this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
699 points (98.9% liked)
Memes
50171 readers
831 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have no idea how anyone can still think the left and 'globalists' are in power when all the shit for nearly 50 years has been increasing authoritarianism and fascism.
Don't forget while sitting in the oval office trump tweeted about how something that was hurting him was a "deep state conspiracy"
According to the frothing bootlickers that inhabit the space around me? Because gay
Soviet Union was authoritarian. Both the far left and the far right don't want authoritarianism but claim the other side does.
Fascism, when state and companies become one, is the opposite of a small state, a major goal of the right.
So from a right wing perspective, the left and globalists must be in power if they are not living freely in a country with a small state.
Left and right should talk. There are many things that they can achieve together.
You raging for the machine?
The far right can fuck off.
While a large state is not ideal, a small state that represses the people is the epitome of oligarchy.
A repressive small state is a strawman. Done right a small state is not repressive.
Done correctly (in the left way), yes. But I have zero faith in that the small - but thoroughly surveilling - fascist state of the USA will do that. They in fact will try to increase the government and entrench on the few liberties the Americans still had.
I agree. My point is that the right-wing workers also don't want a fascist state. Thus there is common ground to prevent it together.
All countries are "authoritarian," all states exert authority. When analyzing them, it's important to find which class is represented, which class is exerting its authority. The USSR was authoritarian towards the bourgoeisie, monarchists, and fascists, but empowering for the proletariat.
Further, fascism is just Capitalism in different circumstances. Dire circumstances, where it needs to violently and brutally defend its class dynamics.
I don't think there's much the left can gain from the right.
Capitalism and fascism is not what the proletarian right wants.
The main differences are that the right accepts social, class differences while the left wants socialized support and unity. On the other hand the left wants individual personal differences while the right wants uniform values.
It's not about gaining things from the right but overcoming differences. There doesn't have to be left and right. Then both sides can change society together and make a better world instead of fighting each other for the benefit of the upper class.
The "proletarian right"? They're called labor aristocrats and no one cares what they want, they're the bourgies' lackeys. They are not on the side of the people.
Uh no, one wants private ownership of the means of production, the other collective ownership of the means of production. You cant have any analysis of right vs. left without looking at that since that is core to each ideology and everything else revolves around that.
Ok, that's clearer and more to the functional point than unity.
My perspective is that people are driven by emotions. Is ownership something in itself that people want? I would say that it is just a tool.
Well ownership over some means of production entitles one to the products produced with them.
So someone who owns a factory will employ the laborers, pay their salary and be entitled to all that the laborers produced using that factory and will then sell them for profit or loss independent of what the laborers were paid. The laborers get no say in how their products are used or sold and if they get sold at loss to often they will simply all be let go. If they get sold at huge profits then they will not benefit from that either. The owner has to eat all the loss or enriches themselves from the products independent of how much or if they put labor into it themselves.
If the laborers own the factory they work in however they own the products they produce and can decide how to divvy up what these products sold for. If they sell at a loss they can still look to mitigate the fallout to the more vulnerable and can decide themselves whether to close up shop and look for work elsewhere. If they sell them for much higher than the input cost than they get to divide it all for themselves. All those and only those that worked for them get to directly benefit from the sale.
So ownership of the means of production gives you the power to distribute the wealth that gets produced. This is something people generally like/want since its directly tied to a more comfortable life for them
I would argue that people in general don't want ownership or we would have many more cooperatives.
I would argue that setting up cooperatives under capitalism is extremely difficult since it requires a huge amount of capital to be invested up front. People that can put this investment forth then become the owners of the venture and not the laborers themselves. Again you have private ownership of the means of production.
But even if the laborers come up with the investment themselves, then usually each laborer individually owns a portion of the venture and gets the value created paid out according to that. However truly collective ownership over the means of production means that no one individually owns any part of the venture but everyone collectively owns the whole thing. Such a construct is not really possible or very very very difficult to set up within a capitalist legal framework.
The fact that people do want ownership however can be seen by the lengths they will go to if able. Every communist revolution had at its core a demand for collective ownership over arable land, factories etc. And they fought bloody battles against the private owning class thats how much they wanted it. At the moment however this cost is too high compared to our current lifestyle which is why people dont organize a war against the owning class.
But often I go into a supermarket and wonder what it would look like if the cashiers, the people stocking the shelves, cleaning the floors, transporting the goods, owned it. A lot less white fluorescent lighting I'd imagine. Or what if the tenants of a huge building owned the entire thing themselves and any rent they paid got put to use for the building they occupy. And I think if people actually thought about what it would mean for them to own the workplaces they work at or the buildings they live in, then I think most would agree that they would much rather have that, than have some other people owning it all who arent affected in how it is run in their day to day lives, but only skim the profit.
Overall I agree with two exceptions.
The Russian civil war was fought with 1% or 2% of the population. It's not the majority that fights to own things.
Owning means to constantly think for the company and constantly try to optimize it. There is no time off. It's a job on its own that is more than just skimming the profits.
I dont know where you got the 1% or 2% from, could you link it please? There were uprisings against the kulak class all over the country.
Owning a company, if you're rich enough actually does mean you just skim off the top. That's why it's called "passive income". You pay others to manage the company and optimize it. It's definitely not a 9-5 job you get to come and go as you please and often the company does worse when the owners get involved because they dont know what they're talking about. See e.g. Elon Musk and Tesla or Twitter.
I should have looked it up before. I don't remember my original source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
The red army had 6 million out of 280 million citizens of the USSR. So it's a bit more.
How long do those companies exist? If owners just skim, I would expect most companies to dissolve sooner than later.
We were talking about people taking ownership over the means of production, that was more than the people in the red army. People all over russia confronted the kulaks and literally took ownership of the land. It was a very chaotic time, sometimes they dealt with the kulaks via mob justice, sometimes with help from the red army, a few private owners saw the tides turning and willingly ceded whatever they had and integrated into the collective. Also the revolution preceded the civil war. The civil war was a response of the capitalists to the people taking ownership.
As for companies where the owners skim of the top, all the major ones. With stocks for instance the owners typically arent involved in the operation but just collect dividends and get together to vote a CEO, CFO etc. to operate the company for them. With others like Meta or Tesla you can see how good it is when the owners try to ram their passion projects through like with the Cybertruck or the metaverse. The whole point of "passive income" is exactly that, to make the most money from the smallest effort so you can do whatever you want.
Thanks for the insights. I thought it was only Stalin who decided to collectivice the farming.
Those are not the real owners but people who rent money.
There are always shareholders who control the board and who make the ultimate decisions. They decide when they want to meet but nevertheless I don't think that they do much more than managing their companies which includes networking. So even when they don't work, they will be 'on'. No pity, they are rewarded more than enough.
The "right" is made up of those who want to retain the current Capitalist system, or turn the clock "back," to earlier days. The "left" is made up of Socialists that want to progress onwards. The left and right "values" you list aren't really indicative of right or left, but vibes.
The proletariat should unify, but this would make them left. Abandoning the reactionary position of being right-wing doesn't mean the leftists get less left, it's unifying around correct analysis.
From the point of view of the right, the left government is maintaining overbearing zoning laws and medical regulations. These left politics retain the profits for the upper class in the current Capitalist system.
It's the separation of the proletariat that uphelds Capitalism, not one side alone.
A unified proletariat doesn't have to be left. Restricting analysis to dialectical materialism misses that people also care about other things. The left would already have convinced the entire proletariat if it's only materialism.
It's the arrogance of already knowing how to resolve social issues that keeps the left stuck in the past. The left is all about respecting people and their emotions and desires, but when they are expressed in the form of right-wing support, they are called reactionary and ignored.
Right-wingers misanalyzing the issues felt by the whole proletariat don't validate that analysis by virtue of the consequences being real. The proletariat being divided is indeed one method of upholding Capitalism, but the answer isn't to abandon Leftist analysis, which is correct.
Further, Dialectical Materialism doesn't "miss that people care about other things." I think you're confusing DiaMat for Class Struggle, which is merely one analysis of DiaMat.
The Left also isn't all about "respecting people and their emotions and desires." Not all desires are valid, nor are all viewpoints. There are correct conclusions and correct analysis, and there are incorrect conclusions and incorrect analysis. A right-winger blaming government as the issue when really it's the fault of Capitalism and the state being of bourgeois character is wrong, and those ideas should be fought.
Leftist analysis is not correct if the proletariat is stuck where it is.
I would say, not all enactments of desires are acceptable, but invalidating desires by themselves sounds wrong to me. Who decides which desires are valid?
Having a strong government to oppose Capitalism doesn't help either. Capitalism is just one form of maintaining power. The people with capital will become the people at the top of the government if Capitalism is abolished by government.
Why not go full Hegel, treat left and right as thesis and antithesis and come up with something new?
What do you mean by "stuck?" Globally, conditions are rapidly changing, and moving steadily in favor of the Proletariat. Socialist countries like the PRC are overtaking the US, which is weakening in Imperialist power.
Desires based on inaccurate analysis are invalid. If someone wants to limit government because of problems sprouting from Capitalism, not the government, then these aren't desires that need to be addressed. They can be better informed and corrected, but not entertained.
Strengthening the government under Capitalism isn't Left either, rather the Leftist (specifically Marxist) solution is to smash the state and replace it with a Proletarian one. Historically, the bourgeoisie has been suppressed by Proletarian States, your hypothesis isn't accurate.
Hegel's Dialectics are idealist, and thus wrong. He advanced Dialectics, but it was Marx that stood them upright and made them Materialist. The idea of trying to synthesize a new ideology of left combined with right historically is Social Democracy, which ends in the same problems under Capitalism and in the Nordics, for example, relies on Imperialism to sustain itself. With the global weakening of Imperialism, conditions are decaying in the Nordics.
But there are priviliged positions of power within those states. It's just another form to organize power. Those positions will not be available to everybody.
That can't be all.
As you write, it doesn't work so something else should be tried.
Administration and management are necessities in complex and large-scale systems. This does imply power imbalance, but it does not imply the same character of class dynamics as in Capitalist states.
Social Democracy doesn't work, but Socialism does. We have seen this in practice quite effectively. There isn't a mythical "perfect" system, all Socialist states have faced internal and external struggles, but we have seen remarkable resiliance and success from them in a quantitatively and qualitatively different level from Capitalist states.
Xi Jinping is the son of a high ranking politician. How is that not some form of class dynamics?
USSR failed by having to import grain, while having black earth.
But I am not opposing Socialism.
My point is that right-wing people shouldn't be ignored, especially not to the point of seeing them as enemies.
The upper class is using the split to reign. Insisting on a solution that has room for improvement locks in the current situation.
Having a parent as a politician and then being elected is not a "class." The alternative is to bar descendents from holding office, which is just trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
The USSR had problems we can analyze, but through collective farming methods became food stable in a country that frequently had famines. Further, we can see food stability in countries like the PRC.
We should not ignore right-wing proletarians. We should thoroughly correct their poor analysis and promote correct political lines. We should see fascists and the bourgeoisie, landlords, etc as enemies.
The upper class plays up division to distract, this is correct, but Socialism remains the correct path. There isn't a "perfect" Socialism, but that doesn't mean advocating for Socialism locks in the current situation. To the contrary, Socialist revolution has already happened in many areas.
I'd like to know what you mean by saying "Socialism has ro for improvement" as a general rule, and not as countries building Socialism iterating and working to resolve the problems that come with nation building in general.
Which all go back to the white army losing. Some say it was intentionally. Can that be recreated?
The early industrial society doesn't exist anymore. Capitalists have adapted and turned workers into consumers. The old paths are gone.
Consumers don't want to endure hardship or analysis. They can't stand seeing the problem, how can they be receptive to a solution?
The material situation is the same but there is now a mental problem that hasn't been solved.
To fish for downvotes, let me add that the bro lifestyle is an attempt by the right to solve the mental issues while ignoring the material ones.
The White Army was specific to Russia, not all Socialist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Don't really know what you're getting at, here.
Workers were always consumers. That's part of the problem with Capitalism, higher wages give more room for increased commodity circulation, but Capitalists don't want to pay their own workers higher wages. Further, industry is still the backbone of production worldwide, the Imperialist states in the West just export the hardest jobs to the Global South so they can have cheap goods without the harsh labor.
As Capitalism decays, proletarianization increases even in the Imperialist countries, and thus reception to Socialism increases.
There is no "mental problem that cannot be solved," this is quite literally inventing a problem that exists purely in your head. Idealism to a T.
Broism is a reaction to proletarianization, combined with patriarchial culture. It ignores analysis and goes for vibes-based solutions, which is why all bro-culture is incoherent and contradictory.
If I remember correctly, Mao was supported by Stalin. I assume something similar for any other revolution. Outside support is needed.
Look at Syria. Assad was in control and it took massive outside support to let the opposition win. Who is going to support a socialist revolution today?
Not like today, where brains are addicted to TikTok and shopping. Workers could work less but they shop more. That's not considered in the original theory.
Will it reach critical mass?
Exactly. Consumers are trapped there. The left cannot handle this because it absolutely contradicts their mindset. This alone will prevent any further progress towards socialism.
Correct. 'Ignoring the material ones' means ignoring analysis while vibe-based solution corresponds with 'mental issues'. My point is that Broism looks at aspects of the current situation to which the left analysis is blind. Calling it a reaction already frames it as not worth considering.
The left analysis in itself is correct. That doesn't change anything if the consumers are not listening. Knowing the truth is a mental trap if it leads to ineffective action.
The White Army was a Tsarist Army. The Red Army was the Soviet Army. And you are mistaken, while there were times that the Soviets or Chinese Communists helped others, it was usually after revolution. I think you need to look more into your history.
I really don't think you know what you're talking about if you think advertising isn't considered in Marxist theory. Workers are consumers, they get their means to live through being paid wages. Further, theory isn't static, it adapts and changes while the core remains the same.
I'd say it's increasingly likely that Imperialism finally ends, yes. Whether that's through revolution or war is a separate matter.
When I say your point on TikTok is Idealist, I mean it in the philosophical way, in opposition to Materialism. Idealism is wrong, it's the concept of thoughts and ideas being the primary mover, not material reality. The reason I say yours is idealist is because you've invented a problem that doesn't exist, tik tok does not change the material base, being workers who spend their wages on goods.
There are people trying to solve the issue with "broism" without listening to the analysis of the "bros" beyond data points. Being connected to a problem doesn't mean you know how to solve it. The Left doesn't lack an answer to it, the left already has answers. The answers of the "bros" like government supplied girlfriends are not worth considering.
So in the end, you say the Leftists are correct, and say the problem is if people don't listen to that? I mean, kinda, but that screams that you haven't ever engaged with Leftist theory. Knowing leftist theory leads to action, not inaction.
Yes, I mean the Tsarist army. But you are right, my knowledge of history is limited.
That's not what I mean with consumers. Consumers spend their money against their interest, to fulfill emotional needs that were highlighted by advertising. I don't think that I have mentioned advertising before, but I actually think that this type of advertising won't happen in a socialist country.
I think that's also how I understood it.
My point is that the mindset of people have changed and thoughts have become the primary movers.
Workers are not workers who rationally spend their money on products that have the most benefit to them. Those people are now consumers. They spend their money on stuff that is supposed to make them happy which induces the need to accept the current system. A revolution becomes a threat.
But the motivations are. What do those people want and why do they prefer it over the offer from the left.
Action means nothing if it doesn't reach people. As I said, truth becomes a trap if it leads to ineffective action.
You're still misunderstanding idealism vs materialism. Your analysis is idealist, and that clouds your judgement of issues surrounding consumerism. Consumerism, as you describe it, still existed in Marx's time, and the existence of it does not conflict with Marxism. Liberalism in general is idealist, but that doesn't make it correct. Thoughts aren't the primary movers, consumerism is driven by a necessity for Capitalists to sell more commodities. It isn't the choice of individuals, but the underlying Capitalist system.
You still have not made any point regarding workers and consumers. They are the same. They have always been the same. Revolution is further not a threat for them.
Leftists do analyze the motivations of broism, you continue to invent problems that do not exist.
Finally, Leftists do reach people, with action. It isn't a "trap."
You don't really have any real points, you are dead-set on your misinterpretations of left vs right and as a consequence don't actually understand Leftist critique or analysis, and it seems deliberate.
It's definitely not a deliberate misunderstanding.
Yes. By the same logic, Capitalists need consumers to stay calm and to not change the system.
How can the Capitalist system be changed if people don't act on individual choices?
They reach some. Do they reach enough?
I wasn't suggesting it was deliberate, my point is more that if you want to discuss a subject, you ought to familiarize yourself with it prior to forming an opinion.
Capitalists do need workers to not revolt, yes. Leftists acknowledge this, there are various methods Capitalists employ, like bribery through sharing the spoils of Imperialism with the Working Class. That doesn't mean right-wingers have valid points.
As for if enough people are reached, yes, increasingly as time goes on. I'm not sure what your point here is.
My point is that the Capitalists manage the rate at which workers learn about the left point of view so that the chance of them reaching a ctitical mass for change is very low.
Capitalists use control of media, yes. That doesn't mean accepting right-wing analysis is correct, and that doesn't mean Leftist ideas aren't spreading.
Them:" I saw someone once who spoke a different language than me once. What is that if not GLOBALISM?"