to know what you think of the standard bogies of Cuba and Venezuela, or heck, even ML Vietnam or Kerala.
While the west was unquestionably antagonistic. Which you know is sort of a thing that can happen when you unilaterally overthrow a number of countries governments than forcibly annex them.
How in any way does Western antagonism justify those nations treatment of their own people? And how on earth can an anti-democratic uniparty ever be Democratic? Are you trying to convince anyone that there were no gulags etc? Or that it was ever good for dissenters? I mean we could ask all the people that were disappeared or assassinated. Not just in Russia. But in North Korea and China too. Do we need to mention tiananmen square or the Uyghurs? But they're dead and gone. Cuba I think is a much more nuanced and better example. But still heavily flawed and problematic. You cannot blame it all on Western antagonism. It isn't some panacea that alleviates you of all fault. Authoritarian communism is antithesis to Marx's own theory. And will never work in reality. Authoritarianism is always destined to fail. No matter how long it drags on.
You realise the USA has its own slave labour gulag unmatched by Russia and China today, right? Though Soviet gulag was ruthless, born to meet rapid wartime industrialisation and unrelenting landowners (kulaks), it was more lax and informal than Auschwitz death camps that you wish to portray.
Meanwhile, Jim Crow and sundown towns in the USA oversaw its own apartheid underclass, many of whom looked to Soviet Russia for equity, Paul Robeson being the most notable.
Edit: replaced Tsarist-era 'The Black Russian' episode with more intended Soviet-era link, quite belatedly.
As for Uighurs, they're thriving and developing most rapidly in Xinjiang province, while the Western-backed extremist are indeed no more, exiled to their sponsors. Of course, the West has no problem sponsoring extremists, be it Nazis in Ukraine, Isis (and White Helmets) in Syria, rightwing death squads in the Americas, etc.
In the case of Tiananmen, that was an early colour revolution that got rightly squashed, demonstrating the need for strong government against foreign interventions that China is no stranger to since the 1800s regarding Japan and the West.
Almost forgot to mention, North Korea was bombed almost to oblivion until the USA literally ran out of bombs. Speaks for itself. .
I like Marx and am iffy about Lenin. I also consider myself a libertarian regarding most issues and dislike hedonism. That doesn't put me somewhere specific regarding ideology but that's that.
I'm iffy about Lenin too. Marx and Engels wrote about bottom up socialism but Lenin came along and basically said the working class is too stupid for a socialist revolution and opted for top down socialism which led to authoritarian socialism and state capitalism.
Our neolib capitalist society is top down governance which is why I highly oppose everything that isn't bottom up socialism
That would make you a libertarian ideologically. Though sadly the term has been co-opted by false neo-libertarian cultists. Most would label themselves libertarian marxists today to differentiate themselves from the dishonest actors on the right. I myself fall on that range as well. Though I am decidedly anti-lenin, anti-authoritarian.
Just curious, why do you dislike hedonism? How does that fit into a political/social ideology? This is in no way a challenge.
I dislike hedonism in the case it antagonizes discipline. There are many cases where our desires overcome our sense of self and end up as addictions. I guess what I dislike is formless desire unrestricted by rationality. Self-discipline = sense of self = good.
It is my view that everything is political, how could a way of thinking about desire not be? Hedonism in particular is perfectly suited for the current consumer culture which claims to satisfy our every want, which treats desire as the ultimate drive in the world and monetizes it. Participation in market economy is addictive and erodes our sense of self. It weakens us as individuals and prepares us for its hierarchies.
Not all hedonistic philosophies are pro-consumer. Epicureanism, for example, still keeps personal happiness as the overarching goal, but considers following pleasure and desire to be reckless and counterproductive.
The way to personal happiness isn't through following desires, it's through eliminating needs and pains. The only way to reach sustainable, long lasting happiness is through a healthy body and an unburdened mind. It promotes simple living and imo is one of the better fits for a socialist world.
Overindulgence is anathema to Epicureanism, since it creates more pain for the person in the long term. Sure, drug abuse could make you incredibly happy for a few hours, but it ruins your body and your mind, so it's really not worth it.
It stands to reason, then, that any self interested person following Epicureanism would turn towards community and friends, since it's pleasant to know people are doing well and unpleasant to know people are feeling miserable. Try as you might, deep down you won't be truly happy as long as you know there's something you could be doing to help, but aren't.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
5182 readers
20 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS