this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
91 points (93.3% liked)
chapotraphouse
13949 readers
649 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No one is good enough for you people.
I get that this comes from the fact that no one on the left has figured out how to gain power here. It's just very tiring to see people shit on anyone who doesn't subscribe to the exact left ideology you all have or follow the exact steps you think it will take to win.
You say "organize" but you also don't have a plan that works. Asking people to read Marx and join your book club is all fine and dandy but it ain't starting a revolution. You don't have it figured out and neither does anyone else!
How about we wait for the guy to actually take office (and make sure he beats Cuomo again) and see how he acts before putting our noses in the air? Maybe some of the theory got it wrong, especially the stuff written nearly 200 years ago, and we should be open to trying different approaches?
Zohran has potential but AOC is dead in the water, she's out of touch and subsumed by DC think tank thinking
In fact because of the unfortunate timing between her capitulation and Zohran's slip up, she's actively dragging him down and demoralizing the base all around
Zohran made a tactical ploy to get the media off his back that may or may not pay out
AOC on the otherhand is making another poltical error in a long line of unbroken political errors and justifying it through nonsensical appeals to "pragmatism", she's not dangerous or anti-progressive because of what she believes (God only know what she actaully believes in her heart) she's dangerous because she's politically inept and tries to lead the left toward deadends, she's a demoralizer whether intentional or not
I'm gonna be real with you, if you can't even get the time period right for when most socialist theory was written, then frankly I'm not gonna take your opinions on the efficacy of theory seriously
My bad, I rounded 157 years to "nearly 200". Can we not do the debate nerd thing and talk about substance rather than nitpicking a date a book was published?
If you're not gonna take your own argument seriously, why should I? The difference between 200 and 157 is the same difference between today and Martin Luther King's assassination, quite alot of history in between
WHAT SUBSTANCE LMAO?!?! You haven't mentioned a single example of theory, you're so vague you're literally jumping centuries
It feels like a sort of orthodoxy when it comes to theory in left spaces. People treat these books almost the same way Christians treat their bibles. The book can't be wrong, only we can be wrong! Or we aren't applying the lessons right. Or Or Or...
Maybe we should approach readings and theory, especially political theory, with a critical lens instead of trying to copy what was done before? Material conditions change constantly, the people's mindsets are constantly shifting, our enemies are adapting. So should we. Use the theory as part of a toolbox along with actual action, along with electoralism, along with mutual aid, etc. Sometimes it has good lessons to apply and sometimes it's out-of-date and doesn't apply today.
You're just engaging in rhetoric, yes we should do the "critical lens" thing and not the "orthodox" thing......OK, that narrows things down
The problem is there's no substance behind anything you're saying, provide specific examples or articulate an actual argument concerning concrete theory you have an issue with, for all I know you could be talking about a dozen different philosophies
You're choosing not to read the substance that I posted.
What material action, out in the real world, have you done that has grown Socialism more than what Zohran is doing right now?
I think they means the particular criticism you levied says are approaching anti-orthodoxy rather than being a critical lens.
For example, in my argument, I mentioned that people are seeing parallels to previous attempts and how their electoral campaigning was broadly opportunistic. i.e. the mensheviks. You could counter that with the fact that the Bolsheviks where in alliance to them until conditions advanced where a split was needed and explain why that stance is appropriate here, here even if it isn't the most progressive ideological line but a more practical one.
Generally, the people railing against it, while some are just on an ideological bent, have criticisms in the fact they view both Bernie and AOC (particularly the latter) as the practical attempts of nominally socialist candidates using electoralism. How would you address this attempt as different?
Also the method that you're rhetoric is taking makes it come across as if you haven't read the theory because you're repeating things that are said in the theory as an argument against it.
You're also still leaning hard on the out of date rhetoric when I think that isn't particularly apt as out of date means that idea has no relevance now and will never again when evolving circumstances may make it more relevant thus being closer to contextually inappropriate instead of our of date.
For example, Mao believed that the unique situation in China called for alliance with their national bourgeois, and explained how that alliance is brought about and needed in works such as ON THE QUESTION OF THE NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE AND THE ENLIGHTENED GENTRY He then explains the conditions of contradiction that the individual landlord's had with systems of imperialism as well as how serving them to an extent can create a contextually needed Broader front against the ROC. It also ties into his writings ON NEW DEMOCRACY where he explains how the changing circumstances from the success of the Soviets modified the context of revolutions world wide and in the Chinese context it was paramount to cast off the chains of the semi-feudel and semi-colonial nature of Chinese society at the time. The contradictions brought about by imperialism and the opportunities brought by an active socialist state that was assisting in liberation struggles, they acted as a revolutionary force in their defiance of imperialists, and thus could be a revolutionary force whom could be utilized in the socialist struggle. He draws a distinction from the behavior of the Tsarists here who sought to ally with imperialists. This is the explanation for why new democracy is not necessarily on the same line that made revolutionary defeatism needed in the context of Russia.
I think what @CyborgMarx@hexbear.net is calling for (who can correct me if I'm wrong) is some sort of explanation as you why you believe parts of the theory are wrong and what conditions and contradicts are make it so.
I think so would be good for your point as nothing you said so far is in contradiction with any theory I've read so far, so I am a bit lost as to what exactly you're saying needs to be reanalyzed due to no longer having relevance.
Please show grace for any mistakes, writing this in suboptimal conditions and frankly don't feel like proofreading until I have a PC to access.
If anyone thinks parts of my analysis have issues (particularly those better versed in Mao and new democracy than me) I welcome criticisms for my understanding.
Apologies if anything came out jumbled, long posting on phones sucks balls lmao
Same, lol
I just don't see a need to get this wound up over some dude running for office that had some great platform planks. Can't we just be optimistic for once? And if we can't, how about offering ways to mitigate the potential damage from this guy being a disappointment?
I want more revolutionary optimism around here, less nerding out over books, and more plain language instead of trying to talk like we're in a Parliament in 1870
I mean, I agree and sometimes the lines between genuine analysis and doomerism are blurred but most of the doomerism isn't even based in theory at all and just vaguely references it from like 3rd-hand accounts from what I've seen. It's just another way we lib-it up in here
I mean, I agree and sometimes the lines between genuine analysis and doomerism are blurred but most of the doomerism isn't even based in theory at all and just vaguely references it from like 3rd-hand accounts from what I've seen. It's just another way we lib-it up in here
You're making my point for me.
You all are too intellectual and not approachable for the average working person. I am not a great reader and honestly I couldn't get through "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" because the book was too hard to read. Ditto for Capital. How do you expect to grow a movement when you want to force people to read books that are way above the average person's intelligence? Most of this country reads at a 5th or 8th grade level.
So yeah, if I am putting theory into more simple terms it's because my brain automatically does that to help me personally understand things. We need to do more of that. Speak plainly and not like a Wikipedia article.
I wrote two iterations of this but decided to do this in an entertaining format.
The average working person doesn't puruse niche leftist alt tech internet forums that have a Marxist Leninists bent, frequently uses Maoist Standard English, and posts pics of pigs shitting on their balls.
This point need not apply because of course I don't fucking do theory analysis irl when trying to agitate You don't need the books to know the system wants to fuck you.
See above, you don't.
Okay but you said theory needs to be approached with a critical lens. Yes. Correct. This doesn't prove the merits of electoralism at all. All that I have seen in the form of support(?) is that theory is old.
You're framing it as against theory when nothing you said is necessarily so which is the core of my point. Some of that old theory arguably supports your stance, which is what I've seen Cyborg argue with. Would I be valid in decrying any use of electoralism as an outdated tool because the theory that supports it is old?
Also I have terrible internet rn so if you cover something I said here somewhere else feel free to link it instead of rewriting.
I'm not arguing in favor of electoralism! I'm arguing against this attitude that read to me as "Zohran isn't perfect so fuck him he is terrible let's have 5 threads tearing him apart"
That's bullshit AND bad tactics no matter what you believe.
It comes off as smug "know-it-all" speak I hear on the internet everywhere, especially when it comes to Politics. No one is good enough and obviously only your way is the right way so how dare this random in NYC does something?!?
I want constructive criticism and I'm here because this is a better place to post than
.
I was being a bit lazy with my use of electoralism, I primarily meant in favor of it as a tool. I think there are times where certain tools are more and less effective so meant electoralism as an effective tool for the moment but I digress.
And yeah you have a lot of smug internet leftism here too but frankly that's part of online based discourse.
Frankly I don't pay too much mind to those decrying him as 1. They likely aren't in NYC, 2. Dunking on him on hexbear has super little reach, 3. Hexbear seems to have generalized dunk culture in some of its roots so it's mostly frustration and vibes. I don't think many here would like many of the figures generally accepted here as progressive forces if they had to live in the same context.
All you said was "theory is bad because it's old", you didn't substantiate or contextualize anything, theory written 200 years ago as if age is automatically an argument against an idea, you've confused rhetoric for substance
So we're moving on from efficacy of theory to MY EFFICACY, interesting, also I'm the biggest Zohran supporter on this site, to the point I got banned a couple weeks ago over it, makes me think you didn't read my previous original comment
Zohran is an example of why theory matters and how a materialist analysis of power and politics can generate political energy where there was none before, Zohran is not a lib, the man follows the mass line religiously and zoomed in right away on food, transit and rent as the crucial municipal issues from which to organize grassroots working class support without falling into the machine politics trap
The man did his homework, maybe you should too, if you're such a fan
I remember talking to you about that ban lmao, it's crazy for you to be hit with the "what are you doing more than Zohran," after having to run a 1v20 in his favor mere weeks ago and you're actively in favor of him.
lol the gall of some people, I swear
I'm not online enough to follow bannings of random people 🤷♂️
I mean, no one implied you should have followed it, I tend not to but was mid discussion with Cyborg over the matter when the ban occurred which made things difficult. I do arguably spend too much time on this site during downtime but even I don't notice most bans, just hard not to when its mid conversation. I still do find it funny that that part of the argument—against arguably hexbear's staunches Zohran defender—was that they aren't doing more than Zohran. Cyborg, from my few interactions, believes what Zohran is doing is great and necessary under current conditions. There are criticisms but general alignment. That was something more of a "damn, that's crazyy," towards cyborg since I think with that context it is quite funny.
Yeah my bad. I think we actually agree on a lot and I'm just not coming across well. This place makes me feel dumb and sometimes I don't feel welcome here.
Fair, the core of my confusion is I am unable to draw the line used as argument against theory.
I am genuinely confused what about it you're trying to say is wrong about the theory. I used the Mao example earlier because it's an example of someone doing the type of explanation I thought would generally help others here understand your position better.
I need to be more clear. I'm not anti-theory and I am not pushing a specific criticism of any theory. What I am trying to say is that I get frustrated at people dunking on electoralism, implying the alternative is this kind of book club leftist that we have seen for decades.
I'm cautiously optimistic. Yeah I get politicians tend to co-opt talking points and then turn out to be different. But that's not everyone and I know there are good people out there who aren't going to AOC us. Maybe Zohran is a good one? Maybe he is another AOC?
Instead of endlessing banging that drum of caution can we find some constructive ways to handle that potential situation?
I think you need to cool down a bit.
We're agreeing on Zohran. My point is he got what, 10k people out to canvass and talk about freezing the rent while also giving a giant middle finger to the Dem establishment machine? That's actually doing something vs. The endless left pontificating over what someone said in a book that only nerds read.
I've been cool, you're the one calling me a nerd
Again, Zohran is a nerd that was inspired by those books, if you're under the impression that he just manifested his political abilities out of thin air and intuition, then you're misguided
The ability to build an effective analytic framework and policy map come from those books leftists "pontificate" about, you don't get 50k people canvassing and phone banking without the knowledge to comprehend and simplify complex ideas, that takes education and THEORY
OK I hear you... but also people don't have to read thousands of pages of dense theory to become left. If that us true then the left is cooked forever. That's not sustainable.
I shouldn't have to read every word of every theorist to know that bosses are screwing over workers. That's actually not a hard concept to grasp. I became a leftist because I saw all the bull that we deal with in day to day life and saw that the entire mainstream political system has no solutions to it. It was the Dems failing to do anything that really materially helped. I think you have this backwards... material conditions can push people to want to learn more and get more involved in the left. But also don't be the people that shit on anyone left of Mayor Pete and expect people to suddenly want to join your reading group!
I imagine a majority of Hexbear has never read Kapital in full, but they're still leftists. The point isn't that every leftist should tons of theory, but if you're in a position to actually make change (like Zohran) you should have read quite a bit of theory, so you can put that theory in action, or even maybe write that theory yourself (like Stalin, Mao, Lenin, etc.).
Think about the Vangaurd/Proletariat split. Some people understanding theory is important, so that theory can be applied and applied correctly, but the vast majority only need a simpler understanding so they can spend their time at the task at hand.
You don't need theory to become a leftist, but applying theory can make you a more effective leftist, and strengthen ideological cohesion.
how much theory have you even read, be honest please.
also, you're an american, please, please, PLEASE stop going along with the omnipresent anti-intellectualism present in american society, the number 1 thing you should never tell or even slightly imply to americans is that we dont need to study theory (and develop our own)
I haven't read enough theory to pass the purity test on here. I've read plenty but that hasn't led to a single person getting free bussing or feeding anyone or taking out any conservative in power..
That's part of the problem with the left. Too much intellectualism and not enough praxis! Reading is great, go do that. But also go outside and talk to people who are working these minimum wage jobs, agitate, teach, harass a local business owner, raise hell at your county commission meeting, etc. Fact is Zohran is doing more praxis walking a block in NYC than every book club I've ever been a part of!
"I haven't read Marx's Capital but I have the marks of capital all over my body."
Hey, no one is stopping you and this is broadly internet debates and forum posting. If you think electoralism is the way you're wasting breath trying to convince the hardliners here.
Though I do think it is a bit disingenuous to pretend everything is just blind nose-holding; I've seen legitimate grievances regarding the politicking and moderation regarding Israel.
Also blindly implying that the theory may be wrong, particularly because of its age, isn't particularly strong rhetoric when the issues people have with the electorist methodology is exactly why they failed in progressing via that route in previous AES attempts or became Socdem states at best. As well as fact that the same rhetoric was also used for defending AOC and Bernie.
I'm not even saying you're wrong per-se, but it's the same whining as the so called purity testers. If you have issues with it I don't see a point in engaging this way; analysis into why current conditions may better favor a focus on electoralism, or just laughing and turning off the screen, would be preferable no?
I hear you. Sometimes I post as a way to vent. There's a lot of negativity and concern posting over Zohran and I don't think it's productive.
I'm not 100% for or against electoralism. I believe electoralism, just like other tactics, is a tool that makes sense to use based on the material conditions and the political climate of the area. In some places it can work, and I'm seeing that with the surge is DSA membership, renewed talks for a "dirty break" from the Democrats, talk of DSA forming a separate party! There's also times and places where this is NOT the right tactic and focusing on something like growing a community garden or organizing a Starbucks is a much better use of comrades' time.
What would be a better way to approach Zohran for the non-electoralists: How can we as activists work with this material situation? How does this change our talking points? How do we agitate people beyond just voting? What can we do to make sure Mayor Zohran keeps his promises? How do we fight back and pressure the business class and the people, cops, etc who we know will push back against his policies? How do we continue to push public sentiment so that the next Zohran doesn't feel pressured to disavow "globalized the intifada?"
Less criticism, more adaptation & tactics please.