I’m not, I’m responding to the comment directly. I suppose you could argue that their comment was vague enough that they could claim to be talking about a specific group in a clarification, but as it stands they seem to be lashing out against the left in general. Further, when people treat voting as their primary means of political engagement, they do check out! I’m not denying that people can organize while voting for the DNC, many people do, but the problem is that most see voting for the DNC as their primary political agency, and not a pressure valve designed to siphon away agitation against the system itself.
Their comment was very clearly talking specifically about tankies who want to “well acktyually” people on “Theory” while being the textbook definition of useful idiots helping the fascists. That behavior isn’t encouraging people to organize; it’s discouraging them from it because if organizing means dealing with that sort of condescension then they want no part of it!
Everybody but you understood that. You’re the only one who’s so fucking full of yourself you think you’re entitled to speak for the entire Left!
The point of trying to bring theory to people isn’t to get a cheap gotcha, it’s to try to bring the general level of political education of people up, from the base level of general instinct to an informed and scientific approach to social change. If someone is being condescending in their approach, then they are doing it wrong.
I’m not sure why you’re lying about me claiming to speak for the entire left, I claimed the opposite. I speak for myself, and can at minimum self-identify as a Marxist-Leninist.
The point of trying to bring theory to people isn’t to get a cheap gotcha, it’s to try to bring the general level of political education of people up, from the base level of general instinct to an informed and scientific approach to social change. If someone is being condescending in their approach, then they are doing it wrong.
You are condescending in your approach. You are doing it wrong. Take the hintexplicit notification.
Further, when people treat voting as their primary means of political engagement, they do check out!
Citation needed. If this is the basis of why you think Voting Bad then you’re going to have to back that up with some science. Not quoting Lenin, I want a solid peer reviewed study.
If you don’t have that your entire reasoning falls on a hunch and vibes.
Personally I think voting helps people become more politically engaged, not less.
Since when did I say “voting bad?” I said that electoralism cannot bring about the change that is necessary. Regardless, the issue is that focusing political engagement on voting over organizing is what deflates organizational pressures, not the act of voting itself. Are you actually reading my arguments?
I never said that, though. Try directly responding to what I directly said. The problem isn’t the act of voting, it’s the treating of voting like it’s in fact the end-all be-all, like the DNC is the primary means by which any progress can be won, rather than an obstacle to progress.
The closest direct source I found suggests that there is a negative correlation between system-justifying beliefs and collective anti-system action. If people believe voting legitimately is a means by which they can enact social change, they are less likely to organize against the system itself. This does not mean voting itself is against organizing, in fact organizers vote at higher rates than non-organizers. The importance here is that collective action is diminished when that is directed towards engaging with the system itself.
Even reading through the abstract, this study is irrelevant to what we’re talking about here. They did a study that showed how people who are against the system and protest the system will inevitably butt heads with people who want to keep the system, the status quo.
Nowhere is it talking about voting, and that voting causes people to stop organizing.
The fact you said you “found” it instead of having that information on hand, and that you had to stretch to say this proves your theory means what I thought from the start.
The whole “people who vote will organize less” theory you state as absolute, the whole basis of your criticism, is made up. You assumed that this was true instead of checking. Shameful.
The closest direct source I found suggests that there is a negative correlation between system-justifying beliefs and collective anti-system action. If people believe voting legitimately is a means by which they can enact social change, they are less likely to organize against the system itself. This does not mean voting itself is against organizing, in fact organizers vote at higher rates than non-organizers. The importance here is that collective action is diminished when that is directed towards engaging with the system itself.
They call out a cluster of traits as being bad. The only sane way to parse their comment is to interpret it as only applying to people who have all those traits. You’re doing something equivalent to demanding someone clarify that they didn’t mean they hated all food when they complained about not liking things that are sweet.
They are targeting a vague group that they claim has these traits. There’s no direct attack on any ideology specifically, nor any instance specifically, so we have to fill in the gaps and see it for what it is: an attack on instances like dbzer0, Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net, as well as the ideologies of those instances, those generally being anarchism and Marxism-Leninism. Their position is that these are dominating flaws of specific instances, not merely a random type of person with an unspecified level of influence.
🎶 One of those things is not like the others, one of those things just doesn’t belong 🎵
See, this is the sort of shit I was complaining about in my other comments: you conflating diametrically opposite ideologies (anarchists and authoritarians, in this case) and claiming that the whole group of them was being attacked when that just isn’t fucking true.
The central theme among those 4 is an opposition to electoralism as a strategy, and a focus on revolutionary practice. They form the broader “left,” including other instances like Anarchist.Nexus, etc. I am aware that Marxism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed when it comes to the question of communalization vs. collectivization, but Marxists and anarchists do share the central opposition to capitalism and reformism.
Anyone who’s been on Lemmy for more than a month will either recognise exactly the group of users they’re referring to, or themselves be part of the group. You’re right to think they’re attacking a group that you’re part of, as you’re the first person who’d come to most people’s mind if asked to suggest an example of a user with those traits. You’ve also managed to contradict one of your earlier comments in this thread where you claimed the comment was against the entirety of leftist thought, as you’ve correctly deduced that they’re not complaining about anarchist instances like db0 that don’t describe themselves as Marxist-Leninist.
They are complaining about dbzer0, as anarchist instances also advocate for revolution rather than electoralism. That’s the focus of this meme, after all. I also don’t think I’m that well-known, certainly a few people seem to obsess over me but if you asked random users they would likely have no idea who I am. I also disagree that I exemplify the traits described, people tend to attack my character over what I actually say.
Why are you lying about what the upstream commenter was doing?
Also, fuck all the way off with the fallacious bullshit notion that you can’t organize outside the system and also still vote anyway!
I’m not, I’m responding to the comment directly. I suppose you could argue that their comment was vague enough that they could claim to be talking about a specific group in a clarification, but as it stands they seem to be lashing out against the left in general. Further, when people treat voting as their primary means of political engagement, they do check out! I’m not denying that people can organize while voting for the DNC, many people do, but the problem is that most see voting for the DNC as their primary political agency, and not a pressure valve designed to siphon away agitation against the system itself.
Their comment was very clearly talking specifically about tankies who want to “well acktyually” people on “Theory” while being the textbook definition of useful idiots helping the fascists. That behavior isn’t encouraging people to organize; it’s discouraging them from it because if organizing means dealing with that sort of condescension then they want no part of it!
Everybody but you understood that. You’re the only one who’s so fucking full of yourself you think you’re entitled to speak for the entire Left!
The point of trying to bring theory to people isn’t to get a cheap gotcha, it’s to try to bring the general level of political education of people up, from the base level of general instinct to an informed and scientific approach to social change. If someone is being condescending in their approach, then they are doing it wrong.
I’m not sure why you’re lying about me claiming to speak for the entire left, I claimed the opposite. I speak for myself, and can at minimum self-identify as a Marxist-Leninist.
You are condescending in your approach. You are doing it wrong. Take the
hintexplicit notification.Can you give an example of how I am being condescending?
deleted by creator
Citation needed. If this is the basis of why you think Voting Bad then you’re going to have to back that up with some science. Not quoting Lenin, I want a solid peer reviewed study.
If you don’t have that your entire reasoning falls on a hunch and vibes.
Personally I think voting helps people become more politically engaged, not less.
Since when did I say “voting bad?” I said that electoralism cannot bring about the change that is necessary. Regardless, the issue is that focusing political engagement on voting over organizing is what deflates organizational pressures, not the act of voting itself. Are you actually reading my arguments?
You don’t have to directly say “voting bad” when you’re saying it causes people to check out and not organize. Where’s the study?
I never said that, though. Try directly responding to what I directly said. The problem isn’t the act of voting, it’s the treating of voting like it’s in fact the end-all be-all, like the DNC is the primary means by which any progress can be won, rather than an obstacle to progress.
Prove it.
The closest direct source I found suggests that there is a negative correlation between system-justifying beliefs and collective anti-system action. If people believe voting legitimately is a means by which they can enact social change, they are less likely to organize against the system itself. This does not mean voting itself is against organizing, in fact organizers vote at higher rates than non-organizers. The importance here is that collective action is diminished when that is directed towards engaging with the system itself.
Even reading through the abstract, this study is irrelevant to what we’re talking about here. They did a study that showed how people who are against the system and protest the system will inevitably butt heads with people who want to keep the system, the status quo.
Nowhere is it talking about voting, and that voting causes people to stop organizing.
The fact you said you “found” it instead of having that information on hand, and that you had to stretch to say this proves your theory means what I thought from the start.
The whole “people who vote will organize less” theory you state as absolute, the whole basis of your criticism, is made up. You assumed that this was true instead of checking. Shameful.
I’m also curious about evidence for this, if you have it. It seems self-evident to me (and also irrelevant tbh), but it’d be nice to know/have anyway
The closest direct source I found suggests that there is a negative correlation between system-justifying beliefs and collective anti-system action. If people believe voting legitimately is a means by which they can enact social change, they are less likely to organize against the system itself. This does not mean voting itself is against organizing, in fact organizers vote at higher rates than non-organizers. The importance here is that collective action is diminished when that is directed towards engaging with the system itself.
They call out a cluster of traits as being bad. The only sane way to parse their comment is to interpret it as only applying to people who have all those traits. You’re doing something equivalent to demanding someone clarify that they didn’t mean they hated all food when they complained about not liking things that are sweet.
They are targeting a vague group that they claim has these traits. There’s no direct attack on any ideology specifically, nor any instance specifically, so we have to fill in the gaps and see it for what it is: an attack on instances like dbzer0, Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net, as well as the ideologies of those instances, those generally being anarchism and Marxism-Leninism. Their position is that these are dominating flaws of specific instances, not merely a random type of person with an unspecified level of influence.
🎶 One of those things is not like the others, one of those things just doesn’t belong 🎵
See, this is the sort of shit I was complaining about in my other comments: you conflating diametrically opposite ideologies (anarchists and authoritarians, in this case) and claiming that the whole group of them was being attacked when that just isn’t fucking true.
The central theme among those 4 is an opposition to electoralism as a strategy, and a focus on revolutionary practice. They form the broader “left,” including other instances like Anarchist.Nexus, etc. I am aware that Marxism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed when it comes to the question of communalization vs. collectivization, but Marxists and anarchists do share the central opposition to capitalism and reformism.
Anyone who’s been on Lemmy for more than a month will either recognise exactly the group of users they’re referring to, or themselves be part of the group. You’re right to think they’re attacking a group that you’re part of, as you’re the first person who’d come to most people’s mind if asked to suggest an example of a user with those traits. You’ve also managed to contradict one of your earlier comments in this thread where you claimed the comment was against the entirety of leftist thought, as you’ve correctly deduced that they’re not complaining about anarchist instances like db0 that don’t describe themselves as Marxist-Leninist.
They are complaining about dbzer0, as anarchist instances also advocate for revolution rather than electoralism. That’s the focus of this meme, after all. I also don’t think I’m that well-known, certainly a few people seem to obsess over me but if you asked random users they would likely have no idea who I am. I also disagree that I exemplify the traits described, people tend to attack my character over what I actually say.
Those people are not the average Lemmy user.
Depends on the instance.
Removed by mod
I don’t bring anyone to brigade threads, lmao. Believe it or not, I have nowhere near the influence you claim I do.