For guns, revolution is a necessity to move to Socialism. Pacifism for the Working Class against a Class that will not and has never hesitated to use force is acceptance of the status quo. This is unfortunate, but is reality.
As for the idea of “power corrupting,” it’s more that it isn’t an actual explanation for why some structures work and others don’t, kinda like the Greeks believing the gods did everything. It’s superstition, and doesn’t have any bearing on a real, materialist analysis.
Really, the bulk of my issues with your comments is that they deal overwhelmingly with individuals, rather than focusing on structures and material reality. Ideas are shaped by matter, not the inverse, ergo you must focus chiefly on the material (that’s peaking a bit into Dialectical Materialism).
As for the “tankie” jab, in my opinion that word is meaningless. I’m a Communist, a Marxist-Leninist, etc, make of that what you will. I am the most common and historically relevent strain of Marxist thought, and while I have my own little nuances, I am not far from that general norm.
I was debating using the word at all, I just wanted to point out how I interpreted the message. The only reason I dared use it, is that you picked up this thread in a gentler tone (which just confirmed that you are not pushing agenda).
As I mentioned to our colleague in this thread, I do want to dip my toes in the basics of dialectic materialism, so excuse me if all of this has been discussed to the bone. I understand how we are (also) products of our surrounding, and matter can shape mind. My main argument here is that we also shape matter. So the direction goes both ways. If I am not convinced of my truth, I shall be swayed, thus I have to make sure that when I speak, I speak the truth to the best of my knowledge. If I have hangups, I might push for something faulty. Something that based on my perspective should be a natural part of life, a given, but is actually just a neurosis. So you are definitely picking up the vibes that I see the solution at home.
Anyhow, thank you for getting back to me. I’d love to discuss the topic further, but maybe I’m not ready for a proper debate of (or devil’s advocating against) communism.
The concept of matter shaping ideas that then reshape matter into reshaping ideas in endless spirals is Dialectical Materialism, actually. I’m not denying that ideas are important, but they are not primary.
For what it’s worth, I do have an “agenda,” I’m a Communist. I want Communism, and I want to create more Communists, that’s why I made that reading list. Communism isn’t an intellectual fascination, but an ideology surrounding working class liberation.
If you want to dip your toes, Principles of Communism is a great start, maybe try reading section 1 of my reading list and watching the Parenti Lecture as well if you want to see Communism in context.
For guns, revolution is a necessity to move to Socialism. Pacifism for the Working Class against a Class that will not and has never hesitated to use force is acceptance of the status quo. This is unfortunate, but is reality.
As for the idea of “power corrupting,” it’s more that it isn’t an actual explanation for why some structures work and others don’t, kinda like the Greeks believing the gods did everything. It’s superstition, and doesn’t have any bearing on a real, materialist analysis.
Really, the bulk of my issues with your comments is that they deal overwhelmingly with individuals, rather than focusing on structures and material reality. Ideas are shaped by matter, not the inverse, ergo you must focus chiefly on the material (that’s peaking a bit into Dialectical Materialism).
As for the “tankie” jab, in my opinion that word is meaningless. I’m a Communist, a Marxist-Leninist, etc, make of that what you will. I am the most common and historically relevent strain of Marxist thought, and while I have my own little nuances, I am not far from that general norm.
I was debating using the word at all, I just wanted to point out how I interpreted the message. The only reason I dared use it, is that you picked up this thread in a gentler tone (which just confirmed that you are not pushing agenda).
As I mentioned to our colleague in this thread, I do want to dip my toes in the basics of dialectic materialism, so excuse me if all of this has been discussed to the bone. I understand how we are (also) products of our surrounding, and matter can shape mind. My main argument here is that we also shape matter. So the direction goes both ways. If I am not convinced of my truth, I shall be swayed, thus I have to make sure that when I speak, I speak the truth to the best of my knowledge. If I have hangups, I might push for something faulty. Something that based on my perspective should be a natural part of life, a given, but is actually just a neurosis. So you are definitely picking up the vibes that I see the solution at home.
Anyhow, thank you for getting back to me. I’d love to discuss the topic further, but maybe I’m not ready for a proper debate of (or devil’s advocating against) communism.
The concept of matter shaping ideas that then reshape matter into reshaping ideas in endless spirals is Dialectical Materialism, actually. I’m not denying that ideas are important, but they are not primary.
For what it’s worth, I do have an “agenda,” I’m a Communist. I want Communism, and I want to create more Communists, that’s why I made that reading list. Communism isn’t an intellectual fascination, but an ideology surrounding working class liberation.
If you want to dip your toes, Principles of Communism is a great start, maybe try reading section 1 of my reading list and watching the Parenti Lecture as well if you want to see Communism in context.