• Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should check out Vincent Bevins’ book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who’ve been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They’ve since changed their mind.

        • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know a single communist who supports Russia or Putin. Why would they support a capitalist state? Do you mean that they argue why, in historical materialist terms, war between Russia and the West has been caused by western expansion? In that case, they are explaining geopolitical movements to our current situation, not supporting Russia if that makes sense. I can see how “critical support” against American imperialism (eg, support with heavy criticism) can come off as being “pro-Russia” from the outside, but it really is just explaining, contra the neoliberal take on geopolitical war, why war is happening. Communists don’t approach international politics as good vs bad, they are far more nuanced which can be read as “pro” things they aren’t. Does that make sense? I am inebriated

        • motherfucker [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          During World War I, Lenin advocated for a position called “Revolutionary Defeatism”, the idea that the working class does not benefit from sacrificing themselves for the sake of winning a bourgeois war, and that if the working class is organized, a war which is lost presents more of an opportunity for civil war to escalate into proletarian revolution than a war which is won.

          I believe this is the stance of most people discussing Russia-Ukraine here, although delving into that seems like an easy way to get off topic.

          I’ll second the Jakarta Method. It’s a very stark picture of what we are up against as people who believe in the abolition of money, among other things.

        • ComradeCmdrPiggy [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia)

          Google “1993 constitutional crisis” to see where the correct channeling of hate for capitalism went.

          FWIW similar fates for leftists have occurred in Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other countries that hate the US but have ended up being run by highly reactionary factions.

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think you’re a really confused kid. I hope you read the Jakarta method, and hopefully at some point any book by an actual communist. Here’s a good one by Engel’s, its very short, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

          If you’re communist you should learn what that means. And probably not tell us what you think we believe. Just deciding you know what we believe and telling us that our whole ideology is about misplaced anger, and how we don’t make sense is actually a little authoritarian to borrow your language

    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      300 years after the revolution people who talk about ‘communism’ will be using your definition. For now when people say ‘communism’ they’re talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that’s been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you’re talking about, they’ve been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can’t have communism without class war. And if you don’t suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use ‘authority’.

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn’t matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are