Is it really a huge leap to state that because you defend autocrats who would have me shot, out of an ideal which essentially reduces to a purely theoretical geopolitical convenience, that you’d have me shot? I actually didn’t intent to really lean into this conversation much, but I think this is an interesting thread the pull. Surely that might suggest that we’ve wondered into a gray area which validates some revisionist thought? You are quite firm and outspoken on this particular topic all over Lemmy, so if you do see even a minor philosophical conundrum then you don’t reveal it. Is that because of a broader insecurity (and I don’t mean that as an attack, but a normal human trait) or is the abundance of assurance a desire to support a specific narrative? Do you feel like uncertainty is weakness or somehow anti revolutionary? I just find it hard to believe that someone broadly versed in leftist theory could actually be so confident.
I disagree with the premise that you’d be shot in, say, the PRC for espousing your opinions on the merits of post-Left Anarchism. The next leg is the idea that Imperialism (at least, the Leninist interpretation) is purely theoretical and not measured and material, which I’d also say is false. When both presumptions are, in my view, false, why would I have you shot?
The impression I am getting is that because I am outspoken about Marxism-Leninism on Lemmy, and you take issue with the core of my analysis, you’ve piled on a bunch of stereotypes you hold as valid for Marxist-Leninists onto my character in your head. I’m the prototypical demon for you to project your faults with Marxism-Leninism onto, which is why, to me, the idea that I’d have you shot comes off as LARP on your part, for lack of a better term.
As for how I’m confident, it’s because I generally refrain from speaking on topics I haven’t investigated to a degree that satisfies my confidence. There’s a lot to Marxism-Leninism I don’t fully know, not to speak of the rest of Leftist thought, but I don’t go around speaking confidently on matters I haven’t investigated so that may not show.
As a side-note, the reason I talk about Marxism and Marxism-Leninism on Lemmy is because I enjoy it. There’s no LARP in it, I enjoy teaching others about Marxist theory and hope that in the future I will have played a small part in growing a successful revolution, even if that part is as small as a single water droplet boring through stone alongside countless others.
I mean sure, the PRC might tolerate me for a bit because you can call “harm reduction capitalism” fringe degism if you really want to squint. China is still quite skeptical of queer people though. I actually speak the language (not super well) and have family there so I am pretty familiar with the culture and politics.
But Iran would absolutely shoot me for being outspoken and queer. In Russia, the state might or might not shoot me, but a bunch of neo nazi thugs might mutilate my genitals and post it on the Internet and get an award for it. Like if you actually want to have this conversation, as you claim, then let’s get on the same page. Russia and Iran are no friend to the oppressed by any definition of any of those words. China is borderline liberal and its leftist trajectory is arguably held back by its vestigial Maoism.
Like my human being you are clearly thoughtful and knowledgeable so why die for the sins of someone else’s father, instead of extending the boundaries of this philosophy into something which actually speaks to people? Speak to first principles, not hackneyed dogma.
For starters, the PRC may have liberals, but the overall economic system is firmly Socialist and is guided by Marxism-Leninism. It’s working as a Socialist state should, by gradual improvements.
As for Russia and Iran socially, I agree that they are indeed socially backwards. I have no reason to believe this is a problem of ethnicity, nor do I have any reason to believe that either nation capitulating to Western Imperialism would be a victory for queer people in either country. Massive social progress is necessary, and that is best found by retaining national sovereignty and progressing.
As a queer person myself, this line of thought of yours is the same as the Zionists who claim Israel has moral superiority over Palestine for being more LGBT friendly. The path to liberation of queer Palestinians does not exist in a world where Israel commits genocide of Palestinians, just like when the USSR was dissolved, the Russian Federation became far more socially reactionary.
Either your premise is that Russians and Iranians are genetically queerphobic, or we need to acknowledge that the path to progress is set backwards by capitulation to Imperialism. Once Western Imperialism is out of the picture, the already existing social movements in countries targeted by Imperialism will be able to struggle on a much greater footing.
Again, you call me dogmatic, but I am principled. My principles don’t involve allowing Western Imperialists to use my sexuality as a cudgel against their enemies, when said cudgel would result in far more devastation for queer folk, not liberation. For more evidence, just look at Iraq post-US invasion, the million dead Iraqis had a large number of queer people too. There was no social liberation coming to them, just bombs and the US carving as many resources as they could out of Iraq.
Ultimately, the path to social progress anywhere, not just Russia and Iraq, is absolutely destroyed if they fall under the devastation of Western Imperialism. We can learn from Cuba, which now has one of the most progressive family codes in the world, or watch as the younger generations in the PRC increasingly fight for better LGBT rights as the older generations fade in relevancy.
Is any idea which emerges from the west imperialism? Is my brother, who stands on my shoulder and demands my rights as a human be respected, an imperialist because he was born in the United states? Am I to see him as less of an ally than a Russian nationalist who will lay down his life to oppose “globohomo” western ideals.
This is the structuralist shit I’m talking about. I thought the bourgeoisie state created the tools of its own demise! Or have we come full circle to where there ultimate sacrifice of the imperialist is to subrogate a lesser imperialism for a greater… non-socialism? Is progress counter revolutionary if we use the wrong words? Are we in a cartoon where Karl Marx has a flower for a face and a triangle flag running up his tail? We’ve transcended man versus author and have become man versus 19th century philosopher?
Like, nobody is making the normative argument that Russia should be a vassal state of the US. We are focused on the descriptive premise that Russia is not a symbol of leftist virtue. It’s just wild to me that this is controversial.
No, people born in the US are not automatically Imperialists. They typically benefit from Imperialism, but can absolutely work towards organizing and overthrowing US Imperialism. Ideas created in the West aren’t automatically bad, either, Marxism was created in the West. I don’t like the insinuation that being queer is a western idea, people have been queer throughout history and today countries like Cuba have the best LGBT rights.
Imperialism does create its own demise, but it delays the process of decay. Countries push back against Imperialism and this leaves Imperialist countries with less industrialization, leading to crisis. Of course, due to benefiting from Imperialism, as well as being a settler-country, the US Proletariat is very reactionary, and this is a genuine obstacle that needs to be overcome. And it must be overcome, as @Edie@lemmy.ml said, it will not die by itself.
Russia is indeed not a symbol of Leftist virtue, that isn’t controversial. What people in the West should do about Russia is what’s controversial, and what people in the West should do is informed by their stance on Imperialism and how they view that word.
I thought the bourgeoisie state created the tools of its own demise!
The bourgeoise will indeed make their own downfall. They will gladly sell us the rope used to hang them with. The laws, the working of capitalism will deteriorate conditions for the proletariat readying them to do that hanging.
But the bourgeois will not hang themselves. And without work, the downfall will not happen.
A fallow field will not make food, it will create dirt more ripe for it, through the laws, the working of nature. But we must sow the seeds, and watch them, potentially spray them with pesticide, and finally harvest them.
Is it really a huge leap to state that because you defend autocrats who would have me shot, out of an ideal which essentially reduces to a purely theoretical geopolitical convenience, that you’d have me shot? I actually didn’t intent to really lean into this conversation much, but I think this is an interesting thread the pull. Surely that might suggest that we’ve wondered into a gray area which validates some revisionist thought? You are quite firm and outspoken on this particular topic all over Lemmy, so if you do see even a minor philosophical conundrum then you don’t reveal it. Is that because of a broader insecurity (and I don’t mean that as an attack, but a normal human trait) or is the abundance of assurance a desire to support a specific narrative? Do you feel like uncertainty is weakness or somehow anti revolutionary? I just find it hard to believe that someone broadly versed in leftist theory could actually be so confident.
I disagree with the premise that you’d be shot in, say, the PRC for espousing your opinions on the merits of post-Left Anarchism. The next leg is the idea that Imperialism (at least, the Leninist interpretation) is purely theoretical and not measured and material, which I’d also say is false. When both presumptions are, in my view, false, why would I have you shot?
The impression I am getting is that because I am outspoken about Marxism-Leninism on Lemmy, and you take issue with the core of my analysis, you’ve piled on a bunch of stereotypes you hold as valid for Marxist-Leninists onto my character in your head. I’m the prototypical demon for you to project your faults with Marxism-Leninism onto, which is why, to me, the idea that I’d have you shot comes off as LARP on your part, for lack of a better term.
As for how I’m confident, it’s because I generally refrain from speaking on topics I haven’t investigated to a degree that satisfies my confidence. There’s a lot to Marxism-Leninism I don’t fully know, not to speak of the rest of Leftist thought, but I don’t go around speaking confidently on matters I haven’t investigated so that may not show.
As a side-note, the reason I talk about Marxism and Marxism-Leninism on Lemmy is because I enjoy it. There’s no LARP in it, I enjoy teaching others about Marxist theory and hope that in the future I will have played a small part in growing a successful revolution, even if that part is as small as a single water droplet boring through stone alongside countless others.
I mean sure, the PRC might tolerate me for a bit because you can call “harm reduction capitalism” fringe degism if you really want to squint. China is still quite skeptical of queer people though. I actually speak the language (not super well) and have family there so I am pretty familiar with the culture and politics.
But Iran would absolutely shoot me for being outspoken and queer. In Russia, the state might or might not shoot me, but a bunch of neo nazi thugs might mutilate my genitals and post it on the Internet and get an award for it. Like if you actually want to have this conversation, as you claim, then let’s get on the same page. Russia and Iran are no friend to the oppressed by any definition of any of those words. China is borderline liberal and its leftist trajectory is arguably held back by its vestigial Maoism.
Like my human being you are clearly thoughtful and knowledgeable so why die for the sins of someone else’s father, instead of extending the boundaries of this philosophy into something which actually speaks to people? Speak to first principles, not hackneyed dogma.
For starters, the PRC may have liberals, but the overall economic system is firmly Socialist and is guided by Marxism-Leninism. It’s working as a Socialist state should, by gradual improvements.
As for Russia and Iran socially, I agree that they are indeed socially backwards. I have no reason to believe this is a problem of ethnicity, nor do I have any reason to believe that either nation capitulating to Western Imperialism would be a victory for queer people in either country. Massive social progress is necessary, and that is best found by retaining national sovereignty and progressing.
As a queer person myself, this line of thought of yours is the same as the Zionists who claim Israel has moral superiority over Palestine for being more LGBT friendly. The path to liberation of queer Palestinians does not exist in a world where Israel commits genocide of Palestinians, just like when the USSR was dissolved, the Russian Federation became far more socially reactionary.
Either your premise is that Russians and Iranians are genetically queerphobic, or we need to acknowledge that the path to progress is set backwards by capitulation to Imperialism. Once Western Imperialism is out of the picture, the already existing social movements in countries targeted by Imperialism will be able to struggle on a much greater footing.
Again, you call me dogmatic, but I am principled. My principles don’t involve allowing Western Imperialists to use my sexuality as a cudgel against their enemies, when said cudgel would result in far more devastation for queer folk, not liberation. For more evidence, just look at Iraq post-US invasion, the million dead Iraqis had a large number of queer people too. There was no social liberation coming to them, just bombs and the US carving as many resources as they could out of Iraq.
Ultimately, the path to social progress anywhere, not just Russia and Iraq, is absolutely destroyed if they fall under the devastation of Western Imperialism. We can learn from Cuba, which now has one of the most progressive family codes in the world, or watch as the younger generations in the PRC increasingly fight for better LGBT rights as the older generations fade in relevancy.
Is any idea which emerges from the west imperialism? Is my brother, who stands on my shoulder and demands my rights as a human be respected, an imperialist because he was born in the United states? Am I to see him as less of an ally than a Russian nationalist who will lay down his life to oppose “globohomo” western ideals.
This is the structuralist shit I’m talking about. I thought the bourgeoisie state created the tools of its own demise! Or have we come full circle to where there ultimate sacrifice of the imperialist is to subrogate a lesser imperialism for a greater… non-socialism? Is progress counter revolutionary if we use the wrong words? Are we in a cartoon where Karl Marx has a flower for a face and a triangle flag running up his tail? We’ve transcended man versus author and have become man versus 19th century philosopher?
Like, nobody is making the normative argument that Russia should be a vassal state of the US. We are focused on the descriptive premise that Russia is not a symbol of leftist virtue. It’s just wild to me that this is controversial.
You’re doing it again.
No, people born in the US are not automatically Imperialists. They typically benefit from Imperialism, but can absolutely work towards organizing and overthrowing US Imperialism. Ideas created in the West aren’t automatically bad, either, Marxism was created in the West. I don’t like the insinuation that being queer is a western idea, people have been queer throughout history and today countries like Cuba have the best LGBT rights.
Imperialism does create its own demise, but it delays the process of decay. Countries push back against Imperialism and this leaves Imperialist countries with less industrialization, leading to crisis. Of course, due to benefiting from Imperialism, as well as being a settler-country, the US Proletariat is very reactionary, and this is a genuine obstacle that needs to be overcome. And it must be overcome, as @Edie@lemmy.ml said, it will not die by itself.
Russia is indeed not a symbol of Leftist virtue, that isn’t controversial. What people in the West should do about Russia is what’s controversial, and what people in the West should do is informed by their stance on Imperialism and how they view that word.
The bourgeoise will indeed make their own downfall. They will gladly sell us the rope used to hang them with. The laws, the working of capitalism will deteriorate conditions for the proletariat readying them to do that hanging.
But the bourgeois will not hang themselves. And without work, the downfall will not happen.
A fallow field will not make food, it will create dirt more ripe for it, through the laws, the working of nature. But we must sow the seeds, and watch them, potentially spray them with pesticide, and finally harvest them.