∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
AuDHD cat. If you don’t know which pronoun to use, go for it/its. Helpful website to show pronouns in action: http://www.pronouns.failedslacker.com/
- 0 Posts
- 147 Comments
31·10 months agoor worse 1-bit binary
A binary of Left=Anti-capitalism, and Right=Pro-capitalism is actually useful, whereas the compass isn’t.
See also
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 Arbenz 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 d’etente 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 support Labour Colonies.
That makes me LibLeft
The problem here is your understanding of socialism. European countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway (etc.) have not had socialism. They have had social democracy, capitalism with social safety nets.
Marx was born in 1818. Engels was born in 1820.
I just wanted to point out that Cassandra said that Marx was a capitalism lover, not Engels as you replied.
Its not Engels that is a capitalism lover (in the eabove comment) its Marx.
“Objective fact”[1]. Also there are site wide (lemmy.ml) rules, which I assume is the one you are in violation of:
[rule 1] No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
It is known ↩︎
We are sometimes inclined, I think unwisely, to treat democracy and dictatorship as two mutually exclusive terms, when in actual fact they may often represent two aspects of the same system of government. For example, if we turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica, to the article dealing with “Democracy,” we read: “Democracy is that form of government in which the people rules itself, either directly, as in the small city-states of Greece, or through representatives.”
But the same writer goes on to say this: “All the people in the city-state did not have the right to participate in government, but only those who were citizens, in the legal and original sense. Outside this charmed circle of the privileged were the slaves, who had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled. They had no political and hardly any civil rights; they were not ‘people.’ Thus the democracy of the Greek city-state was in the strict sense no democracy at all.”
The Greek city-state has been cited time and again by historians as the birthplace of democracy. And yet, on reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find that in fact this was a democracy only for a “charmed circle of the privileged,” while the slaves, who did the work of the community, “had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled.”
The classical example of democracy was, then, a democracy only for certain people. For others, for those who did the hard work of the community, it was a dictatorship. At the very birthplace of democracy itself we find that democracy and dictatorship went hand in hand as two aspects of the same political system. To refer to the “democracy” of the Greek city-state without saying for whom this democracy existed is misleading. To describe the democracy of the Greek city-state without pointing out that it could only exist as a result of the toil of the slaves who “had no political and hardly any civil rights” falsifies the real history of the origin of democracy.
Democracy, then, from its origin, has not precluded the simultaneous existence of dictatorship. The essential question which must be asked, when social systems appear to include elements both of democracy and dictatorship, is, “for whom is there democracy?” and “over whom is there a dictatorship?”—Pat Sloan, in the Introduction to Soviet Democracy
It’s not about being “extreme” (and liberalism is plenty extreme, see books like The Jakarta Method, Killing Hope, and Liberalism: A Counter-History), it’s about liberalism being pro-capitalism and therefore Liberals not leftists.
Step 1: Search “Famines in Russia”
Step 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
Edit: wait your saying Soviet Russia which means only the RSFSR
Ah, that’s right. Very hard to tell, but in one of the photos of him it does seem to have a hammer and sickle on it.
Taking political science courses in university
Ah, that explains it
Statesian companies supported the Third RIch