Memes

53840 readers

1359 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

sexy_peach@feddit.de

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

133

Am I wrong?? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by hamid@crazypeople.online to c/memes@lemmy.ml

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

but prevalent idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary, as they would have more of a petite-bourgeois ideology based on their largely self-driven living conditions.

I guess hindsight 20/20, but I had always figured they were referring to the landed peasants like kulaks or sub-kulaks. Seems incongruous that peasants in poverty would be counterrevolutionary.

Trotsky also rejected that a country itself could be socialist, as he believed internationally the system being capitalist would cause a reversion to capitalism eventually.

Kinda agree with this to an extent.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A big part of Marxism is understanding that existing as a given class makes you more conducive to certain ways of thinking. The way we live shapes the way we think, essentially, and the peasantry are generally more individualist than the proletariat. However, without confirming in reality, some took it to mean that the peasantry would oppose socialism if they weren't already proletarianized. It isn't quite as stupid as it sounds.

As for a system reverting to capitalism by existing in a capitalist global economy, that's partially true, but Trots take it to mean that all socialist countries are generally highly flawed to outright bad. The way to build socialism though requires building these countries up and eroding imperialism, like what China is doing, not by endlessly hoping and praying for a western revolution.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

However, without confirming in reality, some took it to mean that the peasantry would oppose socialism if they weren't already proletarianized. It isn't quite as stupid as it sounds.

I can see how someone unfamiliar with the countryside could make the assumption. However, as a person who's lived and worked on a farm it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Farming communities are extremely interdependent on the local community to get just about anything done. No one person or family can work the land by themselves, it really does take a community if you're not a wealthy land holder.

Trots take it to mean that all socialist countries are generally highly flawed to outright bad

Yeah.... He was a messy bitch about a lot of things. Really a mixed bag of conflicting ideas in that little dude.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Communalist, not collectivist. Tiny cells of interdependent local groups are different from the large, widespread connections of socialism.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right.... But one could say the same about the proletariat pre-revolution.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

No, proletarian production is more socialized, as is proletarian ideology. It's part of why cities and rural areas have different political views.