• IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, I hate the term as it’s usually used as a pejorative and is so reductive as to be essentially meaningless. I’m a democratic socialist.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s a leftist. You’re a leftist, buddy.

      I relate a bit, though. I think it’s cringe when socialists call each other “comrade”.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Is a communist the same as a progressive? A democratic socialist the same as an anarchist? Call me what you want but like I said, it’s reductive and meaningless.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Why must we divide the tribe? I don’t know how leftist who can’t identify as such plans to exercise collective power. But you do you.

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          5 months ago

          Progressives aren’t a thing, it’s simply an Amaerica counter label to conservatives so they have something to attack.

          And as an anarchist, I’ve no problem being lumped in with like minded views.

          We’re leftists and proud of it.

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Yes. It’s an American term used to describe those who are in opposition to conservative views. It’s not an ideology.

              But please, tell me what being a progressive values compared to any other leftist. What makes a progressive different from a anarchist, communist, or a dem soc who have defined values and beliefs?

                • Deceptichum@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  What, progressives are in favour of state owned utils or aren’t? Explain yourself properly.

                  • Skeezix@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Communist: a person who believes that the people should own all industry and means of production, but the government should control it. Mostly describes the economic system of the old Soviet Union. Misunderstood and widely used for generations as a pejorative term by conservatives for anyone who isn’t conservative.

                    Socialist: a person who believes that the people should own all industry and means of production, and the people should control it. A “co-operative” is a socialist construct.

                    Democratic Socialist: a person in favor of capitalism as an economic system, but with robust protections and measures against the extreme economic inequality and centralization of power that capitalism creates. Includes an understanding that we collectively are only as successful as the least successful among us. Misunderstood and widely confused with the above two definitions by conservatives.

                    Progressive: a person who understands that future success of society is dependent on adaptation and change, open-ness to new ideas and ways if doing things, embrasure of science and education as a means to overcome ignorance, superstition, xenophobia, and racism.

                    Leftist/Liberal: in principle anyone who ascribes to the above two definitions. In common vernacular also a pejorative term used by conservatives to describe anyone who isnt a hard right conservative (i.e., centrists).

                    Conservative: opposite of progressive; a person who wants to conserve old methods and ideals at the expense of progress and equality. Progress toward a fair and equitable society which offers everyone real opportunity invariably inconveniences and offends other people and factions. Therefore conservatives aren’t a homogeneous group. Similar to the way that ‘Protestant’ is defined by what it’s not (Catholic), ‘conservative’ is comprised of various ideals that aren’t progressive. These include religious zealots, LGBTQ intolerant, xenophobes, anti-science, anti-education, anti-democracy, fascists, nazis, conspiracy theorists, oligarchs, plutocrats, nepotists, the 1%. Basically the conservative moniker is adopted by anyone who stands to be disenfranchised (either financially or morally) by progress toward systemic fairness and equal opportunity. Interestingly, many of the factions within the conservative roundup do not have a mutual interest. For example the oligarchs are most interested in coalescing wealth and power whereas the religious zealots want a Christian state. Either way, many disparate groups within the conservative faction share a perceived persecution.

                    Regressive: a weaponized conservative with the added desire to roll back progress to an earlier period: i.e., eliminating reproductive healthcare, eliminating contraception, making it harder for certain groups to vote.

                  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    What makes a progressive different from a anarchist, communist, or a dem soc who have defined values and beliefs?

                    State ownership of utilities for one.

          • deafboy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Communism is a conservative authoritarian dogma. The exact opossite of progress… or anarchy.

              • deafboy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                “In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a condition in which the proletariat, or working class, holds control over state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional phase from a capitalist and a communist economy…”

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

                Except, there’s no such thing as a communist economy, so the transitional phase lasts as long as there’s capital to reallocate. Then peoole start to flee across the barbed wire and the facade falls down.

                • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  there is no such thing as a communist economy

                  Can you back this claim up? Market economy is a term for a reason. An economy doesn’t have to be market to be an economy. Have you never heard of a planned economy?

                  the transitional phase lasts as long as there’s capital to relocate

                  No. The transitional phase lasts as long there is classes that necessitate a state.

                  You have a very simplistic understanding of marxism that cannot be rectified through a fucking wikipedia search. Read the source material or stfu

                  • deafboy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I could read the lifework of Marx, but it wouldn’t change the unviability of planned economy. My parents and grandparents lived in one.

                    If we ever stumble upon some kind of mathematical or technological miracle, able to predict the future, I’d be worth to try again. Until then, socialism is a dangerous cult.

                • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The statement “communism is a conservative authoritarian dogma” being backed up by referencing the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is… definitely something

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You’re thinking of ML tankies.

              Communism is a stateless, classless, system where people enact mutualism and socialism without state coercion.

              • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                What makes this thing you’re describing, not anarchism?

                I think you’re thinking of anarchocommunism specifically. Which is “not all communism”™.

                State-based communism is a thing, that many people usually called tankies by others, do believe in.

                • Deceptichum@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The difference between non-ML tankie communism and anarchism is the means of getting there.

                  Communists want a vanguard state to slowly whittle away.

                  Anarchists want to skip that step.

                  • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I see. Well, if I take what you’re saying as fully correct, then it sounds like communism compared to anarchism, is just “a different path for how we reach the same utopia”.

                    And this different path passes through more authority (quantity and quality), through the existence and emphasis of the state.

                    How much authority, is probably what makes the spectrum of Anarchy to Stalin-Lenin.

                    And well… As an anarchist, deafboy’s comment might be polemic, but I get it. Any authority that can, will get corrupted.