hard to have de leonism (ideology based on worker unions) on an semi feudal ex-colony, it was a country made up by a majority peasant class with little to none proletariat class
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
7 points (88.9% liked)
Main, home of the dope ass bear.
16087 readers
260 users here now
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Based historical materialism understander, history is not driven by people having the right ideas at the right time, it's driven by the interactions of material forces/conditions.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
- The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx
Capitalism did not emerge in England because philosophers there invented it, it emerged in England because the conditions for it to emerge existed there.
Leninism wouldnt have been as popular in Eurasia (USSR, China, Korea, etc.) if it didnt solved the peasant question, because none of those countries were in the imperial core were labour power was centralised so they have very little proletariat population.
because none of those countries were in the imperial core were labour power was centralised so they have very little proletariat population.
It's actually very interesting that all existing Marxist revolutions occurred in countries that were largely agrarian/semi-feudal economies, contrary to Marx's prediction of needing a well-developed proletariat. IIRC he did mention at some point the possibility of Russia as a special case with an alliance between the peasantry and the proletariat, but I don't think that was really expanded on until Lenin (as you say).
even the more successful anarchist/non marxist revolutions happen outside the core (Catalunia, EZLN, etc.) and also did involved the peasant/rural populations. i think it has to do with the way the proletariat classes in the core are closely related to the imperial spoils, like in that slammer meme i like posting about england, the english class can be made to go against it interests as long as the treats flow
even the more successful anarchist/non marxist revolutions happen outside the core (Catalunia, EZLN, etc.) and also did involved the peasant/rural populations.
IIRC the EZLN emerged partly from previous Marxist groups so I'm sure their analysis is materialist. I think almost every revolutionary group after Marx adopted a materialist analysis even if they weren't Marxists because it's genuinely baffling not to.
i think it has to do with the way the proletariat classes in the core are closely related to the imperial spoils
like in that slammer meme i like posting about england
Marx failed to consider the JDPON.
Incorrect. History is like a Paradox map painting game and you're supposed to pick the social virtues and governments that give your faction the biggest buffs. The DPRK had +15% loyalty bonus with Kim Il-Sung, sure, but if they had a trade unionist with good stats they could've gotten a really high industrialisation bonus and developed more efficiently. SMH, these communists states not even min/maxing their builds properly.
i mean if north korea is a de leonist country from the 1940s. seriously!
Everyone understood what you meant and that's why they reject it. Post-WWII Korea was a semi-feudal ex-colony. Aside from syndicalism being a completely inadequate ideology anywhere, they are right that it's farcical in this context. Next, shall we say that the Ikko-Ikki or Thomas Müntzer or Spartacus should have been De Leonists?
I can't tell if this is a bit account. If so, it's not a tasteful joke. seriously!
I can't tell if this is a bit account. If so, it's not a tasteful joke. seriously!
I think this is a young user. They've made quite a few posts that seem sincere, and repeatedly denied doing a bit. They're not acting combative or toxic, so I think there's no harm in them asking questions like this here and getting answers. We all learn somehow. Agreed that it wouldn't be tasteful as a bit, though.
I certainly agree that that's what they are if they are sincere, I just find certain elements like the density of repetition in phrasing and such kind of strange, along with posting a fair bit but without replying very much even to people who are nice, or so it looked in the other thread.
Anyway, I agree that it's better regardless to treat them as sincere.
OP has also stated that they are neurodivergent in another of their threads a while back, iirc.
I also think the "seriously!" endings started about then too, after so many people accused them of doing a bit.
my point is that north korea should've been leftcom to begin with. seriously!
I'm pretty sure leftcom is seriously incompatible with De Leonism/syndicalism in the sense that leftcom, while also silly, is revolutionary. It comes across like you're just kind of stringing words together. Can I suggest reading a book on leftist theory instead of trying to stitch things together from the incoherent patchwork of Wikipedia?
are there any ways i can read leftist theory without losing focus quickly?
- asking for "leftist theory" is a really broad question. What is it you want to focus on?
2);If youre having trouble engaging with the typical texts, like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and so on, there are plenty of more modern writers who have explained, elaborated on, and brought the ideas to the 21st century. For instance, if you are having trouble with a particular Lenin work, maybe look up some newer writers who have dissected what youre reading.
- theres also communities on hexbear dedicated to theory questions and discussions, that could be a help.
i WOULDN'T focus on stalin - i prefer the usual stuff; marx, lenin, trotsky, de leon, any socialist theorist!
Your thoughts on Stalin aside, you need to choose a subject to read about. Do you want to read about Marxist philosophy? Do you want to read about imperialism? What specifically do you want to read ABOUT?
any of them
You need to narrow things down so people can recommend specific works
i'm looking for any socialist books from any perspective (marx, lenin, stalin, trotsky, de leon, bernstein, luxembourg, anyone!). if you have any recs, please let me know. seriously!
State and Revolution, by Lenin.
Is there someone you forgot to ask? 
That depends a lot on the specifics of your own proclivities. I personally really like audiobooks and that helped me get into things. My favorite is this reading of Socialims: Utopian and Scientific.
It's also not the most satisfying answer, but it's worth noting that keeping one's focus is a skill and it will improve at least a little as you attempt to exercise it, even if you "fail".
Adderall
but how different would it be tho? the leonist DPRK now elects people to the goverment via votes from union members instead of votes from people assembles?
you have earned One Extra Free Spin on the wheel of ideology