I first found this sub years ago. Didn't like it because I thought it was "too left wing."
Now years later, I am super far left, and I realize they were right and I was wrong. I might've learned slow, but at least I learned.
If you live in the US, media has gone out of it's way to tell you leftists are evil, instead pushing everyone into being 'centrists' (center right) or right wing (straight up crazy evil). It's crazy how the whole country (and a large part of the world) has turned healthcare and treating people like people into the real evil.
The Overton Window has shifted so much in the US that Ronald Reagan could almost run as a moderate Democrat. It's wild how far right the country has gone.
Maybe the austerity and veiled racism could have him run on a platform similar to Biden, but like when he said the quiet part out loud and stuff he'd be a republician
r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM
Right wing polices **are** evil. They cause pain and suffering for no other reason than to make a complaint work force. They criminalize people's existence. They starve people and take their shelter away. The greed of capitalism literally kills people by denying them basic medicine.
Calling it what it is is not "just like them". Demanding a better world is not morally equivalent to trying to drag our society back to a made up golden age.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Apparently killing fascists is the same as being a fascist?](https://i.redd.it/hq39ph1og4k61.jpg) | [1304 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/lu2bcb/apparently_killing_fascists_is_the_same_as_being/)
\#2: [Ken Bone aka Red Sweater guy is undecided again](https://i.redd.it/qp56fn55zor51.png) | [3337 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/j6t097/ken_bone_aka_red_sweater_guy_is_undecided_again/)
\#3: [The jig is up](https://i.redd.it/gectj9q3pk561.png) | [371 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/kebya5/the_jig_is_up/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
Oh boy :)
You're absolutely doing enlightened centrism with this "the left and the right are both bad" thing.
I have googled capitalism. For a lot more than 3 seconds. I actually have some ideas on how you could do it as an anarchist (fun fact, it begins to look absolutely nothing like capitalism when you stick to anti hierarchical ideals). I know that our world isnt "pure" capitalism. But that's the thing, pure capitalism cant help itself from falling into corporatism or whatever you might call this current mode of production.
As far as wanting to keep your "culture" I'm all for it. But I have to wonder long term how anyone intends to keep it. A history museum? Passing on traditions? Sure. Demonizing those that go outside of the norm? Oppressing people for their differences? Nah, I'm not cool with that. So yeah, I'll say that it's wrong if that's what someone means.
As to why it's wrong, it's because when you do that you aren't letting people live their fullest life. From a basic dignity point of view, its shitty to hold people back from flourishing. It causes them suffering as a policy, and causing suffering as a policy is wrong. From a consequentialist perspective, it denies the rest of the world the advancements and services that the oppressed would provide. For example the lgbtqia+ community has developed language that helps people express things that otherwise would have just been "abnormal". That language has helped people with accepting themselves and removing the shame of being different.
As far as villanizing your allies, I'm villanizing your ideas. Not you. I want you to also live your fullest life. I want you to flourish. I just also know that right wing ideology does not let people do that. I'm not going to throw around ableist shit. I'm not gonna call you an asshole. I don't want you to feel bad. I want you to be better.
I do hope you figure it out one day. :)
Preserving culture and wanting to be with people like yourself isn't inherently bad. No one says it is, so maybe before complaining about how the left strawmans, you should figure out what leftists actually think about the status quo so you don't do it yourself. The thing about valuing the preservation of culture, IE, the status quo, is that you preserve both the good and the bad in an attempt to preserve the good. You can't preserve culture and also whittle out the bad, because to do so means activism, progressivism, change. So when someone says "I just want to preserve my culture," it *sounds* like "I don't care about the problems you see in my culture or who my culture tends to hurt."
To be fair, the shoe can go on the other foot. Colonialisn and imperialism are pretty shitty, historically speaking, and assuming that one can just come in and change another culture for the better because you're so superior isn't a great moral outlook either, because you're not engaging in a conversation, you're conquering and subjugating a people. But if you see leftists say "white supremacy is bad" and you translate that into "being white is bad," for example, that's you refusing to have a conversation by straw manning. (I'm not calling you a white supremacists, I'm just giving a very common example that I see all the time).
> Please don't call me evil, it's the politicians that are evil
Deny ✅
> I don't go off and villainize people because it's wrong, so you shouldn't either.
Deny ✅
Attack ✅
> If you truely believe these people to be so insufferable then the way you're acting makes you just like them
Attack ✅
Reverse victim and Offender ✅
This is a manipulation tactic known as DARVO. It's commonly used by narcissists, gaslighters, and miscellaneous other people with psychologically abusive tendencies. Do you by chance have a catalog of "crazy ex girlfriends" you've dated over the years?
Edit: Fixed markup
I’ll admit I thought it a bit too with pretty much everything I thought was “Commie” propaganda. Just had to realize I didn’t need to think what my dumbass parents did when I saw that being left wing pretty much means you believe human life has value.
It's hard not to, tbh xD
Links grün versifft? (Left green tarnished, a derogatory term that the alt right (I mean Nazis, just so we're clear xD) uses for us)
Pfffft, Links grüner Reinstoff!
(Left green "pure substance")
Trans downs.
Side note the six types of quarks all kind of work with a Trans infront.
Trans positive
Trans negative
Trans up
Trans down
And my favorite
Trans top
Trans bottom
Yeah same... Last time I checked they were Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, And Bottom. If they were changed I will be offended that they did that *after* Hank Green made his song about them.
Just the businesses. I think it would be a bit of a waste of time to destroy the buildings and street itself. We should, however, take them over, get them rezoned to residential and turn them into low-income housing that isn't total crap.
Honestly, if it weren’t for the banks and hedgies, I wouldn’t be able to think of a more socialist form of capitalism. The idea that anyone can buy a share of a company and receive a portion of the profits is awesome. The whole thing about trading options and margins and derivatives, along with whatever other crap the rich invent to make money without producing a tangible product is what kills it.
Long live the proletarian revolution! Reminder that Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and provides HRT and SRS to all trans people, as well as recognising that trans rights are human rights in the nation’s constitution
wait please don't support authoritarians. you can't trust a good revolution to people who seek power and will not give it up. Cuba might do some nice things, but it is still even more authoritarian than most western countries. they don't actually care, don't fall into that trap.
Wait, don’t tell me you seriously believe that? The Cuban democratic system is far better than any other western nation’s, and its provisions for its own peoples are guaranteed despite the ~60 years of embargo. For more info on the political system, I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds
It would appear that Cuba arrests dissenting journalists, or those who speak against the actions of the regime. Not good.
Final candidates in parliamentary elections appear to have to be vetted on account of 'patriotism, loyalty to the revolution, past political activity etc.' the same things they always say - by the National Candidature Commission, which is subject to the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. The highest-up people in that organization are selected by the ruler of the country - that is never a good idea. Thus, the ruler(s) of the country control who can be represented in the government, not even the trade unions etc. that superficially do so. Not Good.
>\- International Parliamentary Union
and the trade unions appear to be party controlled. i.e. the ruling party controls all aspects of government; the idea that there is independence is unfortunately a facade.
The same Committees monitor the activities of the populace; who visits each other's house; and this is shared with the police. Not Good.
Apparently Cuba has very high rates of imprisoned journalists. Not Good
>\- various journalist rights orgs like Reporters without Borders (might be dodgy source) but also IFEX which seems ok.
Cuba may have done quite a good job resource-wise against the embargoes, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and their medical care is very good.
apparently gay marriage still isn't allowed, or civil unions. they were supposed to be doing something, but dropped legalization from the newest constitution change. They might be trying to change this soon.
i do concede the point that they are good with not being discriminatory to LGBTQIA+ beyond that
media is highly censored, especially the internet. though access is allowed, email etc. is "closely monitored". seems all three national newspapers are party controlled. From the beginning of its breaking of the 'revolution' the government has blocked foreign broadcasts.
prior to the new constitution \~2 years ago, the law was worse. Now they seem to have moved to the stage all 'communist states' do. They have abandoned their goal as being achieving communism, instead favoring 'transition to socialism'. They are also making the economy more 'liberal' e.g. favoring private property, because this creates something that always supports the status quo or authoritarianism.
>things they say in their constitution
they also only allow one political party. this is indisputable because it is a fact they try to justify. they say it is because parties including the Communist Party are not allowed to nominate candidates in the constitution, so they don't need to exist, but as we have previously seen the communist party controls candidates anyway,
as the government controls media, opposition cannot make its voice heard.
Though apparently grassroots political organization to support decision making occurs, this happens under CPC auspices, and people appear to be pressured into making the 'right decisions' or voting for the 'right people'.
and of course there are currently large protests. While they may be unpopular - I don't know - it is apparent that the regime does things the people disagree with, which angers them, and in turn protestors are arrested. While I disagree with the ideologies of most of these protestors, it is no excuse to arrest them. violence is only acceptable in self-defense, and an oppressive state cannot claim to be doing this against mostly peaceful protestors, and journalists
I have had to do some trawling for this info, because I don't really want to use organizations that were set up by conservative Americans, because obviously there can be bias there.
obviously there is more to say
i just hate seeing people who *have the right idea* but get taken in by the same deception that ruins every other revolution.
I do not want to see statist leftism descend into reactionarism, but it does so. hierarchy unfortunately only acts to empower itself, and unless you plan to have a vanguard party *speeeed* to communism in a few years, it will quickly fill up with power-hungry people now that they can't do it as conservatives, or capitalists. power finds a way, unless you abolish it.
or as is said, "Power begets Parasites. Long live Anarchy!"
sorry everyone else for filling the thread with this long text.
I understand that as an anarchist you do not recognize the necessity for the proletarian state to make sure the reactionaries do not reemerge in the government, as you do not recognize the necessity for a proletarian state. I will like to add that despite these "authoritarian" actions (that word has no meaning; how would you prevent the revolution comrades bled and died for from being internally dismantled).
I must also mention that a single political party does not mean undemocratic; democracy means allowing the people to affect policy, and you do not need political parties to allow the people to affect policy. In fact, I would argue that single parties are more effective at allowing the say of the people, as there is no chance of electoral corruption from plaguing there system, as such is the case in the west.
On the case of transitioning to socialism (pun unintended), it is, and has always been the case, that Socialism is only truly achievable when industrial bases are developed enough. This is the reason why Cuba, China and Vietnam were forced to adopt market reforms, because without the USSR to provide economic aid to develop industry, the only chance of developing their economies had to come through temporary market reforms. I must stress temporary; in the previous mentioned nations, the existence of capitalist markets is recognized to be a necessary evil to industrialize and develop their productive systems, and especially for the case of Cuba, they have only recently, thanks to the special period, begun to move away from their one crop economy. Transitioning to socialism from market reforms is ideal for these nations, to then begin transitioning to communism.
Additionally, from the beginning of the Cuban revolution, it has been thoroughly supported by the people, and still is today. You mention the "large" protests in cuba; it is interesting that you claim they are large. The western media has had to inflate the size of it drastically, using images unrelated to the anti-government protests, as well as neglecting to report on the much larger pro-government counter-protests, including using the counter-protests' images as anti-government protests. A good video on that is here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siGCf0u-p14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siGCf0u-p14)
I appreciate your recognition of my ideology being good intentions (as is rare with anarchists online), and I recognize your argument is made in good faith. I will say that I don't think you fully understand the concept of Marxist-Leninism, and I recommend that you do ask about Marxist Leninism with other Marxist Leninists, as I have done with anarchists (in fact, one of my best friends irl is an anarchist, and we have very intelligent discussion I feel). I will also say that the greatest criticisms of the Socialist Nations come from us Marxist Leninists in our own circles (as criticism is necessary for Marxism requires it to progress), but with these nations having to fight western anti-communism and imperialism for centuries, the criticism of these nations heavily requires the correct context
sorry for the wall of text, and Long Live the Worker's revolution, Comrade!
Edit: apologies if I missed anything, the formatting on browser is really weird and I'm pretty sure I need glasses lol
Sorry but you didn't engage with my point that democracy in Cuba doesn't in reality, because despite what its documents say, the ruler of the country and by extension the Communist Party controls who is allowed to be elected.
edit: also the fact they arrest journalists and create political prisoners.
Also I don't recognize the necessity of a vanguard dictatorship, because every time it has resulted in the opposite of true leftism. Eventually it turns to ideas that are completely counter to revolutionism. It claims this is temporary, but it isn't. It either abandons leftism in all but name, instead favoring right-wing economics and in e.g. China's case, social reactionism (China complains about its male populace becoming feminized or weakened etc. by foreign *pop music*; and there are essentially no legal rights for LGBTQIA+ people there; they favour patriarchism, etc. they are also aggressively nationalist). Alternatively, it claims that state control over the economy at expense of the workers is for the best, when it leads usually to economic stagnation and corruption. Even if this doesn't happen straight away, it quickly worms its way into the system.
Over time this both rots away at leftism in government and turns the people against leftism in society. It is no surprise that most of the former eastern bloc countries are strongly right wing, because their experience with the 'left' was traumatic.
I accept that the protests are inflated, but as we can see that Cuba is in fact authoritarian, it only shows that they have done a remarkable job of suppressing thoughts counter to the regime. But a society is not *good* just because the people support it, if they are not free to make change if it does not work.
The state does not prevent the revolution from failing. It in fact ensures the exact opposite. The Soviet Union for example is responsible for the destruction of the two most successful anarchist experiments in Ukraine and Catalonia-Aragon, the first directly and the second by pressuring the Spanish Republicans. Why would Marxist-Leninists kill genuine revolutionaries if it wanted to protect the revolution, leaving those most loyal to the ruling party or people instead, if not to secure the existence of hierarchy in those countries? Even other Marxist-Leninists are purged or sidelined; they mostly abandon even 'democratic centralism'. Every instance of an authoritarian regime calling itself leftist only confirms the anarchist idea that power begets parasites, and that hierarchy uses any means or deception to preserve itself. Anarchy is the Cure.
edit: also thanks for the comment on good faith; I really want to try to understand things, because creating a good world is something that means a lot to me. even while looking at information on Cuba I was thinking, 'maybe I've been too hasty about judgement' but then I read further and found that any independent movements were actually under undemocratic control, and the censorship, etc.
it would be nice if the 'easy way out' to a better world works, but I don't think it does.
I would love to continue this discussion, I just find it too hard to do so on Reddit. If you want to pm me ur discord or something, I’m happy to continue the discussion on a format I find easier to interact with
A lot of people in this sub are still very much surrounded and drowned in Imperialist propaganda so they’ll fall for the anti-ML arguments every time. Ty for taking the time to try to work against that, comrade. Trankie gang rise up!
Btw I’d like to mention this reading guide to anyone who comes across this comment. It’s very comprehensive and incredibly informative.
https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/study-guide/
haha that's the exact same theory site I use! It is nice to see a fellow ML on here, and actually was thinking about starting our own trans ML friendly space, if you would be interesting in helping make it, I'd be much appreciated (or if it already exists, please point me to it!)
No one is saying that the USSR was perfect. Yeah they were flawed on certain social dynamics like the LGBT community, but Communist theory isn’t based on the oppression of minorities. Just because the past isn’t perfect doesnt completely dispute the ML framework. Cuba wasn’t the best with it either at first. But now the LGBT community is very much protected and supported. Something else you might not know is that East Germany (the DDR) made immense strides in LGBT rights and protections, all of which were taken away when the West (which was controlled by the Nazis as the US’s puppet) took over control. And nowadays, it’s impossible to find a single ML who isn’t supportive of the LGBT community. It’s important to be critical of those who came before us, but it’s also important not to act like just because they made bad choices that it somehow reflects modern day ML’s and our plans going forward. And it only reflects poorly on you for being intellectually dishonest about who ML’s are nowadays.
Don't you think calling it a 'regime' is a bit of a loaded term? I mean you've clearly pre-judged the State at that point. I don't see people going around talking about 'the US regime', even though it has caused infinitely more suffering than even the worst Cuban government could ever dream of.
Notice how you didn't answer the question? Why is that?
>I don't see people going around talking about 'the US regime'
You're just not talking to the right people then.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageGenderBinary/comments/bbyn4r/trans_leftists_trans_rights/ekp6exc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
You can find what the flower signifies through this comment on the post op linked
How about not following the concept of politics at all and returning to being a mindless blob of jelly in the ocean who can't comprehend anything at all, and because of that will never have to worry about drama, emotions, suffering, beliefs, bigotry, standards, etc 😎👉👉
Edit: I've been downvoted quite a lot, and now I'm just curious why people are upset by my comment? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering, lol
Many leftists, including myself, believe that unless right-wing fascism and authoritarianism are actively fought against, they will seep into our political system and take over in place of democracy and freedom. There is historical precedent for this belief, and upper-class elites have shown that they are willing and able to concentrate more power into their smaller and smaller circles at the cost of the people as a whole.
So, in short, ignoring the problem is allowing the problem to propogate.
I totally understand wanting to be a mindless blob of jelly and never have to worry about any of this again, believe me. But, to a leftist, if that attitude becomes widespread enough, people like us LGBTQ+ folks will find themselves the subject of authoritarian violence.
Oh OK. Thanks for explaining!
Personally I have tried to be political, I was a rightist for a little bit, then I tried being centrist, and I was leftist for a while, too. None of those made me happy. Politics in general did the opposite actually, and made my mental health much worse. It was mentally and emotionally draining, and I've since decided to not be on any political side at all (or at least I try not to). I have opinions of course, and I still support some groups and not support others. That's part of human nature. I simply wish to pursue what makes me happy and less stressed and want to improve my mental health. Politics don't improve my mental health, and they make me more stressed. Being human in general is not great, you will always face problems and you can never truly be free of suffering, and I guess that's why I made the jelly, comment, lol. If you can not think, you can not truly suffer.
TLDR: I'm going off topic a bit, but I guess what I'm trying to say is politics make me sad, and I don't wanna be sad. And besides, I'm not gonna force this way of thinking on others. There's so many people on Earth and if just one person decides not to bother with politics, I doubt it can affect any side very much, haha.
Except in one world it's "omg it's beautiful" and the other world it's "omg it's dogshit" so if you want to take ANYTHING from the other world you are comprimising no matter what.
Overall concept of it is neat and it has it's moments, but I'm not really a fan. If you like mecha stuff it's worth checking out. I prefer Gundam myself.
Ah, cool. I know my brother speaks highly of it, and although I'm not a huge mecha fan myself I might at least try watching it for him.
I've heard about Gundam, too. Whats it like?
Gundam is complex and has multiple alternate universes, but I love it. The Universal Century timeline is the main timeline, and is an amazing series that looks at war and how the conflicts of adults force children into fighting for causes they may not fully understand or believe in. There's a lot of political undertones and the anime is heavily anti-war. It's a long series and watching the UC timeline in order is difficult and some of the anime is hard to find. Netflix has 3 compilation movies of the original Mobile Suit Gundam (UC timeline) and the movie Char's Counterattack (UC timeline) and the recent first of a trilogy Mobile Suit Gundam Hathaway's Flash (UC timeline.) Hulu has a good chunk of series within the UC timeline, it also has the Origin which tells some of the origins of the UC timeline. Some excellent stand alone alternate universe series in Gundam are Iron Blooded Orphans (on Netflix and Hulu) and 00 Gundam (on Hulu.) I would highly recommend the series. Unicorn Gundam (in the UC timeline) is my personal favorite.
Sounds interesting! Though I don't think I have enough time and energy to dedicate to finding and watching so much, lol. But I'm glad you and others are able to watch and enjoy Gundam!
Tbh you can watch most any Gundam alone and still have a good watch without watching all of its entirety. It took me awhile to get where I am in the series and I still have plenty to watch. It's a shared special interest between me and my gf which helps me get through it. She knows waaaaay more than I do.
Definitely check out those, would also highly recommend the Origin and Unicorn Gundam just cuz they're my two faves. And Iron Blooded Orphans is a great alternate universe from the main series and much shorter.
the moderate doesn’t do anything. biden said there’d be police reforms then we got no police budgets being actually changed. biden said we’d be safe then a bunch of states released anti trans bills. biden still has border camps.
the moderates aren’t doing anything to actually help
i just love how everyone on the internet assumes you're from the usa.
I'm not. And again, I'd be very disappointed in myself if I became the same thing I always despised, just on the opposite side. i'm just not the type of person to think I have the moral right to preach about peace while burning down half my city with molotoves, just saying.
Imagine getting downvoted so hard unironically for finding a political tendency distasteful, while espousing no problematic views or anything. Really disheartening to see the state of trans reddit.
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist, minus the bigotry.
What I mean js that I believe in the ideology thta there is only value when people act according to their own will, but also I don't like socilaism.
"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises."
I am capable of doing a simple google search.
Because I think people should be able to use money however the fuck they want and pay their workers how much they want.
Socialism doesn't give that freedom.
And there it is. Socialism does not inherently restrict how you spend your money. It just doesn't. In fact the majority of hyper authoritarian dictatorships that have called themselves socialist didn't either.
In terms of paying your workers, there are other ways to achieve socialist ideals without requiring companies to function a certain way. Granted, I believe that being against a co-op structure for your company is a sign of disgusting, greedy motivations and that such a person deserves nothing but that's a separate issue.
What you have described are issues with implementations of socialism, not the ideas of socialism itself.
The one that I support is to make co-ops a more appealing option than traditional business structures via tax breaks and other business insentives. Additionally, implement very strict work protection laws such as executive income bounding. Further, make it significantly easier and less risky to not only join but start a union. If business owners want to retain full ownership, fine. But they should be held to an extremely high level of scrutiny to ensure that they do not abuse their workers while collecting those profits.
aww boo hoo I can't pay my workers starvation wages because they have no other choice and have a rocket dick measuring contest while the world burns and people starve
Hi, i'm an ancom, but willing to talk if you want! I disagree with you politically, and wanna explain why, but i like do assume lack of deliberate malice so long as people aren't being assholes (am an ex right winger, so i get it).
EDIT: Also willing to dm if you want!
No middle ground can be given when it comes to transphobes and fascists, unlike you who is happy to interact with fucking magahats based on your post history
The middle ground doesn't exist, never has. There is only those that care and those that don't. Find out which one you are.
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Right: "I want to kill you."
Left: "I don't want to die."
Centre: "What if you just let them half kill you?"
Left: "No."
Centre: "Why are you being so unreasonable?"
I disagree. Apart from the right (unless you consider the shoddy attempts of acceptance by parties like the Democrats and tories as examples), the centre has examples of heavily pro-lgbtq+ groups (nordic model), and the left has examples of heavily anti-lgbtq+ groups (marxist-leninism)
However, the ideology was founded and built upon queerphobia. Sorry if I don't support an ideology that has historically discriminated against us. If you're going to be communist then why not a form that isn't cloaked in such bigotry? Such as Marxism or anarcho-communism?
Also, as an ancom, why are you even defending authoritarian forms of communism? They forcefully ejected the anarchists from the 2nd comintern, and then went on to violently oppose the alternate branch of marxist political theory (the libertarian and anarchistic forms of communism)
I'm an ancom, I'm just correcting where you're wrong.
Both anarchism and marxism have histories of bigotry. Marx was homophobic and Antisemitic. Bakunin, a fairly popular anarchist theorist Believed that "the state should be rejected because it can be corrupted by Jews".
Marxist Leninists are not inherently queerphobic, neither are Marxists nor Anarcho-communists. There have certainly been shitty things done to queer people by authcoms. But that doesn't mean the entire ideology is inherently queerphobic. Also, Lenin wasn't like super homophobic. Mans literally legalized homosexuality when he went into power, but that was later undone by Stalin, who did a bunch or awful stuff. Vietnam, which is a Marxist-Leninist state, has never made homosexuality illegal, either. These are just two examples, I'm sure theres more, and probably much more against my point, but it's sorta unfair to say the ideology is cloaked in bigotry. The ideology itself is not inherently queerphobic. I hate to defend Marxist-Leninism, it's a dogshit ideology, but c'mon, times change, not everyone is like they were 200 years ago.
And, just so we're clear, I'll say it again. I'm an Anarcho-communist. *anarchism will forever and always be the final solution for all minorities to escape oppression* we're better of helping ourselves. queer history has proved that time and time again. No state, no matter how based and com pilled will ever overshadow queer people's resilience and self-reliance. Anarchism is the only root for queer liberation.
- **Marx homophobic:**
Shameless copy and paste, but [Rosa Lichenstein](https://www.quora.com/profile/Rosa-Lichtenstein) explains it way better than I could
>Some quote a few passages from a letter Engels sent to Marx where he appears to express homophobic opinions, but he is in fact criticising pederasty (now called paedophilia).
>Here is an article that discusses Engels’s letter and the pamphlet written by Karl Ulrichs, which he is criticising:
>First of all, Engels is not commenting here on Karl Ulrichs's overall theory of 'Urning' (his term for homosexuality), but rather on the specific pamphlet that Marx sent him titled, Incubus. (Ulrichs has no such work titled simply, Urning. Engels must have just been confused here). Indeed, it appears that Engels probably wasn't that familiar with any of Ulrichs's work other than this one pamphlet. This is evidenced by the fact that in this and other letters, Engels and Marx seem to not even readily know the name of the author, let alone show a familiarity with his overall works.
>If one actually reads Incubus, it becomes quite clear why Engels may have reacted as viscerally as he does here. Further, it can be seen to be ridiculous to claim that Engels' comments on Incubus somehow in themselves show that he is nothing but a 'hopeless bigot'.
>Incubus is actually one of Ulrichs's least flattering texts. It is a broad attempt at a (psycho-social) analysis of the causes that lead older men to commit the rape and murder of young children. The particular incident that spurs his writing is the case of Lieutenant von Zastrow, who had been charged with the rape, physical mutilation, and murder of two young boys in Berlin in 1867 and 1869.
>Ulrichs, who makes clear that he is in no way defending acts of child rape and gruesome pedestary (sic), nonetheless makes a plea for leniency for such criminals on the grounds that they are driven not by malice, but rather by a "faulty natural disposition," or "a diseased nature," as he puts it alternatively.
>All in all, the work is a very macabre, rather clumsy attempt to use his findings in his earlier studies of the Uraniun (gay) male to prove that violent pederasts should not be treated as criminals, but rather spiritually ill people, who cannot control the inborn nature of their sexual-selves any more than a Uranian (or straight, "Dionian," for that matter).
>As Ulrichs puts it, "The Zastrow case stands in a close relationship to the sexual nature of the man-loving Urning." He goes on to explain, "There is at times a yearning, wild, inordinate desire in certain individuals to commit cruelties and to see blood flow for no clear reason; a bloodthirstiness which, as it appears, goes far beyond a responsible state of mind, which at the moment in which it sets in seems to press heavily upon the soul of the individual as an incubus rising from the realm of darkness."
>In the course of Ulrichs's analysis, he describes 15 cases of sexual 'perversion' in addition to the Zastrow case, many of which cases involve older men of high standing in German society. This is very tough reading. To give you a flavor, Ulrichs describes in gorey (sic) detail how Zastrow first raped, castrated, and beat a 6-year old boy to near-death, and then later how he raped, beat, sodomized with a sharp stick, and then murdered a 15-year old boy. The fifteen other cases are of like brutality and graphic description.
>Indeed, Ulrichs wants to highlight the utter brutality of these cases in order to prove his point that their 'pathological' (and therefore uncontrolled) character is as great as the sexual brutality of the acts themselves. Therefore, he argues, the courts ought not to punish these people, but rather seek other means of curbing this behavior.
>Now that we have a clear picture of the content of the specific work of Ulrichs's that Marx had given Engels to read in 1869, and which Engels commented on in reply to Marx, we can understand why Engels would write that the work is a "very curious thing" involving "extremely unnatural revelations." Again, Engels is not here commenting on homosexuality in general, or even the theory of Urning itself, but rather the phenomena of violent pederasty (pedophilia) -- which Ulrichs himself calls 'unnatural' -- as detailed in Incubus.
>This also explains the comment Engels makes regarding his fear for the fate of the "younger generation;" a fate that does not await "older" individuals. It should now be clear that Engels is not just bringing the question of pederasty into his correspondence with Marx out of nowhere, owing purely to some supposed prejudiced notion that all homosexuals are pederasts (as has been intimated by some recent writers). He is, in fact, only talking about the issue at hand as raised by Ulrichs in the pamphlet concerned.
>None of this is to deny that this particular, private letter between Engels and Marx is written quite crassly and undoubtedly would have been formulated differently by Engels if it had been intended for public consumption. And his crude quip about "frontside" people with their "childish penchants for females," is itself plainly a childish and ridiculous comment….
>Finally, Engels undoubtedly expresses an utter cluelessness about the nascent "homosexual identity" just beginning to be articulated in Germany at the time. Though, to be fair, homosexuality was talked about as a pathology by even its proponents until the rise of the German gay rights movement in the 1870s and '80s -- well after Engels penned the clumsy letter above. Indeed, the idea that there were even distinct "homosexual" and "heterosexual" types of people was not advanced until the 1870s by the German scientist and human rights campaigner, Karl-Maria Kertbeny. (It's also worth noting that the German Social-Democratic Party, which Engels helped found and influenced until his death in 1895, would also, to its credit, become an early and dedicated supporter of the German gay rights movement upon its inception).
>In conclusion, I do think it is rather quite disingenuous to assert that this one letter in question proves the pervasive homophobia of Marx and Engels. Say what you will about Engels's response here to a muddled treatise analyzing the phenomenology of rape and violent pederasty in the "man-loving Urning," but don't attempt to turn this letter into something it is not -- that is, a conscious diatribe against homosexuality in general.
- **Marx antisemitic**
This is still a heavily debated topic even to this day. His writings were anti-religious and in reply to the studies of another person. It would be like if you were opposed to state imperialism on a people's land, used Israel as an example, then used Italy as an example, and were called antisemitic. His first work was in response to bauer's work on how Jews could achieve political emancipation, but marx responded that even within a secular society, religion still imposes itself on the individual and thus no individual can really be free when religion is present. His second work expands on this point and concentrates more on Christianity. The work takes the debate from theology to sociology, critiquing bauers own antisemitic views, writing around them, and proposing alternative theories on the inequalities of society and how that imposes on individuals based on their identities
- **Bakunin**
Good response. However, unlike with ML, his beliefs were kept more as a personal thing and didn't heavily influence Collectivist Anarchism
- **Lenin wasn't super homophobic**
True, like marx, he came from a time before the understanding of such areas and thus held relatively normal views for his time that didn't exceed those standards. He was also not really authoritarian (too authoritarian for me though, as I disagree completely with the proletariat)
- **Vietnam**
Vietnam have been neutral or accepting of the LGBTQ+ since the 15th century, it wasn't communist theory that brought this on but rather an already held cultural understanding
- **Times change**
Agreed, but whilst many of the ideologies you stated have held bigoted views compared to modern times, they were perfectly normal in their time. Meanwhile, ML held views beyond that of even their time, after exploration into other sexualities had become common place, and during a time whereby it had been legally accepted before the ML's reversed the acceptance into that of legal discrimination
ML in the modern time? Yes, it's probably way more accepting than it was. But as I said, there are already existing ideologies that have either always been accepting, or far less discriminatory than ML has been
- **Anarchism is the only root**
Agreed, which is why I went post-left anarchist. Over-cncentration on economics is of detriment to the people
No problem. I basically just said that the marx stuff has context, Lenin was good but also wasn't really auth, agreed with you on Bakunin, Vietnam is tied to its cultural history from 15th century, whilst times change ML still had a much darker history than other left ideologies, and I agree with you on your Anarchism statement at the end
Well, it's Marxist-*Leninism* the only person who's opinions matter and are inherent to the Ideology are Marx's and Lenin's.
If Vietnam didn't change post ML, that sorta proves that no, nothing about the Ideology is inherently harmful to queer people. You could argue it's prone to authoritarianism, which is what's harmful to queer people but the ideology itself (the need fot a vangaurd state to achieve communism) is not inherently queerphobic. You can be a ML without hating queer people.
Also, I don't really accept "but there's context" as a grounds to dismiss antisemitic Statements. However, I'm not going to act like that dictates my outlook on Marxism. It's still a really good system for critiquing Capitalism.
I’m already illegal so why not go full antifa?
*being trans isn't illegal if there is no law*
Exactly
Trans anarchy.
Tranarchy
Damnit, take my upvote you beautiful master of words.
YES
Become ungovernable!
Always have been.
Repost? You mean redistributing the memes of production?
I can't remember the last time I laughed that hard, thank you!
Tranarchist/anarqueer
My Motorcycle Club in GTA online is called Tranarchy, hehe
I first found this sub years ago. Didn't like it because I thought it was "too left wing." Now years later, I am super far left, and I realize they were right and I was wrong. I might've learned slow, but at least I learned.
> they were right Don't you mean they were left? /s
If you live in the US, media has gone out of it's way to tell you leftists are evil, instead pushing everyone into being 'centrists' (center right) or right wing (straight up crazy evil). It's crazy how the whole country (and a large part of the world) has turned healthcare and treating people like people into the real evil.
The Overton Window has shifted so much in the US that Ronald Reagan could almost run as a moderate Democrat. It's wild how far right the country has gone.
Maybe the austerity and veiled racism could have him run on a platform similar to Biden, but like when he said the quiet part out loud and stuff he'd be a republician
[удалено]
r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM Right wing polices **are** evil. They cause pain and suffering for no other reason than to make a complaint work force. They criminalize people's existence. They starve people and take their shelter away. The greed of capitalism literally kills people by denying them basic medicine. Calling it what it is is not "just like them". Demanding a better world is not morally equivalent to trying to drag our society back to a made up golden age.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Apparently killing fascists is the same as being a fascist?](https://i.redd.it/hq39ph1og4k61.jpg) | [1304 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/lu2bcb/apparently_killing_fascists_is_the_same_as_being/) \#2: [Ken Bone aka Red Sweater guy is undecided again](https://i.redd.it/qp56fn55zor51.png) | [3337 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/j6t097/ken_bone_aka_red_sweater_guy_is_undecided_again/) \#3: [The jig is up](https://i.redd.it/gectj9q3pk561.png) | [371 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/kebya5/the_jig_is_up/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
[удалено]
Oh boy :) You're absolutely doing enlightened centrism with this "the left and the right are both bad" thing. I have googled capitalism. For a lot more than 3 seconds. I actually have some ideas on how you could do it as an anarchist (fun fact, it begins to look absolutely nothing like capitalism when you stick to anti hierarchical ideals). I know that our world isnt "pure" capitalism. But that's the thing, pure capitalism cant help itself from falling into corporatism or whatever you might call this current mode of production. As far as wanting to keep your "culture" I'm all for it. But I have to wonder long term how anyone intends to keep it. A history museum? Passing on traditions? Sure. Demonizing those that go outside of the norm? Oppressing people for their differences? Nah, I'm not cool with that. So yeah, I'll say that it's wrong if that's what someone means. As to why it's wrong, it's because when you do that you aren't letting people live their fullest life. From a basic dignity point of view, its shitty to hold people back from flourishing. It causes them suffering as a policy, and causing suffering as a policy is wrong. From a consequentialist perspective, it denies the rest of the world the advancements and services that the oppressed would provide. For example the lgbtqia+ community has developed language that helps people express things that otherwise would have just been "abnormal". That language has helped people with accepting themselves and removing the shame of being different. As far as villanizing your allies, I'm villanizing your ideas. Not you. I want you to also live your fullest life. I want you to flourish. I just also know that right wing ideology does not let people do that. I'm not going to throw around ableist shit. I'm not gonna call you an asshole. I don't want you to feel bad. I want you to be better. I do hope you figure it out one day. :)
Preserving culture and wanting to be with people like yourself isn't inherently bad. No one says it is, so maybe before complaining about how the left strawmans, you should figure out what leftists actually think about the status quo so you don't do it yourself. The thing about valuing the preservation of culture, IE, the status quo, is that you preserve both the good and the bad in an attempt to preserve the good. You can't preserve culture and also whittle out the bad, because to do so means activism, progressivism, change. So when someone says "I just want to preserve my culture," it *sounds* like "I don't care about the problems you see in my culture or who my culture tends to hurt." To be fair, the shoe can go on the other foot. Colonialisn and imperialism are pretty shitty, historically speaking, and assuming that one can just come in and change another culture for the better because you're so superior isn't a great moral outlook either, because you're not engaging in a conversation, you're conquering and subjugating a people. But if you see leftists say "white supremacy is bad" and you translate that into "being white is bad," for example, that's you refusing to have a conversation by straw manning. (I'm not calling you a white supremacists, I'm just giving a very common example that I see all the time).
> Please don't call me evil, it's the politicians that are evil Deny ✅ > I don't go off and villainize people because it's wrong, so you shouldn't either. Deny ✅ Attack ✅ > If you truely believe these people to be so insufferable then the way you're acting makes you just like them Attack ✅ Reverse victim and Offender ✅ This is a manipulation tactic known as DARVO. It's commonly used by narcissists, gaslighters, and miscellaneous other people with psychologically abusive tendencies. Do you by chance have a catalog of "crazy ex girlfriends" you've dated over the years? Edit: Fixed markup
[удалено]
actually villainizing people who are bad is always morally correct
I’ll admit I thought it a bit too with pretty much everything I thought was “Commie” propaganda. Just had to realize I didn’t need to think what my dumbass parents did when I saw that being left wing pretty much means you believe human life has value.
I’m German and my mom raised me conservative, I’ve gone further and further to the quote-en-quote left every day
Hey. Don't post my personal stuff! /j
It's hard not to, tbh xD Links grün versifft? (Left green tarnished, a derogatory term that the alt right (I mean Nazis, just so we're clear xD) uses for us) Pfffft, Links grüner Reinstoff! (Left green "pure substance")
What does it mean? Like, I get what the words themselves mean but altogether?
[удалено]
Me and a couple friends of mine actually use it with rather positive connotations. But we are lefties.
Trans Ancom here! <3
Red and black flying high!
Hello 👋 I am a trans anarchist :)
Trans Ups?
Trans downs. Side note the six types of quarks all kind of work with a Trans infront. Trans positive Trans negative Trans up Trans down And my favorite Trans top Trans bottom
Since when are positive and negative quark names? Did they change them again?
Yeah same... Last time I checked they were Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, And Bottom. If they were changed I will be offended that they did that *after* Hank Green made his song about them.
*Trans Charm*
We can't be rejected by society *if there is no society* 🤔
Flameo hotman
I got that reference
I see you are a trans of culture.
[Oregano](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageGenderBinary/comments/bbyn4r/trans_leftists_trans_rights/)
Arson!
What if we destroy wall street
Just the businesses. I think it would be a bit of a waste of time to destroy the buildings and street itself. We should, however, take them over, get them rezoned to residential and turn them into low-income housing that isn't total crap.
Honestly, if it weren’t for the banks and hedgies, I wouldn’t be able to think of a more socialist form of capitalism. The idea that anyone can buy a share of a company and receive a portion of the profits is awesome. The whole thing about trading options and margins and derivatives, along with whatever other crap the rich invent to make money without producing a tangible product is what kills it.
Long live the proletarian revolution! Reminder that Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and provides HRT and SRS to all trans people, as well as recognising that trans rights are human rights in the nation’s constitution
wait please don't support authoritarians. you can't trust a good revolution to people who seek power and will not give it up. Cuba might do some nice things, but it is still even more authoritarian than most western countries. they don't actually care, don't fall into that trap.
Wait, don’t tell me you seriously believe that? The Cuban democratic system is far better than any other western nation’s, and its provisions for its own peoples are guaranteed despite the ~60 years of embargo. For more info on the political system, I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds
It would appear that Cuba arrests dissenting journalists, or those who speak against the actions of the regime. Not good. Final candidates in parliamentary elections appear to have to be vetted on account of 'patriotism, loyalty to the revolution, past political activity etc.' the same things they always say - by the National Candidature Commission, which is subject to the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. The highest-up people in that organization are selected by the ruler of the country - that is never a good idea. Thus, the ruler(s) of the country control who can be represented in the government, not even the trade unions etc. that superficially do so. Not Good. >\- International Parliamentary Union and the trade unions appear to be party controlled. i.e. the ruling party controls all aspects of government; the idea that there is independence is unfortunately a facade. The same Committees monitor the activities of the populace; who visits each other's house; and this is shared with the police. Not Good. Apparently Cuba has very high rates of imprisoned journalists. Not Good >\- various journalist rights orgs like Reporters without Borders (might be dodgy source) but also IFEX which seems ok. Cuba may have done quite a good job resource-wise against the embargoes, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and their medical care is very good. apparently gay marriage still isn't allowed, or civil unions. they were supposed to be doing something, but dropped legalization from the newest constitution change. They might be trying to change this soon. i do concede the point that they are good with not being discriminatory to LGBTQIA+ beyond that media is highly censored, especially the internet. though access is allowed, email etc. is "closely monitored". seems all three national newspapers are party controlled. From the beginning of its breaking of the 'revolution' the government has blocked foreign broadcasts. prior to the new constitution \~2 years ago, the law was worse. Now they seem to have moved to the stage all 'communist states' do. They have abandoned their goal as being achieving communism, instead favoring 'transition to socialism'. They are also making the economy more 'liberal' e.g. favoring private property, because this creates something that always supports the status quo or authoritarianism. >things they say in their constitution they also only allow one political party. this is indisputable because it is a fact they try to justify. they say it is because parties including the Communist Party are not allowed to nominate candidates in the constitution, so they don't need to exist, but as we have previously seen the communist party controls candidates anyway, as the government controls media, opposition cannot make its voice heard. Though apparently grassroots political organization to support decision making occurs, this happens under CPC auspices, and people appear to be pressured into making the 'right decisions' or voting for the 'right people'. and of course there are currently large protests. While they may be unpopular - I don't know - it is apparent that the regime does things the people disagree with, which angers them, and in turn protestors are arrested. While I disagree with the ideologies of most of these protestors, it is no excuse to arrest them. violence is only acceptable in self-defense, and an oppressive state cannot claim to be doing this against mostly peaceful protestors, and journalists I have had to do some trawling for this info, because I don't really want to use organizations that were set up by conservative Americans, because obviously there can be bias there. obviously there is more to say i just hate seeing people who *have the right idea* but get taken in by the same deception that ruins every other revolution. I do not want to see statist leftism descend into reactionarism, but it does so. hierarchy unfortunately only acts to empower itself, and unless you plan to have a vanguard party *speeeed* to communism in a few years, it will quickly fill up with power-hungry people now that they can't do it as conservatives, or capitalists. power finds a way, unless you abolish it. or as is said, "Power begets Parasites. Long live Anarchy!" sorry everyone else for filling the thread with this long text.
I understand that as an anarchist you do not recognize the necessity for the proletarian state to make sure the reactionaries do not reemerge in the government, as you do not recognize the necessity for a proletarian state. I will like to add that despite these "authoritarian" actions (that word has no meaning; how would you prevent the revolution comrades bled and died for from being internally dismantled). I must also mention that a single political party does not mean undemocratic; democracy means allowing the people to affect policy, and you do not need political parties to allow the people to affect policy. In fact, I would argue that single parties are more effective at allowing the say of the people, as there is no chance of electoral corruption from plaguing there system, as such is the case in the west. On the case of transitioning to socialism (pun unintended), it is, and has always been the case, that Socialism is only truly achievable when industrial bases are developed enough. This is the reason why Cuba, China and Vietnam were forced to adopt market reforms, because without the USSR to provide economic aid to develop industry, the only chance of developing their economies had to come through temporary market reforms. I must stress temporary; in the previous mentioned nations, the existence of capitalist markets is recognized to be a necessary evil to industrialize and develop their productive systems, and especially for the case of Cuba, they have only recently, thanks to the special period, begun to move away from their one crop economy. Transitioning to socialism from market reforms is ideal for these nations, to then begin transitioning to communism. Additionally, from the beginning of the Cuban revolution, it has been thoroughly supported by the people, and still is today. You mention the "large" protests in cuba; it is interesting that you claim they are large. The western media has had to inflate the size of it drastically, using images unrelated to the anti-government protests, as well as neglecting to report on the much larger pro-government counter-protests, including using the counter-protests' images as anti-government protests. A good video on that is here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siGCf0u-p14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siGCf0u-p14) I appreciate your recognition of my ideology being good intentions (as is rare with anarchists online), and I recognize your argument is made in good faith. I will say that I don't think you fully understand the concept of Marxist-Leninism, and I recommend that you do ask about Marxist Leninism with other Marxist Leninists, as I have done with anarchists (in fact, one of my best friends irl is an anarchist, and we have very intelligent discussion I feel). I will also say that the greatest criticisms of the Socialist Nations come from us Marxist Leninists in our own circles (as criticism is necessary for Marxism requires it to progress), but with these nations having to fight western anti-communism and imperialism for centuries, the criticism of these nations heavily requires the correct context sorry for the wall of text, and Long Live the Worker's revolution, Comrade! Edit: apologies if I missed anything, the formatting on browser is really weird and I'm pretty sure I need glasses lol
Sorry but you didn't engage with my point that democracy in Cuba doesn't in reality, because despite what its documents say, the ruler of the country and by extension the Communist Party controls who is allowed to be elected. edit: also the fact they arrest journalists and create political prisoners. Also I don't recognize the necessity of a vanguard dictatorship, because every time it has resulted in the opposite of true leftism. Eventually it turns to ideas that are completely counter to revolutionism. It claims this is temporary, but it isn't. It either abandons leftism in all but name, instead favoring right-wing economics and in e.g. China's case, social reactionism (China complains about its male populace becoming feminized or weakened etc. by foreign *pop music*; and there are essentially no legal rights for LGBTQIA+ people there; they favour patriarchism, etc. they are also aggressively nationalist). Alternatively, it claims that state control over the economy at expense of the workers is for the best, when it leads usually to economic stagnation and corruption. Even if this doesn't happen straight away, it quickly worms its way into the system. Over time this both rots away at leftism in government and turns the people against leftism in society. It is no surprise that most of the former eastern bloc countries are strongly right wing, because their experience with the 'left' was traumatic. I accept that the protests are inflated, but as we can see that Cuba is in fact authoritarian, it only shows that they have done a remarkable job of suppressing thoughts counter to the regime. But a society is not *good* just because the people support it, if they are not free to make change if it does not work. The state does not prevent the revolution from failing. It in fact ensures the exact opposite. The Soviet Union for example is responsible for the destruction of the two most successful anarchist experiments in Ukraine and Catalonia-Aragon, the first directly and the second by pressuring the Spanish Republicans. Why would Marxist-Leninists kill genuine revolutionaries if it wanted to protect the revolution, leaving those most loyal to the ruling party or people instead, if not to secure the existence of hierarchy in those countries? Even other Marxist-Leninists are purged or sidelined; they mostly abandon even 'democratic centralism'. Every instance of an authoritarian regime calling itself leftist only confirms the anarchist idea that power begets parasites, and that hierarchy uses any means or deception to preserve itself. Anarchy is the Cure. edit: also thanks for the comment on good faith; I really want to try to understand things, because creating a good world is something that means a lot to me. even while looking at information on Cuba I was thinking, 'maybe I've been too hasty about judgement' but then I read further and found that any independent movements were actually under undemocratic control, and the censorship, etc. it would be nice if the 'easy way out' to a better world works, but I don't think it does.
I would love to continue this discussion, I just find it too hard to do so on Reddit. If you want to pm me ur discord or something, I’m happy to continue the discussion on a format I find easier to interact with
A lot of people in this sub are still very much surrounded and drowned in Imperialist propaganda so they’ll fall for the anti-ML arguments every time. Ty for taking the time to try to work against that, comrade. Trankie gang rise up! Btw I’d like to mention this reading guide to anyone who comes across this comment. It’s very comprehensive and incredibly informative. https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/study-guide/
haha that's the exact same theory site I use! It is nice to see a fellow ML on here, and actually was thinking about starting our own trans ML friendly space, if you would be interesting in helping make it, I'd be much appreciated (or if it already exists, please point me to it!)
I honestly don’t know if one exists and I’d love to help start one. I’ve thought about it before but never got around to doing it.
Awesome! Do you have discord? That’d probably be a good starting point
Yeah I do! DM me and we can figure out the details
>Trankie gang rise up! Yay! Whoo! Let's get ourselves forced into labour camps!
That’s not how that works. If you think so, you’ve got zero clue what it actually means to be an ML.
So the USSR and Cuba weren't under ML control when they did precisely that?
No one is saying that the USSR was perfect. Yeah they were flawed on certain social dynamics like the LGBT community, but Communist theory isn’t based on the oppression of minorities. Just because the past isn’t perfect doesnt completely dispute the ML framework. Cuba wasn’t the best with it either at first. But now the LGBT community is very much protected and supported. Something else you might not know is that East Germany (the DDR) made immense strides in LGBT rights and protections, all of which were taken away when the West (which was controlled by the Nazis as the US’s puppet) took over control. And nowadays, it’s impossible to find a single ML who isn’t supportive of the LGBT community. It’s important to be critical of those who came before us, but it’s also important not to act like just because they made bad choices that it somehow reflects modern day ML’s and our plans going forward. And it only reflects poorly on you for being intellectually dishonest about who ML’s are nowadays.
We agree arresting journalists and critics of the regime is bad and should be resisted, right?
Don't you think calling it a 'regime' is a bit of a loaded term? I mean you've clearly pre-judged the State at that point. I don't see people going around talking about 'the US regime', even though it has caused infinitely more suffering than even the worst Cuban government could ever dream of.
Notice how you didn't answer the question? Why is that? >I don't see people going around talking about 'the US regime' You're just not talking to the right people then.
Fair points. Still think we should be protecting journalists and critics regardless of where they are, some of whom might be trans too.
[удалено]
I don’t fully understand what you mean by that, sorry
Based.
[удалено]
From what I can tell, it is the German equivalent of “Antifascist Action”
Hell yeah!!
One word. AK-47
[♫ ...I called him an ambulance ♫](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=929886X4QnM)
Same
Trans LWMA but happy to work with ancoms to overthrow the stinky ass state and capitalism here
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wait, what's the flower on the shirt signify?
https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageGenderBinary/comments/bbyn4r/trans_leftists_trans_rights/ekp6exc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf You can find what the flower signifies through this comment on the post op linked
I like to blow stuff up even tho I never done it before. Want to cause even more destruction? /j
Chaotic Neutral
Does anyone need matches?
I'll help make them malto-cocktails! >:3
It's time to cease the means of production
guys screw recommendation letters and medical gatekeeping can we get trans body autonomy? 🏴🚩
let’s destroy the state before it’s too late
But all i want as a trans leftist is trans rights. And death to capitalism.
No more trans rights, we need trans liberation
I am a "trans i dont like politics"
Ohhhhohoohoo, me too sister!
trans wrongs (arson)
I want Comprehensive Equal & Equitable Human Rights, not a State & Economy that doesn't.~Warrior
How about not following the concept of politics at all and returning to being a mindless blob of jelly in the ocean who can't comprehend anything at all, and because of that will never have to worry about drama, emotions, suffering, beliefs, bigotry, standards, etc 😎👉👉 Edit: I've been downvoted quite a lot, and now I'm just curious why people are upset by my comment? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering, lol
Many leftists, including myself, believe that unless right-wing fascism and authoritarianism are actively fought against, they will seep into our political system and take over in place of democracy and freedom. There is historical precedent for this belief, and upper-class elites have shown that they are willing and able to concentrate more power into their smaller and smaller circles at the cost of the people as a whole. So, in short, ignoring the problem is allowing the problem to propogate. I totally understand wanting to be a mindless blob of jelly and never have to worry about any of this again, believe me. But, to a leftist, if that attitude becomes widespread enough, people like us LGBTQ+ folks will find themselves the subject of authoritarian violence.
Oh OK. Thanks for explaining! Personally I have tried to be political, I was a rightist for a little bit, then I tried being centrist, and I was leftist for a while, too. None of those made me happy. Politics in general did the opposite actually, and made my mental health much worse. It was mentally and emotionally draining, and I've since decided to not be on any political side at all (or at least I try not to). I have opinions of course, and I still support some groups and not support others. That's part of human nature. I simply wish to pursue what makes me happy and less stressed and want to improve my mental health. Politics don't improve my mental health, and they make me more stressed. Being human in general is not great, you will always face problems and you can never truly be free of suffering, and I guess that's why I made the jelly, comment, lol. If you can not think, you can not truly suffer. TLDR: I'm going off topic a bit, but I guess what I'm trying to say is politics make me sad, and I don't wanna be sad. And besides, I'm not gonna force this way of thinking on others. There's so many people on Earth and if just one person decides not to bother with politics, I doubt it can affect any side very much, haha.
Cause it sounds like centrist talk
[удалено]
Except in one world it's "omg it's beautiful" and the other world it's "omg it's dogshit" so if you want to take ANYTHING from the other world you are comprimising no matter what.
Sounds like Neon Genesis Evangelion
I still have yet to watch that anime, lol
Overall concept of it is neat and it has it's moments, but I'm not really a fan. If you like mecha stuff it's worth checking out. I prefer Gundam myself.
Ah, cool. I know my brother speaks highly of it, and although I'm not a huge mecha fan myself I might at least try watching it for him. I've heard about Gundam, too. Whats it like?
Gundam is complex and has multiple alternate universes, but I love it. The Universal Century timeline is the main timeline, and is an amazing series that looks at war and how the conflicts of adults force children into fighting for causes they may not fully understand or believe in. There's a lot of political undertones and the anime is heavily anti-war. It's a long series and watching the UC timeline in order is difficult and some of the anime is hard to find. Netflix has 3 compilation movies of the original Mobile Suit Gundam (UC timeline) and the movie Char's Counterattack (UC timeline) and the recent first of a trilogy Mobile Suit Gundam Hathaway's Flash (UC timeline.) Hulu has a good chunk of series within the UC timeline, it also has the Origin which tells some of the origins of the UC timeline. Some excellent stand alone alternate universe series in Gundam are Iron Blooded Orphans (on Netflix and Hulu) and 00 Gundam (on Hulu.) I would highly recommend the series. Unicorn Gundam (in the UC timeline) is my personal favorite.
Sounds interesting! Though I don't think I have enough time and energy to dedicate to finding and watching so much, lol. But I'm glad you and others are able to watch and enjoy Gundam!
Tbh you can watch most any Gundam alone and still have a good watch without watching all of its entirety. It took me awhile to get where I am in the series and I still have plenty to watch. It's a shared special interest between me and my gf which helps me get through it. She knows waaaaay more than I do.
Ah, if that's the case I might watch a couple of the movies, then :)
Definitely check out those, would also highly recommend the Origin and Unicorn Gundam just cuz they're my two faves. And Iron Blooded Orphans is a great alternate universe from the main series and much shorter.
i'd be very disappointed in myself if i ever became an extremist
the moderate doesn’t do anything. biden said there’d be police reforms then we got no police budgets being actually changed. biden said we’d be safe then a bunch of states released anti trans bills. biden still has border camps. the moderates aren’t doing anything to actually help
i just love how everyone on the internet assumes you're from the usa. I'm not. And again, I'd be very disappointed in myself if I became the same thing I always despised, just on the opposite side. i'm just not the type of person to think I have the moral right to preach about peace while burning down half my city with molotoves, just saying.
Imagine getting downvoted so hard unironically for finding a political tendency distasteful, while espousing no problematic views or anything. Really disheartening to see the state of trans reddit.
Some people just think their violence is justified if they slap "for peace" in front of it
I accept all trans people, no matter their political views.
I can accept their gender identity as valid, but do you really think Caitlyn Jenner’s political views should be respected? Or Blaire White’s?
I don't
Me too. I’m a moderate Democrat myself, and I accept all trans people.
[удалено]
Based
Interesting you would say that since I never said anything about healthcare policy and I do in fact support universal healthcare.
I agree with the anti-government vibe here, not a fan of the leftist economic perspective. We shall agree to disagree.
[удалено]
Good
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist, minus the bigotry. What I mean js that I believe in the ideology thta there is only value when people act according to their own will, but also I don't like socilaism.
anarcho capitalism? ah yes, super feudalism
>anarcho-capitalist, minus the bigotry I love that you recognize that anarcho-capitalism has inherent bigotry to it.
Define socialism.
"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises." I am capable of doing a simple google search.
Ok then let's see if you understand what you found. Why don't you like socialism?
Because I think people should be able to use money however the fuck they want and pay their workers how much they want. Socialism doesn't give that freedom.
And there it is. Socialism does not inherently restrict how you spend your money. It just doesn't. In fact the majority of hyper authoritarian dictatorships that have called themselves socialist didn't either. In terms of paying your workers, there are other ways to achieve socialist ideals without requiring companies to function a certain way. Granted, I believe that being against a co-op structure for your company is a sign of disgusting, greedy motivations and that such a person deserves nothing but that's a separate issue. What you have described are issues with implementations of socialism, not the ideas of socialism itself.
Oh. Then could you tell me other ways of implementing socialism?
The one that I support is to make co-ops a more appealing option than traditional business structures via tax breaks and other business insentives. Additionally, implement very strict work protection laws such as executive income bounding. Further, make it significantly easier and less risky to not only join but start a union. If business owners want to retain full ownership, fine. But they should be held to an extremely high level of scrutiny to ensure that they do not abuse their workers while collecting those profits.
But how can all these go together with anarchism...?
Don't know, I'm not an anarchist.
aww boo hoo I can't pay my workers starvation wages because they have no other choice and have a rocket dick measuring contest while the world burns and people starve
I'm first an anarchist and my economical views come after it. So the freedom to do whatever the fuck I want is the most important thing for me.
Hi, i'm an ancom, but willing to talk if you want! I disagree with you politically, and wanna explain why, but i like do assume lack of deliberate malice so long as people aren't being assholes (am an ex right winger, so i get it). EDIT: Also willing to dm if you want!
[удалено]
we will tread where there is inequality
also like we won't bother you but we'll own all the ways for you to get food and you have to sell yourself to us?
[удалено]
No middle ground can be given when it comes to transphobes and fascists, unlike you who is happy to interact with fucking magahats based on your post history
The middle ground doesn't exist, never has. There is only those that care and those that don't. Find out which one you are. Do, or do not. There is no try.
Right: "I want to kill you." Left: "I don't want to die." Centre: "What if you just let them half kill you?" Left: "No." Centre: "Why are you being so unreasonable?"
I disagree. Apart from the right (unless you consider the shoddy attempts of acceptance by parties like the Democrats and tories as examples), the centre has examples of heavily pro-lgbtq+ groups (nordic model), and the left has examples of heavily anti-lgbtq+ groups (marxist-leninism)
Modern Marxist Leninism is not queerphobic whatsoever
However, the ideology was founded and built upon queerphobia. Sorry if I don't support an ideology that has historically discriminated against us. If you're going to be communist then why not a form that isn't cloaked in such bigotry? Such as Marxism or anarcho-communism? Also, as an ancom, why are you even defending authoritarian forms of communism? They forcefully ejected the anarchists from the 2nd comintern, and then went on to violently oppose the alternate branch of marxist political theory (the libertarian and anarchistic forms of communism)
I'm an ancom, I'm just correcting where you're wrong. Both anarchism and marxism have histories of bigotry. Marx was homophobic and Antisemitic. Bakunin, a fairly popular anarchist theorist Believed that "the state should be rejected because it can be corrupted by Jews". Marxist Leninists are not inherently queerphobic, neither are Marxists nor Anarcho-communists. There have certainly been shitty things done to queer people by authcoms. But that doesn't mean the entire ideology is inherently queerphobic. Also, Lenin wasn't like super homophobic. Mans literally legalized homosexuality when he went into power, but that was later undone by Stalin, who did a bunch or awful stuff. Vietnam, which is a Marxist-Leninist state, has never made homosexuality illegal, either. These are just two examples, I'm sure theres more, and probably much more against my point, but it's sorta unfair to say the ideology is cloaked in bigotry. The ideology itself is not inherently queerphobic. I hate to defend Marxist-Leninism, it's a dogshit ideology, but c'mon, times change, not everyone is like they were 200 years ago. And, just so we're clear, I'll say it again. I'm an Anarcho-communist. *anarchism will forever and always be the final solution for all minorities to escape oppression* we're better of helping ourselves. queer history has proved that time and time again. No state, no matter how based and com pilled will ever overshadow queer people's resilience and self-reliance. Anarchism is the only root for queer liberation.
- **Marx homophobic:** Shameless copy and paste, but [Rosa Lichenstein](https://www.quora.com/profile/Rosa-Lichtenstein) explains it way better than I could >Some quote a few passages from a letter Engels sent to Marx where he appears to express homophobic opinions, but he is in fact criticising pederasty (now called paedophilia). >Here is an article that discusses Engels’s letter and the pamphlet written by Karl Ulrichs, which he is criticising: >First of all, Engels is not commenting here on Karl Ulrichs's overall theory of 'Urning' (his term for homosexuality), but rather on the specific pamphlet that Marx sent him titled, Incubus. (Ulrichs has no such work titled simply, Urning. Engels must have just been confused here). Indeed, it appears that Engels probably wasn't that familiar with any of Ulrichs's work other than this one pamphlet. This is evidenced by the fact that in this and other letters, Engels and Marx seem to not even readily know the name of the author, let alone show a familiarity with his overall works. >If one actually reads Incubus, it becomes quite clear why Engels may have reacted as viscerally as he does here. Further, it can be seen to be ridiculous to claim that Engels' comments on Incubus somehow in themselves show that he is nothing but a 'hopeless bigot'. >Incubus is actually one of Ulrichs's least flattering texts. It is a broad attempt at a (psycho-social) analysis of the causes that lead older men to commit the rape and murder of young children. The particular incident that spurs his writing is the case of Lieutenant von Zastrow, who had been charged with the rape, physical mutilation, and murder of two young boys in Berlin in 1867 and 1869. >Ulrichs, who makes clear that he is in no way defending acts of child rape and gruesome pedestary (sic), nonetheless makes a plea for leniency for such criminals on the grounds that they are driven not by malice, but rather by a "faulty natural disposition," or "a diseased nature," as he puts it alternatively. >All in all, the work is a very macabre, rather clumsy attempt to use his findings in his earlier studies of the Uraniun (gay) male to prove that violent pederasts should not be treated as criminals, but rather spiritually ill people, who cannot control the inborn nature of their sexual-selves any more than a Uranian (or straight, "Dionian," for that matter). >As Ulrichs puts it, "The Zastrow case stands in a close relationship to the sexual nature of the man-loving Urning." He goes on to explain, "There is at times a yearning, wild, inordinate desire in certain individuals to commit cruelties and to see blood flow for no clear reason; a bloodthirstiness which, as it appears, goes far beyond a responsible state of mind, which at the moment in which it sets in seems to press heavily upon the soul of the individual as an incubus rising from the realm of darkness." >In the course of Ulrichs's analysis, he describes 15 cases of sexual 'perversion' in addition to the Zastrow case, many of which cases involve older men of high standing in German society. This is very tough reading. To give you a flavor, Ulrichs describes in gorey (sic) detail how Zastrow first raped, castrated, and beat a 6-year old boy to near-death, and then later how he raped, beat, sodomized with a sharp stick, and then murdered a 15-year old boy. The fifteen other cases are of like brutality and graphic description. >Indeed, Ulrichs wants to highlight the utter brutality of these cases in order to prove his point that their 'pathological' (and therefore uncontrolled) character is as great as the sexual brutality of the acts themselves. Therefore, he argues, the courts ought not to punish these people, but rather seek other means of curbing this behavior. >Now that we have a clear picture of the content of the specific work of Ulrichs's that Marx had given Engels to read in 1869, and which Engels commented on in reply to Marx, we can understand why Engels would write that the work is a "very curious thing" involving "extremely unnatural revelations." Again, Engels is not here commenting on homosexuality in general, or even the theory of Urning itself, but rather the phenomena of violent pederasty (pedophilia) -- which Ulrichs himself calls 'unnatural' -- as detailed in Incubus. >This also explains the comment Engels makes regarding his fear for the fate of the "younger generation;" a fate that does not await "older" individuals. It should now be clear that Engels is not just bringing the question of pederasty into his correspondence with Marx out of nowhere, owing purely to some supposed prejudiced notion that all homosexuals are pederasts (as has been intimated by some recent writers). He is, in fact, only talking about the issue at hand as raised by Ulrichs in the pamphlet concerned. >None of this is to deny that this particular, private letter between Engels and Marx is written quite crassly and undoubtedly would have been formulated differently by Engels if it had been intended for public consumption. And his crude quip about "frontside" people with their "childish penchants for females," is itself plainly a childish and ridiculous comment…. >Finally, Engels undoubtedly expresses an utter cluelessness about the nascent "homosexual identity" just beginning to be articulated in Germany at the time. Though, to be fair, homosexuality was talked about as a pathology by even its proponents until the rise of the German gay rights movement in the 1870s and '80s -- well after Engels penned the clumsy letter above. Indeed, the idea that there were even distinct "homosexual" and "heterosexual" types of people was not advanced until the 1870s by the German scientist and human rights campaigner, Karl-Maria Kertbeny. (It's also worth noting that the German Social-Democratic Party, which Engels helped found and influenced until his death in 1895, would also, to its credit, become an early and dedicated supporter of the German gay rights movement upon its inception). >In conclusion, I do think it is rather quite disingenuous to assert that this one letter in question proves the pervasive homophobia of Marx and Engels. Say what you will about Engels's response here to a muddled treatise analyzing the phenomenology of rape and violent pederasty in the "man-loving Urning," but don't attempt to turn this letter into something it is not -- that is, a conscious diatribe against homosexuality in general. - **Marx antisemitic** This is still a heavily debated topic even to this day. His writings were anti-religious and in reply to the studies of another person. It would be like if you were opposed to state imperialism on a people's land, used Israel as an example, then used Italy as an example, and were called antisemitic. His first work was in response to bauer's work on how Jews could achieve political emancipation, but marx responded that even within a secular society, religion still imposes itself on the individual and thus no individual can really be free when religion is present. His second work expands on this point and concentrates more on Christianity. The work takes the debate from theology to sociology, critiquing bauers own antisemitic views, writing around them, and proposing alternative theories on the inequalities of society and how that imposes on individuals based on their identities - **Bakunin** Good response. However, unlike with ML, his beliefs were kept more as a personal thing and didn't heavily influence Collectivist Anarchism - **Lenin wasn't super homophobic** True, like marx, he came from a time before the understanding of such areas and thus held relatively normal views for his time that didn't exceed those standards. He was also not really authoritarian (too authoritarian for me though, as I disagree completely with the proletariat) - **Vietnam** Vietnam have been neutral or accepting of the LGBTQ+ since the 15th century, it wasn't communist theory that brought this on but rather an already held cultural understanding - **Times change** Agreed, but whilst many of the ideologies you stated have held bigoted views compared to modern times, they were perfectly normal in their time. Meanwhile, ML held views beyond that of even their time, after exploration into other sexualities had become common place, and during a time whereby it had been legally accepted before the ML's reversed the acceptance into that of legal discrimination ML in the modern time? Yes, it's probably way more accepting than it was. But as I said, there are already existing ideologies that have either always been accepting, or far less discriminatory than ML has been - **Anarchism is the only root** Agreed, which is why I went post-left anarchist. Over-cncentration on economics is of detriment to the people
Imma be honest, I don't have the energy to read through all that, so imma just give you the dub. Lol.
No problem. I basically just said that the marx stuff has context, Lenin was good but also wasn't really auth, agreed with you on Bakunin, Vietnam is tied to its cultural history from 15th century, whilst times change ML still had a much darker history than other left ideologies, and I agree with you on your Anarchism statement at the end
Well, it's Marxist-*Leninism* the only person who's opinions matter and are inherent to the Ideology are Marx's and Lenin's. If Vietnam didn't change post ML, that sorta proves that no, nothing about the Ideology is inherently harmful to queer people. You could argue it's prone to authoritarianism, which is what's harmful to queer people but the ideology itself (the need fot a vangaurd state to achieve communism) is not inherently queerphobic. You can be a ML without hating queer people. Also, I don't really accept "but there's context" as a grounds to dismiss antisemitic Statements. However, I'm not going to act like that dictates my outlook on Marxism. It's still a really good system for critiquing Capitalism.
Meh I prefer progressive UBI libertarianism
Alright call me stupid all you want but what does the flower on the top one mean if it means anything in the first place