Can people not understand definitions that are longer than 5 words?
I dont understand why people on lemmy are trying to remove the meaning of every specific word related to politics, leaving a million synonyms of the same general thing and no word for a specific ideology
you’ve got it backwards: politics changes with the times and too many of us are intentionally taught to use the old definitions that stopped being applicable well before our great great grandparents died.
Nazi still has meaning today, but that doesnt stop people from calling any right wing extremist a nazi
Also, whats the point of creating more synonyms?
nazi is still new enough to hand on to its original definition; fascism isn’t and doesn’t.
that applies to imperialism too.
plenty of anarcho-libs out there claiming to hate capitalism, while repeating cia talking points about china, venezuela, and so on.
imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism
Imperialism has changed quite a bit from Lenin, such as the current development of one large empire and several vassal states under it benefitting from imperialism. Lenin’s work is actually best translated as “current highest,” not “highest.” Economists like Cheng Enfu have developed theories of Neoimperialism, and Nkrumah with Neocolonialism.
I second this. I enjoyed reading Lenin’s Imperialism very much, but it also felt very dated (as it should, it’s well over 100 years old now). I can’t help but think that if Lenin were alive today, he’d agree. That doesn’t mean it’s not an incredibly important work that we can’t draw from today, but we should also understand how the world has changed since.
I haven’t read John Smith’s Imperialism in the 21st Century yet, but I’ve heard it’s a very good update.
While I understand that it’s statistically likely, I can’t believe some people are actually named “John Smith” lol.
Yep, Marxist-Leninists have been advancing our theory beyond Lenin. What Lenin laid out is still foundational for analyzing the imperialism of today, but we are no longer in the age of competing empires, but a dying mega-empire and the rise of the global south.
and some can’t seem to see it happening!
Curse this ai slop. The fake crayon thing is really bugging me, like. Crack open a box and put a few hours in if you mean it, super accessible style
There’s absolutely no reason why this short, simplistic agitprop needs to be made in artisinal fashion from a Marxist perspective. Labor hours saved is valuable, and nobody is enjoying this agitprop from the perspective of artistic analysis. AI cannot replace art, but the insistence that every graphic regardless of use-case be made in artisinal fashion is reactionary.
Thank you for mentioning this, I thought I was the only one.
Technically you can be an anticapitalist and still not a leftist. You could be one of those weirdo turbo conservative monarchists.
It’s not just weird, it’s materially impossible. History doesnt move according to big ideas exclusively, the main driver of history is materialism. Feudalism gave way to capitalism not because someone conceptualized capitalism and made it become real, but because the historical development of feudalism led to the primitive accumulation process of capital, the progressive appearance of a bourgeois class, and this was accelerated by western imperialism and the exploitation of resources in the global south by European powers.
Once the accumulation of capital had taken place and the main economic driver of the economy had become capitalism, it was impossible to return to feudalism, capitalism became a historical necessity. A return to feudalism is simply unfeasible.
It’s not just weird, it’s materially impossible.
I was mainly talking about the people being weirdos. Every monarchist I’ve ever run into have been extreme oddballs.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t people who do believe we should return to feudalism though.
So trueeee
Future “don’t make me tap the sign” material
Lowkey yikes. I don’t want to associate myself with either graphic
Why not?
Because the Soviets were assholes. I didn’t realize that would be controversial. I wish folks wouldn’t restrict the concept of anti-capitalism to the ussr. Raised fist? Red and black?
What assholes, liberating millions of feudal peasants and modernizing an entire country and eliminating hunger and poverty and spreading literacy and giving women rights and revolutionizing agriculture and medicine and defeating the nazis and inventing space travel and supporting liberation movements around the world. What absolute pricks.
Edit: just saw you lower down being relatively chill
You’re on a site where the majority of users are Marxists right now, we’re pretty big fans of the soviet union. It wasn’t some utopia, but it was incredibly progressive for its time. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, healthcare and education were free and high quality, housing was free or low cost, wages increased and working hours lowered, and society was democratized. Anti-capitalism isn’t restricted to Marxism-Leninism nor to the USSR specifically, but over here we uphold actually existing socialism.
Consider giving Blackshirts and Reds and This Soviet World a read, or check out the intro ML reading list I made.
Civil and Fair, so thanks. I’ll also pay more attention to the instance in the future if only to not be so baffled. Even if folks consider the Soviets progressive for the time, my 2 cents is that tying modern anticapitalism to the realities of USSR, especially Stalinism, does a disservice to progressive movements and even Marxism. But as you say, it’s a minority opinion, so I’ll accept my downvotes. Thanks again
Marxism-Leninism has been used by billions of people around the world for the purpose of liberating the working classes. I think you should do more research before saying such things.
Neither capitalist nor anti capitalist, but some secret third thing
(the secret third thing being fascism)
So, capitalism too
Fascism is probably heading more towards neo-Feudalism than sticking with traditional capitalism
No, no fascist country, even the longest standing ones like Franco’s Spain went back to feudalism, they remained firmly in capitalism.
there are multiple varying definitions of liberal depending on the time, location, and context reddit thread discussing this
edit: i like getting downvotes for attempting to add nuance, i’m not even a liberal (by any definition), i’m a socialist anarchist
Yes, but the above one is the most consistent and historically correct that would cut down all those discussions.
I mean, liberals by really almost any definition will still be pro-Capitalism, from Classical Liberalism to American Democratic Party liberalism. Once people go further left, into anti-Capitalism, they almost always stop using that label.
There are varying definitions of a lot of words, and most of those variant definitions are wrong
deleted by creator
Creating division between people who want to make things better and people who want to maintain the current absolutely dogshit status quo is actually a good thing
I mean, liberalism’s support of private property and market economics are definitional.
We love gross generalizations. Most people I meet just don’t really think about it in those terms. I’d say it’s probably more accurate to describe liberal voters as not being anti-capitalist
Now a liberal politician? Yeah 100% pro capitalism
not being anti-capitalist
Ok, this is the “I’m anti-antifa” bullshit of the right wing.
