This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
Welcome again to everybody. Make yourself at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.
☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive
"more pragmatic than socialist" is really telling on themselves - that they think socialism can function by ignoring what is practical
these are idealists posing themselves as socialists, neglecting the scientific part of it
Non-pragmatic socialists are either dead socialists or socialists still stuck handing out newspapers. Either way, they are not seizing and wielding power to build a better world.
Captain Traoré is building a better world for his people.
See, I think there is a discussion to be had on whether Traore is a socialist or a bourgeois revolutionary and that can be interesting discussion to be had and that is ultimately relevant to the future of Burkina Faso and its people.
But Jacobin's particular framing of socialism and pragmatism as being mutually exclusive very quickly highlights their idealism at play. As cfgaussian noted a socialist who isn't pragmatic is either ineffective or dead. The socialism of Jacobin is inherently Owenist to the core. They aren't Marxists nor do they conduct Marxist analysis; there is no dialectical materialism to be found in their articles. What we find instead are pieces like this which are critical of anti-imperialist struggles without justifying that critical position - and this is crucial because it is entirely possible to validly critique anti-imperialist struggles, this is why the "critical" in "critical support" exists after all. But Jacobin doesn't do this. It offers the criticism without the support but that's not how it works. If you're going to criticize Traore then there are only two positions you can be in: support or opposition. You either criticize him because you oppose him or you criticize him despite supporting him; there is no middle ground. You are either on the side of the imperialists or the side of the anti-imperialists. Jacobin, it seems, isn't interested in siding with the anti-imperialists and that means there is only one other side to take.
I can see why Chomsky loves these guys as they have a lot in common: criticism without the support; i.e. pro-imperialism.