this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
144 points (79.0% liked)
Memes
56047 readers
404 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Communists aren't a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don't have to speak if you don't want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.
Again, you don't have to speak if you don't want to, but I would argue that you're inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean. Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.
I think you're leaving such a narrow window for who is allowed valid thoughts on socialism as to be essentially exclusive to people you think are right, which doesn't seem super useful or insightful to me.
The block feature is easy enough to use, and I'm happy with it. It isn't really your business, honestly.
I didn't really lay out an assertion though, the other person did. I just said I don't buy their premise that my comment was an example of why study of Marxism-Lenninism is strictly necessary and why. The onus isn't really on me to do anything, even in formal debate, which this is not.
I was interested in the initial conversation, just not the more general topic on theory that it was moving to. I think it usually ends up in navel-gazing at best and toxicity at worst, and I gave it up years ago. In person or private when there's less want for performative argument and point scoring, it can be more interesting. The tone is just very different when people talk directly to you vs when they publicly debate you. Just my personal take, I just don't do it anymore as I've gotten older.
Marxism is broad. There are correct lines, incorrect lines, and hotly contested lines. An expat from a socialist country that serves as an academic for a liberal university is going to have certain class interests and outlooks that set them apart from a communist building socialism in a socialist country. With only that information, there isn't really anything else to help build a case for or against how Marxism was taught to you, through what frames, and in what manner and depth.
As for you making an assertion, you did:
You don't have to defend this assertion if you don't want to, but this is what people who understandably want to defend Marxism are going to latch onto and try to address. This is what manifests in "dogpiling," when you have a clear statement like this one, but with little backing it beyond your experience with Marxism in western academia, this understandably causes people to raise issue with your claims. Block if you want to, but this seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too, raise your opinion on a subject and shield yourself from talking about it on a social media platform focusing on discussion.
Again, do what you want. Nobody should be forced to debate.
But this is a counter to their assertion, which they would have to prove first, even in a formal setting. Which again, this is not. Are you bugging them to prove their assertion? Why or why not?
I literally did not raise this topic, I responded to someone else who moved the topic to this and why I don't agree with them. That comment, by the way, was a similar offhand opinion about why they think I'm wrong with nothing supporting it but their opinion. I don't think countering it withe same minimal effort is out of place or on me. You're free to disagree. The topic I was discussing is whether the tyranny of the majority can exist or not. That, I could understand wanting to prove, but I did indeed open with what I feel are solid examples thereof. I can think of non American examples though too if that's the issue.
I'm not talking to Meow, and this is not a formal debate setting. I agree with Meow, and am fine to back up Meow's points if you wish, after all, I put together the reading guides Meow mentioned. That's my personal investment in this discussion, defending the utility of guides I put together (even if the advanced list isn't really a list at this point but a remnant of the prototype basic list).
I feel that if you want to avoid discussing Marxism-Leninism, it's better to not make a counter-assertion at all, and instead just indicate from the get go that you don't want to discuss it. I agree with Meow that it's critically relevant to the discussion at hand, though, which is why it was brought in.
With respect, I'm just not interested in reading guides as again, whether people choose to believe so or not, I actually have studied this in an academic setting and am satisfied with that. I understand your passion, but Marxism, socialism, and leftism absolutely inform my politics, but they aren't my entire life and I think too many people use them as a source of identity that ends up trying to conform to a label rather than incorporating ideas into well thought out positions. I say this as someone who probably strayed too close to that in my youth as a firebrand and just don't see the point in my old age. It just leads to ulcers and infighting, IMO. I did extend the offer for private discussion if is really that important, but I really do find the tone that is struck very different when people are talking one on one versus, even subconsciously, trying to make points that win upvotes a la reddit. Take that initial reply I took issue with... would anyone really bother privately messaging this? "Hey, I'm not really going to elaborate, but I really disagree with you, go read this other thing"? I've never encountered such a thing and I think we can agree that would come across a bit... unhinged. But it's par for the course with these kind of discussions in public forums and is uniquely bad in Marxist circles IMO.
Note that I'm not saying any of this is you, but I do think this might be true of the person who leveled it at me in the first place (which might be unfair, but I think is no more unfair of an assumption than those made about me).
Feelings noted, but I think that point can simply be taken back one more step: one shouldn't make snappy, bad faith assumptions with no actual support aside from the weaponizing of a guide someone on the Internet has written as a cudgel to dismiss people they disagree with. I feel you're being unfair in your application of who should and shouldn't make an assertion based on who you happen to agree with. So we just don't agree with each other's position here, and that's fine.
Surely you can also see that, by positioning yourself as old and experienced, ie wiser, you are speaking condescendingly towards those you disagree with? I'm fine to take this to DMs, if you wish, but my preference is open discussion as the main purpose of discussing Marxism, and the merits of it, is to create more comrades.
You've already shown yourself to be fairly obstinate, and likely aren't going to be swayed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't onlookers. There's no karma on Lemmy, upvotes do practically nothing (by design), but people are swayed and convinced when they see effective and sensible points being made.
In other words, I focus on swaying onlookers, rather than the person I am directly talking to. Far more effective use of time, unless the person I am talking to is willing to have an actual discussion (which is rare).
I also disagree that the guide was being used as a "cudgel," the point being made was that Marxist theory is useful. The guide was given as an avenue to explore theory, not as a way to "debunk" you. The point stands without the guide, that Marxist theory is useful, and your counterpoint dismissed it by saying you studied Marxism in a liberal, western academic setting, a setting well-known for distorting Marxism, blunting and defanging it.