this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
757 points (85.3% liked)

Comics

5940 readers
146 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

“Primitive communism” is a derogatory term with racist undertones.

I suppose it is a problem, thanks to “primitive” often meaning “subhuman.” It’s not that the people were primitive, but the pre-capitalist & pre-industrial-revolution means of production.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It isn't just the wording that's problematic, it's the way Marx was dismissive towards the existing methods of collectivism and horizontal organizing. Yes, subsistence farming is a "primitive" mode of production, but the way peasants and indigenous people organized and collectivized resources is not irrelevant to modern industrial modes of production. Marx dismissed the way peasants and indigenous people collectivized resources as "primitive" and argued in favor of centralized power structures. I believe this to be a mistake.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As I said, no such organizing has successfully fended off capitalism for more than a few months, not in the last 150 years. It could work, under some sort of ideal conditions, but not under the material conditions of contemporary history.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It baffles me that marxists will dismiss anarchist ideas using the exact same talking points that liberals use to dismiss communism.

Communism also failed to fend off capitalism - and before you say b-but actually the USSR lasted a really long time, ask yourself if the USSR at any point actually lived up to the ideals of the revolution. We should be focusing on finding new solutions that work, and being dismissive of anarchist ideas doesn't help.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Communism also failed to fend off capitalism

That is true: in quite a few cases—most in fact—it only lasted about 70 years. Cuba has lasted about that long and is still standing, and China even longer. Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos are also still standing.

Fending off imperialism, “the highest stage of capitalism,” is no mean feat. They’ll do almost everything in their power to crush socialism. The imperial core countries are in decline right now, so it may get easier should the trend continue. They’ve significantly deindustrialized themselves, and they’re losing their grip on the periphery states.

We should be focusing on finding new solutions that work

Sure, but no other solutions have worked so far.

being dismissive of anarchist ideas doesn’t help

I mean, show us a win and you’ll have our attention, otherwise I don’t see why we shouldn’t be dismissive. Seize the state and fend off imperialist forces for an appreciable length of time through horizontal organizing.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Communism also failed to fend off capitalism - and before you say b-but actually the USSR lasted a really long time,

The USSR being couped didn't stop it from sponsoring revolutionary movements around the globe until the coup. The US still hasn't defeated places like Cuba. In this sense the project still lives on.

ask yourself if the USSR at any point actually lived up to the ideals of the revolution.

Yes, in many ways. In some ways it did not.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is one of the tests of reading Marx, somehow it's nearly always evident if someone use the term "primitive" about level of development or is just spewing racism. Problem is that liberals, ultras and such cannot differentiate between the two, but i guess it's their problem.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i guess it’s their problem.

Man I wish.

I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You know this meme ain't what you think it is, when you notice what Huey holds in his hands while correctly talking to libs.

And even without it, it still isn't this case, i'm perfectly ok to explain the definition when question arise. I'm not ok to stop using marxist vocabulary to explain marxism.