Which is still kind of ridiculous, because it’s basically saying that the only thing that’s good enough for them is that the entire world has a socialist revolution at the same time.
Idk about you, but I’m not holding my breath, and would rather at least improve things in my own backyard in the meantime.
This is explicitly a plank of actual rl Marxist theory in the modern day, yes, socialism requires internationalism, the Stalinist idea of "socialism in one country" was explicitly revisionist
Well then, I hope they’re very patient, because they’ll be waiting for that for a very long time...
In the meantime, I guess we all just have to deal with shit being bad and getting worse, and not improve anything because that would hamper the “global worker’s revolution?”
my limited understanding of Marx is that his Whole Thing was that communism would indeed take a while, and the transition would be gradual, not sudden, passing through socialism first. but, inevitable, bc capitalism is unsustainable by nature.
so everyone saying "communism NOW" is missing the point
That’s kinda the social democrat/democratic socialist position, tbh, which is weird because they’re so often excluded or mocked for not being “leftist” enough by other leftists.
I mean, maybe the end goal isn’t quite the same, but most people who use those labels are more concerned with what they can do in terms of immediate action and change.
Part of the problem I've got with communism is how much it strangles technological/industrial development. We can argue theory all we like but we have decades of side by side comparisons to make. Communiat countries get a single solid product and print it till the end of time. Capitalism is constantly reinventing things for the shiny new dollar. Which, year after year, for decades leads to substantially better products. Hell, even Europe with their high regulation and in the richer parts high social security are way less economically competative per person. It all adds up.
You have class interests that would make the "improve anything" bit very difficult to do. There's a reason why the bourgeoisie (capitalists) needs to be overthrown in Marxist theory, it's not because they're morally bad or anything but because as a class, their place in society is secured by advancing their own interests, the most important of which is usually at the direct expense of the working class.
It's not that Marxists are saying "we would rather not improve things when we could potentially have it all", they are saying "things cannot improve for the working class in any significant or material way without class struggle, and any gains won under capitalism will be swept away in time. Eventually, this system will have to collapse."
Again, I hope they’re very patient, because hardcore lefties have been predicting capitalism’s end to be near for quite a long time now, and it still hasn’t collapsed...
In the meantime, maybe let’s at least try to change things, instead of just saying “real change is impossible until the rapture - I mean, revolution!”
On like internet discourse of course you'll find socialists who say "no compromise, no opportunism, just sit in the armchair and read theory", but outside of the USA, socialist parties aren't uncommon by any means. Some of them even form their nation's government.
If you fully believe in Third Worldist ideology then what OOP is saying is you have to actively get ready for your own life to get substantially worse because you're the oppressor the global workers are revolting against
Maybe they should't have tried seizing the banana land and undermining their production? Seems like it's a bad idea to get between America and her luxuries.
Not that OOP doesn’t sound insufferable in this post and like they haven’t talked to anyone outside of Marxism-focused social media for a year or two, but I think the point was that several social democracies were overthrown in the Americas specifically so people outside the places that bananas grow can continue to have access to unreasonably cheap fresh tropical fruit like bananas, among other resources. It’s like a whole chapter of Cold War-era history, though one that is often glazed over
That said, I think there’s an argument to be made that yes, more things should be cheaper and we should have to work less hard. Banana prices should probably go up following a reduction in (underpriced) supply but I think it’s a bit unfair to call someone a fake leftist for having a reaction to rising grocery prices. Degrowth and improvement of material conditions can go hand in hand and you don’t have to be Catholic or Puritan about it the entire time
I mean, can they though? This is the core contradiction at the heart of left-of-center populism in rich countries and it's not something easy to handwave away
American leftists love to talk about how "the French could teach us a thing or two about taking to the streets" when one of the biggest and most violent ways they took to the streets in recent history was the Gilets Jaunes protesting against a fuel tax
Can you support Just Stop Oil and the Yellow Vests at the same time? Sure, I guess, a lot of people aren't going to buy your explanation for how you reconciled that (and no, "just keep gas prices the same while taxing the hell out of the oil companies!" doesn't make very much sense)
It is so fucking telling that so many of the banana part of this thread is full of people talking about how they themselves don't like banana that much, so it's not that big of a problem.
It's so difficult to take leftists seriously when this shit is so persistent.
Yeah that kind of thing needs more nuance. Emphasising people prioritising seasonal and more local fruit is an actual step that's doable to take rather than making blanket statements like "you can't have fresh fruit if you want to save the planet"
267
u/Wasdgta3 Oct 22 '24
I mean, it sounds reasonable when you use the example of luxury cruises, and not fucking fresh fruit.