hot off the presses monkey-typewriter

Was getting sick of the endless political horseshoe/fishhook/stethoscope left punching memes, so I made this for !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com, crossposting here since most of the emojis are lifted from here

Feel free to roast me or suggest shit to add

  • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    14·
    6 months ago

    I think polcomp as a format should just be abandoned because it’s not helpful

    I gotta agree, it really struggles to capture any nuance, rest assured this is meant to be a joke

    I very strongly disagree with the characterization of Marxism as being ideologically less democratic than anarchism unless your claim is that republicanism itself is less democratic than direct democracy, which I think is a frivolous objection.

    Case in point: I kind of intended anything below 0 on the y axis to be broadly opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, while positive is in support of it. Then it was to be a measure of how much it is a proletarian dictatorship vs class society being abolished.

    The issue I saw is that ‘democracy’ as an axis can mean so many different things, depending on the economic and political context. This is more an artifact of how rigid the template is. As you pointed out, it doesn’t cleanly break one way or the other.

    I basically agree with your placement of China, and your placement of Tito as more opposed to Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie than Lenin is ridiculous.

    Tito should probably be on the same level all the same, I honestly wasn’t thinking too hard and had him and Teto next to eachother at one point before re-arranging things.

    • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      Fair enough, I was basically just commenting because you invited feedback, though I’m sure you know that.

      I think even that is being too nice to Tito, but I’ll be more concerned if we get a Titoist contingent on the board.

      Incidentally, I know she criticized the Bolsheviks quite severely in several respects, but did Luxemburg deny the need for a vanguard party altogether? I haven’t read what she has to say on that.

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        but did Luxemburg deny the need for a vanguard party altogether

        from my understanding she was opposed to that type of centralization, from the organizational questions of the Russian social democracy:

        Granting, as Lenin wants, such absolute powers of a negative character to the top organ of the party, we strengthen, to a dangerous extent, the conservatism inherent in such an organ. If the tactics of the socialist party are not to be the creation of a Central Committee but of the whole party, or, still better, of the whole labor movement, then it is clear that the party sections and federations need the liberty of action which alone will permit them to develop their revolutionary initiative and to utilize all the resources of the situation. The ultra-centralism asked by Lenin is full of the sterile spirit of the overseer. It is not a positive and creative spirit. Lenin’s concern is not so much to make the activity of the party more fruitful as to control the party – to narrow the movement rather than to develop it, to bind rather than to unify it.

        she also talked about it in “The Russian Revolution” after they took power, chapter 5 + 6 were the relevant sections in that

        Fair enough, I was basically just commenting because you invited feedback, though I’m sure you know that.

        no worries, it’s welcome!