• yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Lisa’s only mistake was saying yes.

    Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.

    Proletariat? No, just “worker”.

    Bourgeoisie? No, just “elites”.

    Capital? “Stuff”. Like how in baseball they say a pitcher’s got good “stuff”. Use your human stuff.

    Class Consciousness - “common sense”.

    Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

    • afronaut@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 minutes ago

      Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

      Practical historical development?

      Definition: Practical historical development looks at how money, jobs, and resources shape how societies change over time. It shows that the ways people make things, the tools they use, and how resources are distributed build the base for how societies work. Instead of thinking that big ideas or beliefs drive history, this view shows that real-world conditions—like who has what resources and how work gets done—create the path for changes in society and politics.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

      The problem with many conservatives and regressives is that the only change to the status quo they seem content with are based on bigotry rather than economics.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.

      In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”

      As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.

      As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.

      • afronaut@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 minutes ago

        Personally, I’ve strived to adhere to the Einstein quote:

        If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

        This not only applies to theory but language in general. If you, an English speaker, wants to ally with someone who only speaks Mandarin, the two of you will need to figure out how to understand simple shared concepts first (“water”, “car”, “help”).

        Theory is the same. I don’t think we should completely do away with the proper verbiage. But, I do think we need to figure out how to translate our message in more ways than just language— I’m talking cultural. Because, right now, there are a lot of working class Americans who have been convinced that capitalist exploitation is American culture.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          Sure, I don’t see why these two concepts can’t be pushed together. Don’t hide your intentions or obscure them, but explain them clearly and directly, in an understandable manner.

          • afronaut@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            58 seconds ago

            You saw the Simpson meme above right? That’s not entirely an exaggeration. The “S” word is legitimately terrifying to both American conservatives and immigrants who fled dictatorships.

            It’s “explaining clearly and directly” that has been met with great resistance, actually. You forget we now live in a post-truth society.

    • The Spectre@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world “materialism”

    • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      You people have good luck with this? I haven’t. I don’t find that you can just “trick” people into believing in socialism by changing the words. The moment if becomes obvious you’re criticizing free markets and the rich and advocating public ownership they will catch on.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Correct, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.

        Being honest with what you want and why has a far better track record, we see this in Socialist revolutions and in mg own personal experience with outreach.