57
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
57 points (96.7% liked)
Quotes
305 readers
1 users here now
Any good quotes from speeches, books, articles, etc
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The quote is nice and has a right thought behind it, though, concidering Mao's actions, even if he actually said it, i doubt he ever really meant it.
The 20th century was a century of bloody dictatorships, and i think it is time to bring the new age of politically and ideologically strong leaders to the world: not as bloodstained, but still willing to overthrow the regiment of bloated inhumane cowards. After all, the world has changed a lot since the last century.
My point is, we have to stop praising glorious people of the past in order to see the potential leaders of the future.
All i see is how unhappy people are with the current regiment, but its almost as they are not willing to do anything about it. Are you really dislike our current politic paradigm as much as you're trying to convey if you're not actually doing anything?
Sorry, don't mind me, i'm just shouting to the void and noone in particular.
This isn't about "great leaders", it's about us. Here's what's meant by the quote:
It's a recipe for organizing.
without a leader the crowd is just a bunch of unorganized people. The quote is not a recipe for organization, rather a one for converting people to your ideology. I have no idea how you have concluded what you just said.
Unless you build a hierarchical structure, there will be no order and therefore no coordination in people's actions. Just like now people are sitting here on the internet, ranting that the system is rotten, but basically doing nothing. They're either not actually believing in what they say, or need someone who will be able to motivate them to go on the barricades. If you're not ready to die for your ideology then may be its not really your ideology after all, and you've simply been tempted by the utopian fantasies of a bunch of dreamers? You know, like modern christians who do believe in existence of heaven, but don't in one of hell. Of course everyone wants to end up in the firs but not in the latter, but this way of thinking, that believing in the right thing will get them there is as immature as it could be.
sorry, the last paragraph is me continuing screaming to the void. Its just that this quote made me thinking and after some time of inner dialogue i've came to the thougts i wrote here. They are not quite relevant to the post, i simply need to let the steam out. As i said, don't mind me.
First, there are people who are out there fighting who are risking their livelihood or even lives. Second, this is sort of a bizarre litmus test for ideological commitment outside of context and sounds more like a cult than something based around effectiveness; although there are situations when being willing to sacrifice everything makes sense, it's not something you do for dear leader (which again, sounds like a cult), it's something you do for the people as a whole and an organized and righteous cause of liberation. It's also not something you seek out like a badge of honor, but rather something that historically, the people have no choice on at times in order to achieve liberation.
The spirit of the quote needs to be understood in the context of communism being first and foremost a movement for the people's collective self determination and liberation and with a great love for the people. Not in a vague populist sense of "whatever the people want, we'll do it" (which depending on context, could just reinforce existing systems of oppression) but in terms of liberating from imperialism, from the capitalist class, and as part of that process, uplifting people and helping them get their needs met in a more consistent and systemic way. Part of this has to do with bridging the gap between splits that occur in class and caste of "intellectual" and "worker", educating the working class in general where necessary or specifically in terms of communist principles, such that the difference between the two becomes less pronounced. You might be surprised just how much material there is already existing on theory and practice. I emphasize this because when I speak of educating, I'm not talking about giving someone an elevator pitch on something pie in the sky and hoping they go for it, I'm talking about a lot of historical context and detail you can get into, as well as learning to use dialectical and historical materialism for analysis (which can involve extensive detail analysis by situation).
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this process would have no hierarchy or structure to the organizing involved. But it is also easier said than done. In the US, for example, there is a certain amount of what I'd call ideological splintering, where people have some vague agreement and overlap on philosophies such as "being nice to other people", but in the actual details, you could have distinctive variation based on what podcast or streamer someone listens to. There are also unique challenges geographically, with the layout of things, the way suburban implementation has made people more isolated and cagey. None of this is to say these challenges can't be overcome, but that it's helpful to examine the specifics of the situation and figure out how to go from there. We can't superimpose vague answers alone or do structureless experimentation alone, and get where we need to be. The combination of theory and practice is important here.
never claimed the opposite. But for what do they risk their lives, huh? My fellow citizens (i'm a ukrainian) think they are risking their lives to defend their country right to exist. In reality they're fighting a proxy war for the natural resources of the east. Do they fight for the ideology or an idea? De jure they are fighting for the opportunity to be a part of EU someday. De facto they are fighting for the resources which, most likely, they won't even get, as they will be privatized by yet another rich politician. Both de jure and de facto they are also fighting for their country's integrity. There's actually no ideological fight. Why? Because both sides of the war are corrupt oligarchates. So why didhave you even mentioned modern conflicts? May be you meant some particular journalists and politics? They are largely prevailed by people lihe you and me, who won't do anything real to defend any idea's right to exist in the flesh.
yeah, i guess what i said is a bit of an overstatement. My point still stands tho: if you're not ready to do anything for the idea you want to be the reality then who will?
"The spirit" huh? Are you sure we're not talking about a religion? Because this "the sence could be understood only if you open your heart to it" or your equally "spiritual" shit stinks of religion. Any set of words formed into a sentence tries to convey a thought. If it has to be read under the right angle at the full moon while singing a chant praising Beelzebub to be understood then it failed in its purpose to share the information. Period. Ever heard of Occam's razor?
You won't believe me, but i know the history. My knowledge is not scientific, yet i checked various points of view on certain events. My point is if you want to build a communism, then do something. At least don't let the workers' unions be crushed by the corporates. Why do i hear "eat the rich" only in the internet? If you're an american then your position is even more alien to me, given your party system being the complete and utter bullshit.
I'm not sure where you saw me saying that.
being nice to other people is not a philosofical concept. It's called empathy, and i assure you, its just as common in any other culture.
"Ideological splintering" as you put it, is completely normal in any society. How come one ideology is worthy of its own regiment but the other does not though? Especially if we're talking about the ideology you so dearly support? Its not a rhetorical question as i haven't found any ideology dear to me, since depending on the situation any of them could work or fail miserably. I prefer to rely on personal principles rather than political ideologies. I'm a human being, not a political figure. Till i and my surroundings are happy, i don't care who sits on the throne, how far left or right it is, or is it even there.
But back to you, and your uncertainty. How come the revolution came to russia in 1917 but now it won't happen anywhere? What's changed since? How come jews took even not so free land for themselves but you couldn't take one noone needs for yourself? There's lots of unoccupied land even in the 21st century. Grab it.
Ok, may be you're not ready to build the communism and the ideas i mentioned are too ambitious. You guys still have lots of things to do, for instance, help the working class to stand their rights. large IT companies treat their workers like some kind of disposable and replaceable garbage. All they recieve in response are the so called "quiet quitters". Compared to workers' protests of the 20th century it's nothing more than pathetic. Its almost like internet works as the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy to keep the people at bay.
P.S. learn to write breavily please. So much words you wrote to convey quite simple thoughts. I know I'm not quite the right person to say it to you, but man, even i was surprised by the amount of phrases that are here only for decorative purposes. I get that you're happy to "share your wisdom" and worried that i won't get it if you won't explain it thorougly, but this is too much.