No comment from me
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
86 points (96.7% liked)
GenZedong
4999 readers
124 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FWIW, I would probably take no issue on the "much of the world" phrasing if you reference it as "based on my recurring experience with others in the periphery." It makes it clear what your source is, while also still carrying a certain authoritative weight to it, to say that this is what keeps cropping up for you over and over. With the other phrasing, my bullshit meter goes off and I have to wonder if the person isn't just pulling it out of their backside, no matter how much good faith I may or may not have in them as a person.
Right and I understand the impotence of that and am not in disagreement there. However, I still don't think parade is appropriate phrasing for every type of it. There is protest that probably fits that description well and then there is protest that is more spontaneous and faces more of a reaction and political repression than otherwise. That the state is willing to do violence in the face of any of it shows that it's not all state-sanctioned and choreographed and some of it is at most the state grudgingly allowing it to a certain degree it finds acceptable.
I think it would be safe to say the liberal capitalist apparatus only wants to allow the "parade" style of protest. But I think it would be inaccurate to say that's the only style that ever occurs. It may be fair to say they're all impotent styles regardless, considering the seeming lack of any resultant change that holds as a broader challenge. But I still don't think they all qualify as parade-like in the definition you use.
I think where we’re talking past each other, I’m not claiming Western protest takes only one empirical form. There are broadly two recurring styles in my view. One is the riot: spontaneous, emotionally charged, sometimes violent, often met with sharp repression, but lacking durable organization, coherent leadership, concrete demands, or any capacity to sustain itself beyond the moment. The other is the parade: non-violent, usually permitted or tolerated, more organized on the surface, but structurally hollow, no leverage, no escalation strategy, no consequences for being ignored. I focus on the “parade” not because riots don’t happen, but because parades are culturally and politically dominant in the West. They are normalized, celebrated, taught as the legitimate form of dissent, and elevated in the cultural zeitgeist as the model of “good protest.” That makes them far more analytically significant. They shape how people understand politics, what kinds of action are deemed acceptable, and crucially what kinds are ruled out in advance. Neither form, however, really qualifies as protest in a meaningful political sense. Both lack what actually matters: mass organization, enforceable demands, and a credible threat of escalation if ignored or repressed. One burns hot and collapses; the other marches safely and dissipates. The state can absorb both without fear. That’s the core issue. The problem isn’t tone or terminology, it’s that Western protest culture is seemingly structurally incapable of converting mass discontent into anything other than showmanship.
This is such a banger of a comment that if you ever get the chance please flesh it out into a post/substack/essay series etc and also with what you propose should happen from a dialectical materialist perspective (with citations etc). Only if you ever get the chance/time.
(If the person you're replying to reads this: please don't take this personally from me against you. I too am still learning and your posts are always an interesting read.)
Thank you for your reply I would like to go much more in depth at some point as I find it to be a very interesting topic but for now I think I'll simply point to a book and an essay that I feel each encapsulate part of the issue.
First is Guy Debord The Society of the Spectacle, this I feel brings to light the issue in advanced capitalist countries for spectacle to replace real action and interaction.
Second is Jones Manoel Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture, which I feel succinctly explains in some way why even the western left falls prey to the spectacular yet materially ineffectual parades and riots as opposed to real organized protest with mass organisation, concrete demands and an escalation plan.
As for “what is to be done,” as much as I'd love to simply say form a maoist guerilla force and overthrow your overlords, I don’t think the real answer is that interesting or that novel a concept even in the west. Politically meaningful protest (even in the West) has historically depended on mass organization, clear material demands, and a credible threat of escalation. During the civil rights movement, disciplined organizations like the NAACP and CORE coordinated sustained action, while local militant currents, such as the Deacons for Defense, made repression costly and instability plausible. Later organizations, including the Black Panther Party, built on these lessons, demonstrating how escalation coupled with strong organization could influence political outcomes. Without comparable structures, leverage, and escalation potential, protest tends to collapse into either brief outbursts or sanctioned displays, both of which the state can safely absorb.
Second one I am familiar with but the first I am not; thanks for the recommendation
For What Is To Be Done: I don't think we collectively we have an answer that does not end up being waiting for Global South spearheaded accelerationism but the latter is not good enough from a Westerner perspective - a materialist political movement also has to come from within as well. But as marxists we should make/stake claims in theory, even with the risk of being "wrong", and feel the response/heat we get from it to fine tune our practice (ie dialectics).
Lemmygrad is still susceptible to westernism (despite it being arugable one of, if not the best, reddit-like forums on the anglosphere. And I too am guilty of this) and comments like yours are excellent analyses of symptoms.
In the end the synthesis of theory and practice to sharpen and refine each other should be the main aim as highlighted by every successful revolutionary from Stalin to Ho to Chairman Mao. All I can realistically currently do for the Western left is wish them luck and provide critique and observation from a hopefully at least somewhat novel perspective.