14
I want to advance humanity to the next stage by any means necessary π©Έπ
Expand necessary means
Chilling + vibing + building green ammonia supply chain :)
This requires communism
Politics isn't a sport, and the political compass shit is just the sorting hat for (Western) Poli Sci majors.
I am a Marxist-Leninist with a lot left to learn (and read). I was a sort of ultra-left "Marxist" (firmly in compatible left territory) until I started lurking on here and reading comments by Cowbee and other comrades.
until I started lurking on here and reading comments by Cowbee and other comrades
oh cool, which "sub-lemmy" was that?
"community" or "comm" are the terms in general use
Here you go. Cowbee is just a regular user (or maybe rather a legend). Seems that you are moving in the right direction (by which I mean to the left), but I would say that you have far to go still. Good luck!
Hey comrade, just want to mention that I made a new, cleaned up guide and that the one you linked is going to go through a major revision sometime in the future.
OP if youβre interested in learning more about politics try reading theory I recommend blackshirts and reds by parenti. reddit political compass memes arenβt accurate to reality
I think the Earth is hollow and the USSR is hiding there.
The USSR is hiding out in Red Shambhala consolidating power to fight the fascists in the hollow earth.
left-libertarian
Bro you do not need to let the capitalists own the means of production. You have nothing to lose but your chains.
Yep, I also believe in georgism, but I don't think that's a political stance, more of a "where should taxes come from"
"I want my government to be funded by private enterprise" is absolutely a political stance
Yeah I guess who you tax is indicative of the political stance, is that what you mean? Georgism is about taxing land, so it's kind of in the middle I guess, since everyone uses land, although it should affect the rich more, since the rich will usually own more land
"people can own land" is a political stance
Communism. Mostly Marxism-Leninism with a bit of Infantile Disorder and antilericalism.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist! Not really based on "preference," though, but on the overall coherence and practicality of Marxism-Leninism. I agree with the dialectical materialist method, Marxist economics, the Leninist analysis of imperialism and organization, and socialism as a scientific field. I support AES states (Actually Existing Socialism, where public ownwrship is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state), including the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, and Venezuela (which is more almost AES IMO but on the right track).
One thing I would suggest is viewing the state not as something outside class struggle, but deeply involved within it. The state under capitalism has a bourgeois class character, it exists to reinforce capitalism and keep the working classes suppressed. Under socialism, however, the state exists to keep the working classes on top, and this is necessary as we gradually collectivize production and distribution to establish communism. This is the Marxist conception of the state, and how we can achieve statelessness realistically by eroding the basis of the state, class struggle.
If you want a place to start with Marxism-Leninism, I made a basic Marxist-Leninist study guide. Feel free to check it out!
150-or-so years ago, Karl Marx developed a scientific method for understanding socio-economics and translating common political goals towards collective action. Most of the conclusions he came to through this scientific method have borne out in the decades since, a few have not, but the method itself is, I believe, concrete.
As the years went on, additional theoreticians - especially Lenin and Mao - have further developed his theories.
But I think the key is to never be dogmatic - that different times call for different approaches, that sometimes you need forced collectivization, but sometimes you need the New Economic Policy. Sometimes you wage a protracted peasants' war, sometimes you elect Sewer Socialists.
A lot of people can get too caught up in the tendencies and sub-tendencies. I believe that all Marxists should be part of a single Socialist political party where disagreements are handled internally by rigorous debate and elections among Communists.
Libertarian and Liberal are not the same thing
And thereβs nothing normal about Libertarians π
Me myself Iβm so woke that my liberal neighbours watch under their beds for fear that I will shiv them in the night
thereβs nothing normal about Libertarians
why do you think so?
Because they're right shills who hijacked a political philosophy
which political philosophy did they hijack?
also what does "right shill" mean?
Murray Rothbard (who is among the most influential in right wing libertarianism) started using the term "libertarian" to hijack it from Joseph Dejacque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque who was an anarcho-communist
The libertarian party in the US is basically the GOP by another name (think fascist Spain as it related to Nazi Germany).
Here is the worst example
http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Rand-Paul-412492
"But when someone is said to be shilling for something or someone there is a distinct note of disapproval, and often the implication that the act is somehow corrupt or dishonest, or that the product or person being promoted is not to be trusted."
Because all Libertarians experience that have been made turns out to be scams to swindle money out of gullible middle class people.
The fact that hardcore Libertarians tend to be pro-contract slavery, pro weird pedophilia views and against environmental protection.
All in all, Libertarianism is inherently flawed and lead to a kind of facism or contract feudalism. It only reproduces ways of control that it tried/say it want to abolish
The fact that hardcore Libertarians tend to be pro-contract slavery, pro weird pedophilia views and against environmental protection.
Wow that's a.. idk weird stance, I've never seen this being advocated by Libertarians.
I believe libertarians are the most rational people. 'Geolibertarians' are the pinnacle of rationality IMO, because they understand scarce essential resources (like land, but also applied to minerals, etc) are subject to inefficient monopolistic dynamics, and thus should be somehow regulated for the common good.
Libertarianism is inherently flawed and lead to a kind of facism or contract feudalism
Yeah, kinda of? That's why I support geolibertarianism. But I don't think pure Libertarianism is all that bad you make it out to be. It's an incredibly rational way of thinking that maximizes freedom and productivity, and works very well when society has abundant resources. Libertarianism was the prevailant (albeit imperfect) mode of government for the US until the first World War.
Geolibertarianism is a good solution for when free-market meets limited resources. I'd say that's also probably the most favorite model of government that Milton Friedman would have
π£π’π²π‘ππ© π±π₯π’π¬π π―ππ±π¦π ππ²π±π¬π π―ππ πΆ
middle-ages peasant village sub-reddits (also called lemmy ideology)
Too many labels out there. Ask me my opinion on any issue and I will tell you honestly. I took a quiz once and it said I was a filthy socialist.
I wouldn't trust quizzes when it comes to political ideology. Quizzes try to take your latent beliefs and force them into categories, but these beliefs may be contradictory. Ideologies (in theory) attempt to proceed from a given baseline, and find correct answers given that baseline. For example, Marxism and its various tendencies all proceed from the acceptance of dialectical materialism, the scientific approach to socialism, and Marxist economics as the basis. A quiz may think someone is a Marxist, even if they don't actually agree with any of those, assuming they have similar policy preferences.
Shrek is Love, Shrek is Life
It's simple, it's easy, it's to the point
I prefer to talk specifics about issues rather than adopt labels. Labels are often victim of whatever the other person thinks the label means. Once the labels come out, they can be conversation enders.
I still have a lot to learn and at times it's overwhelming. I'm a socialist.
I do think labels are helpful for coming to a coherent understanding. Rejection of labels and focusing only on details can lead us to not notice how these details intersect and interconnect, leading to counterposed beliefs simultaneously held. Some people will reject the convo outright based on label, but these people likely aren't going to be swayed anyways, and are looking for an excuse to end the convo. That's why I just openly state that I'm a Marxist-Leninist, it helps explain my views in a more concrete way than needing each bit to be teased out over the course of a convo.
IRL though I tend to not bring up that I'm an ML unless I am at a protest or event or otherwise trust the person deeply.
People who start with preconceptions based on labels can still be swayed. It just becomes an uphill battle of figuring out what they think the label means and dispelling those before getting to the meat of the discussion when you can instead just start on the meat.
Egaltarian
Iβm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.
I believe Mao contributed greatly to the Marxist-Leninist philosophy and gave the movement great importance and knowledge for modern society.
it's great that you are growing and evolving! there's a lot of good reading (both short and long, light and dense) at:
I don't agree with the lists categorizing socialism as "state capitalism" and trying to force Marxist analysis into an anarchist framework, when the conclusions of Marxism fundamentally point towards one unified system of collectivized production and distribution while anarchism is more about local communalism and horizontalism.
I am a pragmatist. My decisions on issues are entirely based on context. Right now I believe we need government services for necessary things to increase because the free market isn't providing them due to misaligned incentives, and if we don't want to live in a complete shithole world that needs to change. Absolutely nothing is preventing us from living in a complete shithole. There's no higher power out to save us. So we better step up and organize to save ourselves.
anarchism
why ? it's the only thing that's worked long term (150,000 years)
Historical anarchism isn't the same as modern-day anarchism, though. As production and distribution became more complex, different forms of organization came about to suit the level of the productive forces, giving rise to class society. We cannot use historic hunter-gatherer anarchism as proof of modern-day anarchism working at scale, as the material conditions are entirely different. That is, unless you're talking anarcho-primitivism, in which case I think being able to manufacture things like insulin is necessary.
view more: next βΊ
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
14 points (79.2% liked)
Asklemmy
54058 readers
521 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS