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
The quiz nailed the fact that I’m an anarcho-communist. I think my numbers “suffered” a bit because there are questions where I personally hold beliefs about which choices are easiest to implement, but I also believe that a collective of reasonable people could make some other choice and implement it in a liberatory way. In particular, I’m not against planning certain segments of the economy (e.g. electrical power distribution) as long as we do it with the continuous consent of the people and we don’t kill people/collectives who go their own way. Similarly, I’m pretty staunchly anti-markets, but I’m not closed to the idea that reasonable people could live happy lives under genuinely anarchistic market socialism if for some reason a community chooses to continuously consent to that mode of living.
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.
It’s a poor quiz, I agree (and elaborated on why here).
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.
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.
This one isn’t too bad for an internet political test, though i would said that eco-marxism is pretty misleading since all the notable ML parties are proecological nowadays and in 1910’s that question was much less pressing.
I did get ML result so lol.
Yea, they require you to pick nationalist answers to get ML but the ML stance on nationalism depends on if you’re in the global north or global south, ie does your nationalism work against imperialism or towards perpetuating it. It also requires the person to pick production over ecology.
the ML stance on nationalism depends on if you’re in the global north or global south, ie does your nationalism work against imperialism or towards perpetuating it
Yeah
I don’t think any actual MLs can get the ML result lol
This contradicts the sentence above, just look at AES states. I mean nationalism will always be a crutch for socialist states but its an useful crutch at least as long as imperialists are out there.
Yes, but the questions are framed in a way that make it seem odd.
“Nationalism and patriotism are impulses that are unacceptable in socialist society” is phrased in a manner that either means you agree with nationalism within socialism or you don’t, not if they have context. It has nothing to do with your present country, that’s entirely on the user’s interpretation. Someone in the global south and the global north both see the same question the same way, as it doesn’t tie the answer to the north or south. The correct answer is that it’s useful in resisting imperialism and horrible if used to perpetuate it.
There’s also the fact that it requires you to take a productvist approach over an ecological one, and the way those questions are phrased are bad as well. We should work to increase production in a green manner, not become an anarcho-primitivist, yet the quiz hints like those are the counterposed ideas.
Agree, it’s the same reason why nobody ever lands in red sector in the cumpiss test, although to much lesser extent.
Agreed, I always got lib left and back in my non-Marxist days I assumed that meant I was more aligned with anarchists. Thankfully reading theory helped me understand more.
3·2 hours agothe ML stance on nationalism depends
It’s almost as if there is context and these quizes always have simple questions without such context.
Yep, they’re neat as novelty but not as a perscription of ideology.
Here are mine. I don’t think about (or know?) what ideology i’d adhere to, but i’m not sure it matters much. Imo it’s my views/opinions of the concepts themselves that are important, not a big-tent name of an ideology.
I am still not comfortable enough with my grasp of marxism/anarchism/etc (still reading theory to understand them all. I’ve been progressing well) to the point i could answer properly to these questions so it’s probably not reflective of my actual views,
Nonetheless i of course get this is just a fun little online test, nothing serious ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Congrats on your studies! Anything stand out to you particularly, whether it’s anarchist or Marxist? As in, particularly useful, enjoyable, etc?
Thanks!
I don’t like to tackle more than one subject at once, so currently I’m just focusing on Marxism, which i have unfortunately limited time for, but i still try :) iirc I’ve read/am reading currently:
- How Marxism Works (Trotskyist pamphlet, but still pretty good even by anti-Trotskyist standards),
- Principles of Communism (still reading, but easily digestible, thankfully)
- The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
And thanks to the last text, I think I have a good framework of what i should focus on while studying; i.e.:
- Dialectic materialism (I’ve grasped the laws, but I’ve yet to learn how to apply it to analysis of the world),
- Labor theory of value (understood!)
- Class struggle, which from a first impression, sounds like a basic “no shit Sherlock” concept, but I’m sure it ties back to materialism, and the transition of feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism, though I’ve yet to reach the relevant reads for that.
I’ve actually been using your reading list as a good starting point (thanks for that, by the way!) so far, I’m only loosely using it to know what I should read next, since i already recognize a ton of the material there anyway, but it is still very useful for it to be organized well. But eventually I’ll probably follow it more strictly for the sake of accuracy.
After I’m finished with the principles of communism, I’d have completed my current 3 ‘to read’ texts and move on to the next one, which would probably be: What is to be Done, The Wretched of the Earth, and (tediously 🫠) all volumes of Capital.
Although, an important point now for me is trying to re-understand history/figures. I’ve found it easy to like Marx+Engels/Castro/Ho Chi Minh (and by extension, more fairly analyze Cuba/Vietnam + read their works without a negative bias), since there’s very little hatred towards them in my region/on the online spaces i regular, but a lot of material that most Marxists today consider crucial, I have negative/mixed views towards the authors; but in fairness most of my negative views have been earned years before, and I’m no stranger [now] to how propaganda can reframe even good people into being “scary baby eaters”, so my goal as of now is trying to read on important figures and change my opinions on them, for better or worse. Of course, I’m not saying my views are wrong and I should force them to be positive, but a critical re-analysis of them all would be very useful. If they are bad people, then that’s that, and there’s nothing I could do about it, but otherwise, it would help me a lot in reading their works, and in general, change my world-view.
Okay, this comment is getting long lol. Thanks again for the reading list :D
That’s awesome!
Harman’s How Marxism Works, outside of the weird misogyny and Trotskyist parts, is legitimately a good place to start. It’s clear and concise.
You’ve nailed the 3 core areas, those being dialectical materialism, the law of value, and class struggle. Dialectical materialism applied to history becomes historical materialism, and broadly ties to class struggle, which you correctly point out as the driving force behind the progression of historical modes of production.
Class struggle also informs class ideology, ie the petite bourgeoisie tends to go for more individualist ideologies while the proletariat understands the importance of collectivization, because how we live and produce informs how we understand the world. Mao’s On Practice & On Contradiction is probably the single best pair of shorter essays on driving this home and developing it.
If I may make a suggestion, skip What is to be Done? for now. That’s more of an article talking about strategy, and while useful, isn’t very important for grasping the basis of Marxism. I’d say Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism and The State and Revolution are both more immediately important, but before them I would suggest more than any other single work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (or better yet, Anti-Dühring). This right here is what will dramatically expand upon and tie together everything you’ve learned thus far.
Capital can honestly be postponed for quite a while, I consider it critical but quite advanced. Excellent choice with Fanon though, The Wretched of the Earth is a banger.
As for the figures I’m assuming you’re referring to, I highly recommend Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend. Stalin wasn’t a saint, and this book doesn’t make him out to be one, it tries to correctly separate the “black legend” from the man in reality and place him in his correct historical context, using only western, anti-communist sources. Sadly I don’t know of a book of a similar caliber for Mao, but I also find Mao isn’t as heavily demonized as Stalin is. The closest is Nia Frome’s short essay “Tankies.”
Anna Louise Strong’s works, such as This Soviet World, are excellent ways to expand your knowledge of what the USSR was actually like from someone on the ground reporting on it. Also beloved by me are Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds and the “Yellow Parenti” speech.
And thanks for the kind words on the reading guide!
Every time I look over and refresh the comment seems to change.
I’m a perfectionist over the smallest things, and get lazy with larger projects 🫠
I’m a self-described anarcho-syndicalist, but anarcho-communist was in the next closest matches with 91%. I’ll take that 🏴
@DylanMc6@lemmy.ml This is me: Eco-Anarchists unite.
I was 3.2% from joining you 😁
No surprises here, just about where I was last time iirc
so you’re an eco-marxist?
That’s what it placed me as yeah. While I agree that I am a marxist who has a focus on ecology it specifies “orthodox marxist” which I am not
more ecological than the last time, because of you know waves hand at the everything
“if al gore read the communist manifesto”
in all seriousness, i think you’re probably an orthodox eco-marxist
the test says the closest tendency to my result on this particular test is eco-marxist, but nope, i’m a marxist-leninist
i read (primarily) marxist-leninist theory, subscribe to a marxist-leninist worldview, and am involved with marxist-leninist organizationsso you’re eco-marxist-leninist?
i see these tests as just a bit of fun, i take them more seriously than “what pokemon are you?” and the like, but not by much
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
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.
so you’re a simple leninist?
I would still call myself a Marxist-Leninist. Lenin was obviously heavily influenced by Marx, and it’s not like I have a particular problem with Marx. And I would say that Lenin is also a little dated, less so than Marx, but no matter who you’re talking about, they existed in specific material conditions and their ideas do not necessarily apply to all times and places - that’s a big part of what Marxism-Leninism is all about, adapting policy to specific material conditions, and not adhering rigidly to theory.
Really, the specific label is not that important. An ideological label is only a rough descriptor of a person’s views, and there can be a lot of differences between people who use the same label, because it is not trivial to figure out how to adapt their ideas to the modern day. Marxism-Leninism gives people the gist, without worrying about the obscure nuances of terms like “Orthodox Marxism” or “Centrist Marxism” that most people won’t be familiar with.
I definitely agree with this - the point of Marxism is that your exact policies should depend on your material conditions. The Bolshevik Party is a good example of this. At some points, they advanced workplace democracy; at others, they returned Bourgeois managers to the factories. At times they supported individually owned farms, and at others forcibly collectivized ones, and at still others allowed for privately owned plantations. Lenin called for the party to participate in Bourgeois elections, but the vast majority of Bolsheviks took the ultra-left position and boycotted them. Sometimes decentralization is preferable - but centralization is often necessary! These are all dialectics that cannot be resolved dogmatically.
do you have any videos on marxist theory that i can watch without losing focus quickly?
i went with the shorter 10-minute one (with subway surfers), and i think michael parenti has a point: if you look past the authoritarianism of countries such as cuba, china, vietnam, laos or north korea, you’d find that there’s much more to these countries than their government; pyongyang is a pretty interesting city - it had an unfinished hotel that looks pretty cool, some of the apartment buildings reminds me of those eastern kentucky university dorm buildings in richmond, ky, and mount paektu is beautiful. cuba, china, vietnam, laos also have beautiful sceneries.
one thing you have to know that you DON’T see anyone begging for money or runaway people asking for sex because socialism helps solve economic inequalities by giving production to the people. seriously!
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.
i prefer de leonism, council communism and other stuff like that because those forms of communism are more libertarian than marxism-leninism or maoism and such.
the althistory story “reds! a revolutionary timeline” would probably give you an idea on what a de leonist government would be like. seriously!
Ooh wonderful thanks for the recommendation! De leonism is entirely new to me.
so you’re less centrist?
Yep.
no link, no good
i just added the link
Too many questions for me :) I don’t know much about socialism, but if anything I am a market socialist, social democracy fan and can only support “social ownership of the means of production” in the most narrow sense.
I am a fan of “everybody who can has to work” (i.e. against carrying poor people who could contribute and against people so rich they don’t need to work). I am a fan of supporting those who can’t work. I am a fan of people being able to make an obscene amount of money through their work and dedication. I am not a fan of people making a lot of money through money (though this is sadly necessary in the current capitalistic system) or through inheritance.
The biggest problem I have with establishing this is how such a system is able to compete with other countries and prevent external companies offering more money or buying companies, but through extreme regulation.
are you a left-libertarian?
