NumaNuma

joined 2 years ago
[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 7 months ago

There is a dialectic between theory (or head knowledge) and practice. To be a Marxist is to do both things, working through that dialectic to evolve yourself as a practicianer. Additionally, to be a Marxist in practice necessitates interaction with an organized group of other Marxists. This interaction will challenge you to resolve conflicts between ideas, theories, strategies and so forth and develop a practical version of democratic centralism for your organization.

Those who think that Marxism is just learning theory aren't actually practicing Marxism. They become purists and commit the error of dogmatism. Many Trotskyists fall into this camp (I won't say all Trotskyists, but I'm still looking for counter-examples). It's why a Trotskyists probably knows Marxist theory better than I do but is also the most useless leftist on the planet (and can often even become useful to the bourgeoisie!).

If you only ever read theory and do not put it into practice, you are simply doing so for some personal reasons, like to feel smarter than others because you have an insecurity. This is not just useless but dangerous because people like this can sound really smart and like they know what they're talking about for new leftists. But because they offer no real solution to the material problems of those around them nor any practical avenues for the proletariat to direct their anger and pain from capitalism towards revolutionary action, it drains the energy away from more serious praxis.

Praxis is the hard part. It's why many don't do it. But it's what actually makes any of this make sense.

"The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." — Karl Marx

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Does anybody have resources on AGI being a real possibilities beyond just a marketing term and, one day, just a mashup of various different things of AI?

I haven't read anything about AGI that isn't a "tech bro" kind of approach. Also, I don't see how AGI is anything more than a marketing term where, once enough shitty jobs are replaced by it, they'll hail it a success and that's pretty much it.

I want an AI, for example, to analyze the material conditions of a country and plan a Communist revolution for me. Can I have that? Will capitalism produce this for me?

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 11 months ago

Jokes on you, bot, I live in America, I don't have privacy!

 

Just excited to see this guy show up on my YT feed. I haven't watched him in years. Never knew what happened to him since his RT funding got cut by Russia sactions.

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

He's a gaffe machine.

 

I think I know the answer but just trying to get more definitive. It's been difficult for me to see the difference. It seems to be the same ideology at the end of the day. The only difference seems to be that Zionism (most forms) stay localized rather than claim racial superiority for the whole world. But maybe not?

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Tanks. Lots and lots of T-34s.

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why not ask the Chinese government?

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be clear, capital - the value produced from society that is cycled back into society to develop further surplus - isn't the problem, it's capital within capitalism. Capital doesn't have the "insatiable appetite" but rather capitalists, who control most of the capital, do. How we handle capital is a large part of what defines the system.

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 year ago

"What? Me? On equal ground with the dirty commoner? Good heavens, no!" - bourgeoisie

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

The communism my mother warned me about!

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Haha. Stalin's got a way with words for sure. But you are probably right about anarchists not reading him.

[–] NumaNuma@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's kind of what I was afraid of. I'm genuinely interested in a compelling critique. Like I mentioned, I haven't seen one. I still sympathize with anarchists but I truly don't understand how we do the switch-a-roo to communism with a snap. Like, nothing in history has worked that way, let alone, it would seem, a transition from class society to classless, arguably the greatest achievement of all time when it's done.

But, yeah, this is probably wrong place to ask. I'll seek out another Lemmy I guess.

 

Either the work of Lenin, State and Revolution, or the actual topics themselves. I'm an ML and have come to understand why the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary. But my anarchist comrades do not want that because of their authority issues. However, I have yet to see a convincing argument.

Basically, can anybody give me a resource for the anarchist perspective that debunks why, with still a class society, it's fine to do smash the state day 1 after the revolution? And how we would effectively prevent the state from reforming while still transforming culture and society away from class divisions (and all the problems emerging out of it)?

Not looking to debate this here but looking more for something to education myself better. I didn't go through anarchism, so there's a lot I'm likely ignorant of.

view more: next ›