In general, you can’t normally convince your interlocutor, but instead onlookers. I talk a lot about Marxism-Leninism, and in my experience it isn’t the ones I talk with that change their minds, but those who see the convo as an outside observer.

They just signify if a comment or post is good or bad. They do have some impact on how high up a post or comment is displayed within their list, ie a lot of upvotes will show up better on active or hot sorting, but that’s about it. Some instances like Hexbear.net disable downvotes, to force discussion if you disapprove something.

PSL is good and already exists.

🪞

?

This would’ve been a bit too on the nose. I’d believe it if there was more proof, but I haven’t seen any yet.

This is fundamentally incorrect.

In my definition, any system where the general public cannot throw out the bums without violence is authoritarian.

Not only is it your definition, but you give no agency to the people. If a socialist state is supported by the public, then that’s a good example of a working system. I don’t know what you mean by “the bums,” if you mean opportunists then every socialist state has had mechanisms to expel party members that were more leech than diligent communists.

The is the fundamental reason communism is not viable. It just swaps distributed power for the even bigger problem of bigger concentrated power.

This is also incorrect. Communism and socialism are both viable, and have been better at distributing power than capitalist systems, including the nordic countries. Collectivization of production and distribution spreads power out to the people, society is run both in a centrally planned fashion and from below.

Just look at happyness indexes. We know the solutions that tend yield best results. They tend to be democracies with a fairly homogenious population and a socialist bent. Capitalists hate this and I assume communists do too because it shows neither is the way.

You’re referring to the nordic countries. These are anti-democratic dictatorships of capital that fund elaborate safety nets using the spoils of imperialism. Capitalists love this because they retain their super profits, and communists correctly hate this model because it perpetuates imperialism.

Sure, and history proves that socialist systems run by communists have brought massive democratization to their societies because of the structures they implemented.

Yes, every socialist state in history has been ruled by the majority, by the working classes. “Human nature” has nothing to do with it, what is “human nature” is really just the way our environment shapes us, including how we produce and distribute. This is why we can say there is “proletarian ideology,” as working for a living shapes our ideas and how we think of the world.

Sure, I agree with both of those. Capital hates restriction unless it is used in its own favor, and socialism in general, both the reformist type of the DSA and the Marxist type found in countries like Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, etc are rising.

Sanders is a social democrat, ie capitalist but a supporter of enlargening safety nets, not a socialist. Mamdani claims to be more of a reformist socialist than a social democrat, but that remains to be seen. You are correct, support for socialism and communism is rising in the US, but the way you frame it is wrong.

“Authoritarianism” is a buzzword. It doesn’t really mean anything when you hide from class analysis. Socialist countries wield authority against the capitalist class, landlords, fascists, etc, while capitalist countries wield authority against the working classes. There isn’t some arbitrary scale of “libertarianism to communism” where the more radical you get the more the state acts. The citizens of the US Empire aren’t especially independent, and the system isn’t lopsided due to electoral habits, but due to systemic structures designed to perpetuate capitalism and imperialism.

The US is authoritarian against the working classes, and that’s by design. The opposition to socialism and communism from older generations and liberals is more a product of the Red Scare and cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie than anything else, alongside class interests benefiting from imperialism.

Considering the WSWS is a Trotskyist org, looks like it will be heavily influenced by that and thus be pretty terrible at understanding Marxist theory.

It’s not because the majority “lets” violent aggressors get what they want, it’s because capitalism as a system selects for those most willing to do whatever it takes to gain the most profit. It’s a control system that selects for profit, if a capitalist is unwilling to do whatever it takes then another overtakes them. Socialist countries don’t have these same problems to nearly the same extent.

Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, but Not Real Revolution - Jones Manoel

The west lets the pure socialism in their heads be the enemy of socialism in the real world for their flaws, challenges, struggles, and imperfections. This causes them to confuse allies for enemies, resulting in a passive upholding of the terror committed by western countries against the global south.

To build a better world through organizing in real life, and combining that with thorough study of Marxist-Leninist theory. Part of that agenda involves talking to those with misconceptions surrounding socialism and communism, and trying to help correct those misconceptions.

It’s definitely “scary” for right-wingers and the like.

They don’t, they reference what they call the “June 4th incident” all the time when relevant. What they don’t allow is spreading the fictionalized version of events, ie tanks running over 10000 protestors in the square. They acknowledge the real events, which were riots around Beijing that were put down by the PLA, resulting in a few dozen deaths of officers and a few hundred rioters killed by the PLA. The west uses the atrocity propaganda of the former story to undermine the socialist project in the PRC.

The Red Army was responsible for 80-90% of the war effort in Europe against the Nazis, the eastern front absolutely eclipsed the western front.

You are on a site maintained and developed by communists, so there are a lot of us here. We all have biases, of course, and I’d argue that presenting an anti-western, pro-communist bias on some of the most unjustly demonized figures in the world both today and historically is exactly what OP asked for.

As for the bit on “authoritarianism,” communists support the use of the state in protecting socialism and uplifting the well-being of the vast majority of society. This is often framed as “authoritarian” by western countries, stripping property owners of their spoils and focusing on collectivized production and distribition, but we communists would argue that this creates a freer society overall.

Marx was called an “authoritarian” in his time as well, yet his work has helped lead to the liberation of billions of people. The communists who gave their blood, sweat, and tears to gain the power to feed, house, and clothe the people are the ones actually fighting for freedom, even if the west calls them authoritarian.

🦀

I think that boxes them in a bit more, being very queer and protective of queer users is related to being leftists. They are also heavily vegan, which is also informed by politics. I think everyone that’s pro-queer rights, and is a part of the queer community, kind of has to be engaged in politics as a matter of survival. Queer instances have to take anti-bigotry stances, which includes exclusion of the right-wing.

I do understand what you mean better now, though.