Some people are, it's called antitheism. I confess when I was an edgy 16yo I was like that, but I had just left a religious cult so don't judge me too harshly.
I appreciate the well thought out response. My main point of contention is the enforcement mechanism. I agree with point 3 as a strategy, and I have actually participated in groups that follow this general principle, but I have always had the option to simply leave and find another group or form my own. The problem arises when the group is the only permissible form of organization (such as, for example, if it is the one party in a one-party state). You actually see this problem in China, when the state cracks down on workers who attempt to organize on their own terms by forming independent unions. I see this as an unambiguous moral failing of the Chinese state, and is an issue on which I will not budge. Bureaucracy makes determining the will of the majority complicated (no democracy is perfect), but even if it is indeed the will of the majority, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
There are things more important than unity. I do not believe that a better world must necessarily come at the cost of individual autonomy.
It's still a net positive for candidates like Mamdani to achieve electoral victories. Even if you believe that a true socialist can never make it to a high enough office to establish a socialist government (which I agree is likely correct), making the attempt and achieving some reforms in the face of very public resistance from the bourgeoisie is great for class consciousness. It sends the message "hey, it actually is possible to improve your material conditions, and the rich really don't want it to happen." Give people a taste and they will want more, which is why the establishment is so terrified of Zohran Mamdani.
Personally, I think that Democratic Centralism is too strict. I understand the idea behind ensuring the subordination of the minority to the majority, but as the party grows and especially after it seizes state power that subordination becomes enforced, and at that point it becomes oppression. It doesn't get rid of factions either, it just hides them and fosters resentment towards the majority faction.
Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, here are the tenets of Democratic Centralism as I understand them:
That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organization.
That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.
I believe that point 3 should be a suggestion, and never enforced. It should be up to the individual whether any given disagreement is enough to warrant going their own way, and an option should be given to "stand aside" in cases where someone would prefer not to participate in an action but otherwise wants to remain with the group.
Point 4 is backwards IMO, and a recipe for authoritarianism. Any sort of elected authority should always be instantly recallable by the electorate, and any "lower" body should always have the autonomy to make their own decisions.
Factionalism is not a bad thing if you embrace it rather than trying to fight it.
Even if it were the case that they didn't want to be there, "just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for committing a genocide. The morally correct thing to do if you're compelled to service in the IDF is to refuse and face the consequences, because they cannot be worse than the moral injury of being tasked with the murder of innocent children.
I think part of it is that a lot of straight people who are allies but not as familiar with the queer community feel strange about using the word queer, thinking that it's a reclaimed slur that they wouldn't be allowed to say if they aren't themselves queer. They don't realize that the queer community has collectively decided that no "pass" is needed for the word queer.
If NYC uses ranked choice voting in the general as well and Cuomo learns from his disaster of a campaign then he might try coalition-building with Eric Adams or others to pull off a win by getting neoliberals and MAGA to gang up on Zohran. It's a headscratcher for me because I never expect neoliberals to learn from their mistakes, and yet they might actually feel forced to because they never fail to pull out all the stops against progressives, let alone an actual socialist.
I form my worldview on vibes alone and am incapable of thinking for myself. My perception of people is entirely filtered through memes and sensationalist media.
The CCP acts like just because the state owns major enterprises then the workers - through the state - own the means of production. That doesn't hold up when the state does not adequately represent the will of the workers. Never is this contradiction more clear than when the Chinese state suppresses workers' attempts to organize on their own terms.
China is communist in the same way that the US is democratic, which is to say that it's a sham to keep up appearances that is suspended when convenient for the few who hold real power.
Hyperindividualism and car culture explains it all. Americans don't trust each other (especially not their neighbors) and want to put as much distance between themselves as possible. We're also mostly NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) and have very strict zoning laws that prevent commercial and residential buildings from coexisting in the same area. This is great for the auto industry because it means you can't do anything without driving, and they lobby the government to block any attempt to change things.
Our suburbs are liminal spaces that more closely resemble purgatory than actual communities, which is why everyone who grew up in them is at least slightly insane.
The media is compromised. People are organizing but you're not hearing about it for the most part. No one's talking about it on public forums for obvious reasons. You will start hearing about it when things come to a head.
Capitalists have always repackaged and sold our liberatory art back to us, that isn't new.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Is a quote paraphrased from a saying attributed to Lenin.
The writers are genuine in their messaging, the corpos just don't care. When someone slips a revolutionary message into the stream of "content," the appropriate thing to do is to consider it, turn off the TV, and act accordingly.
It would not bode well for the future of discourse if lemmy.world of all places gets shut down for radicalism. Our instance is significantly more radical than lemmy.world. Can you imagine some ecofascist idiot who posted on slrpnk.net a couple times committing a terror attack and getting the instance taken down? I can, which is why this news should be very concerning.
Edit: Just looked through some of the bomber's comments and their replies and some users even pointed out that his rhetoric was reminiscent of ecofascism. Anti-natalism and ecofascism are ideological siblings. The backlash to this attack is going to catch environmentalist groups in the crossfire, with many environmental activists being accused of having anti-natalist views. Anyone who's ever advocated for degrowth might get lumped in with them.
The problem is letting the AI digest the information for you. It is impossible to engage in critical thinking when you're not actually doing the thinking yourself.
Schmoo @ Schmoo @slrpnk.net Posts 5Comments 494Joined 2 yr. ago
Have I discovered a rare pro-capitalist user of lemmy.ml?