Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
It's the opposite. Most MLs in the West were raised to believe in the West inherent superiority and developed all the socialized habits of minimizing or excusing atrocities as errors in judgment or outright denying them as anti-West propaganda. We have spent many years dismantling this, and each step of the way we are faced with contradictions and nuance.
What eventually happens is that people need to find a worldview, a framework, a set of theories that can situate the facts as they discover them into a coherent picture. Marxism-Leninism is one such framework. Under that framework, we start to see that while nuance is critical and cannot be ignored, there are indeed overarching patterns that guide things and staying stuck in small scope details is insufficient.
For example, let's take the nuance of the embargo on Cuba. First, I think everyone is now clear that the US is starving Cuba. This was not clear to many people until recently. Some still deny it. But it is also true that until recently the greatest amount of aid to Cuba was also provided by the US, particularly through Catholic Charities. We can stay mired in these nuances for a long time - did Cuba make bad decisions with their investment in their economy, why don't other countries trade more with Cuba, how much does the US actually provide to Cuba, how much US wealth was appropriated by the revolution...
But the nuance, while real, is not important to communicating and articulating a position on what's happening. The US is killing children, sick, and elderly all over Cuba through modern-day siege warfare and it needs to stop, it needed to stop 60 years ago, it was never justifiable, it was never reasonable.
We have to deal with nuance all the time, because we are constantly bombarded with specially crafted narratives that pull out all sorts of specifics that feed into the US State Dept narrative and we have to constantly research, analyze, situate, and integrate all sorts of phenomena into the world view. It's exhausting just dealing with the constant stream of propaganda, but then on top of that we have the propaganda amplification done by true believers and by unexamined believers. We are constantly confronted with nuance and contradictions that are real or imaginary or exaggerated or understated and we process it. Becoming an ML in the West is a huge exercise in nuance. Nuance is how we get to the place where we are willing to be open-minded about potentially having our beliefs about the world changed. And then eventually some of us determine that we need a unifying theory and the MLism fits the bill. And then we turn around and try to communicate the overarching theory and conclusions and get told we don't understand nuance.
I see a lot of agreement, not "the opposite" in this post. You talk a lot about nuance but didn't cite an example when you'd use it to navigate a difficult subject to grasp, or what that might look like. You also lean into the America bad trope without showing you can do any different. If it is opposite then make that point, not the word salad of how hard it is to be a ML and be right all the time, btw on topics the left very broadly agrees about as your examples.
Cuba's embargo is not supported by the left. If you'd like to expand more on my points, then what good does attacking AOC as AOCIA bring to the cause of Cuba's starvation?
Just because you agree with me on my points doesn't mean they aren't nuance.
What good does deriding AOC do? Well, the ML strategy with electoralism is to demonstrate that electoralism doesn't work. AOC has some history of working with CIA carve outs and she has a tendency to be quite performative in her politics. But we don't really think individual Congress people have any real power to change anything. No one really cares if you vote for her or not. But if you try to use her as an example of how voting can change things, we're going to point out her history and her record and sow the field with the ideas that honestly she's just another sheepdog like Bernie is, attracting organizing power, labor and effort when it needs to be directed at revolution.
I don't know why the standard should be that I can tie deriding individual politicians to the Cuba situation. That doesn't make a lot of sense. That's less "nuance" and more "arbitrary bullshit".
Wouldn't a full fledged abandonment of electoralism, the kind that would be required to look at AOC as an enemy, just be excellerationism? I guess if your loyalties are always strictly dismantling* US stability then you'd just view it as starving the beast. In this way you'd be pretty well aligned with incompetent fascists, since the US is in a spiraling decline that will now inevitably result in us losing our authority on the world stage. Just for different reasons than they would use I guess.
In that way, how can leftists take MLs seriously, when their world view is largely agreement, but their actions and attacks are directly opposed to democratic socialists a lot of the time. You also have to couple in that while you may attack fascists too, any division amongst the left is multiplied by 100x over divisions in the center or right since billionaires hold the microphone.
It's not really arbitrary when those you agree most with are also in your crosshairs on actions of substance. It's also very telling that most situation here on Lemmy that at least I see ML presence it's on these edge cases, rather than things like Rick Scott almost single handedly showing a failure of electoral politics when he created the nations biggest organized Medicaid fraud ring, something people being polled seem to care about, and then was elected into office anyways as an equal to Bernie Sanders. Is this a blind spot on my part or do you feel calling out the best representatives as more impact for your message that the system sucks? What we see is us working and you complaining.
Edit: word missing.
A group that is quite problematic.