And I use "normal" in scare quotes, because, according to whom, exactly, capitalism? Society? Yourself? Some of the "weirdest" people I've met in my life where also some of the nicest and actually helped me out. People you'd peg as "normal"? Well I've had my fair share of shit with them. I'm not about to put up with some reddit lord trying to score points with cool kid podcasters by throwing people who feed the homeless under the bus, fuck you very much.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Monk3brain3@hexbear.net 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Being a religious Marxist is contradictory, so his stance is, but it's worth mentioning that there are non-Marxist religious communists whose stances are much more coherent, even if they are still wrong and in reality we need a materialist understanding of the world to not kneecap any ability to engage with our conditions.

Yes that's the issue. Eventually the contradictions will compromise the Marxism.

Being a subject of capitalism isn't the same as being a liberal, just like being subjects of feudalism didn't prevent those liberals revolting against it from being liberals.

So the thing is even by not being an active supporter of the capitalist system you still massively benefit from it if you live in the imperial core. So I just view that as being an involuntary capitalist subject.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's why the "revolting against it" part is important and what I distinguished from "normative participation." Trying to say beyond that that one "isn't really a communist" because they live in the imperial core or whatever is, ironically enough, more like a theological stance than a useful assessment of someone.

[–] Monk3brain3@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

I get what you mean. My understanding was just that if you live under a capitalist system you are definitionally a capitalist subject. Maybe semantics on my end