Rules TBD.
where do you stand on the socialist spectrum? i'll start: my socialist views are a fusion of market socialism, welfarism, georgism and left-libertarianism - i took the leftvalues quiz (as shown in the photo attached in this post), and i got "centrist marxism". you DON'T have to take the quiz though.
EDIT: i just added the link
Some people were right, apparently I am indeed a council communist.
Idc thou I am a still communist at the end
To explain my positions:
While sometimes reform can make advancements, the important part is that a Marxist must advocate for Revolution. Participation in Bourgeois elections is necessary to build a mass movement, but Marxists should never give them the legitimacy of claiming that their power will come from winning those elections.
Utopian Socialism is infantile. Socialism must be based in scientific, Marxist principles or you are at best a progressive Liberal. When your ideology is based in utopian ideals instead of scientific processes, you will make yourself unable to take the necessary steps to shepherd a Socialist society when it sometimes requires concessions.
Centralism is necessary, at least in the developing stage of Socialism, in order to combat reaction and quickly advance productive forces. Similarly to the Utopian vs. Scientific debate, perhaps decentralized authority would be preferable in a perfect world, and may be pursued in the latter stateless stages of Communism, but spells death and inefficiency in the short term. The failure of the Spanish Republicans to effectively ensure their mutual defense is the chief historical example
I don't believe that Nationalism or Patriotism are inherently un-Marxist concepts, and can be encouraged among the masses to increase loyalty to the Socialist state. But Communists, especially those within the imperial core, must always remember that Imperialist oppression inevitably turns inward - and that when you preserve those Imperialistic policies under a Socialist state, you are preserving systems of oppression that will eventually demand expansion back into the motherland. In other words: flags and military parades are fine, but you must also support your international brethren, at least within the imperial core.
Under Socialism there should be a dialectic struggle between trade unions and the Party. Trade Unions, being non-ideological entities, will inevitably become a reactionary force under a Socialist government. In the stage of international struggle, the needs of the party must come first. But after, they must settle into a dialectic struggle - the Party ensuring the health of society as a whole with the Unions ensuring the rights and happiness of the workers.
I do not believe in silly notions about the value of the natural world beyond what is supported by scientific principles. So long as we have parks for the people to enjoy, the climate is stabilized, and the trees are producing enough oxygen for our breath and industry, the natural world has no inherent utility. Believing that the natural world is more important than building the productive forces necessary for the victory of Socialism and the happiness of the people is Eco-Fascism, even if those who believe in it paint themselves with an Anarchist or Socialist veneer.
I won't spend too long on this point. Social progress is good and I do not need to explain why. But, especially in the early stages, Socialists must not turn too hard against traditional ways of life that practiced by the majority of people or cultural minorities. Crush the power of religious institutions, but do not demolish the churches. Encourage secular cohabitation, but do not outlaw marriage. Create public cafeterias to end kitchen slavery, but do not ban the sale of cookbooks.
just started but man I find the questions already a bit wierd. "has no right to" with options that are neutral agree/disagree and strong version. Its hard to answer that without it being extreme due to phrasing. if the instead said like shouldn't then you could click agree without it sounding like there are no exceptions. no right to makes the stronly options sorta pointless.
i'm actually non-binary, and i prefer gender-neutral and feminine terms. seriously!
Fun quiz, thanks for sharing. I got Left-Wing Nationalism which is weird because I wouldn't say I'm a nationalist at all 😅
"Inefficiency and bureaucracy are inherent in a centrally planned economy."
I mean... I'm pretty sure inefficiency and bureaucracy are inherent in any system that includes human beings with free will, so...
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, here are my results.
This test isn't to tell you what you are, but instead what the test maker thinks you are. What you are is ultimately up to you. If you or anyone else wants to get started on reading Marxist-Leninist theory, I made an introductory reading list.
@DylanMc6@lemmy.ml This is me: Eco-Anarchists unite.
I was 3.2% from joining you 😁
more ecological than the last time, because of you know waves hand at the everything
Funny, I wouldn't consider myself an "Orthodox Marxist," I'd say that my positions have been influenced more by Lenin, if anything I tend to view Marx as somewhat dated and inaccessible. I just mean to say, a lot has happened since Marx was alive and it's important to look at what has been tried and what has succeeded and failed rather than rigidly adhering to, well, "Orthodox" Marxism.
I'm a self-described anarcho-syndicalist, but anarcho-communist was in the next closest matches with 91%. I'll take that 🏴
Mine were probably similar to most people's here. I wasn't sure about a lot of the more nuts and bolts questions. I tend to call myself a Marxist. I strongly believe that you need a state to fight a state, and that anarchism is skipping some steps. My ideology is yellow parenti lmao
sowwy its wide idk why that happened
Here's mine.
Eco anarchism I think isn't quite right, I'd actually identify as an anarcho-communist, maybe anarcho-syndicalist. I do love communism and it's literature but I think history teaches us that central authority is simply too easily abused. I'm still reading and learning though, anyone wanna shill their views to me? Maybe share a book?
I'd argue history proves the necessity of socialist countries to adopt a state and a centrally planned economy to protect against outside terrorism. The USSR was invaded by over a dozen capitalist countries right as it was being formed, that shaped their defenses and structures going forward. If you or anyone else wants to get started on reading Marxist-Leninist theory, I made an introductory reading list.
Without coming to blows arguing historical fact I just can't swing ML. I've read Marx (or better yet, continuing to read Marx) and the man spits straight fire, so does Lenin, hell even stalin at times. But! I'm too disgusted by the atrocities wrought in their names, intended or not it's just too many dead for me. I'm much more interested in how ML can evolve and change into something that's much more adaptable to outside pressure without falling victim to the corruption of centralised power. Keen to know your thoughts.
What specifically are you referring to as "the atrocities wrought in their names?" Who are these "too many dead?" Capitalists love framing Nazis killed by the Red Army and the like as "victims of communism," or deaths from famines that were primarily driven by forces outside communist control like adverse weather conditions. I'm not saying no excess has ever happened under communists, but I am saying that westerners distort it to a cartoonish degree in order to maintain cultural hegemony.
Hard agree capitalists and westerners hold more fear over communism than Nazism/fascism and that the truth of their history is often distorted however after reading Ivan's War I've become a lot more critical of how communism was executed in Russia. Additionally, there were a few extremely rotten individuals that were allowed to rise to prominence within the communist party that I think undermined its efforts. People like Beria and Lysenko terrify me and reveal how the wrong people in the wrong place can cause mass death in an authoritarian system.
