back at it with another ridiculous question. As I have been developing my personal ideology, I’ve found that I reject much of the socially progressive ideas in corpo media and twitter (conservatives call it identity politics). Stuff like abolishing the nuclear family (or pride flag on drones joke) that doesn’t look to change any economic or material reality I find I don’t agree with.

First and second wave feminism I support as they changed the material realities for women, but the push for things like gender reassignment surgery under 16 years (i wanted to be in the cia when I was this age, people change personalities quickly during their teenage years) among other socially progressive ideas (bedtime abolition and the like) seem to be far removed from any type of class struggle and even hurt the working class.

Expressing this on Twitter got me called a nazbol (of course) but am I? Does being socially conservative but economically progressive make me a redfash? I understand intersectionality and that you can be trans and poor but focusing so heavily on non class issues seems detrimental for workers, even if they get some progressive tidbits.

plz feel free to own me if I’m spitting straight crap wrote this on my phone b4 work

edit: the thoughtful genzedong comments/commenters make this community the only place I’d be willing to ask a question like this, thanks for that, and the info you share so that myself and others can be better communists 💪🇨🇳👍

  • Lenins2ndCat@lemmygrad.ml
    9·
    2 years ago

    seem to be far removed from any type of class struggle and even hurt the working class.

    but focusing so heavily on non class issues seems detrimental for workers, even if they get some progressive tidbits.

    I will answer these points by quoting Lenin in What is to be Done:

    Is it true that, in general,[3] the economic struggle “is the most widely applicable means” of drawing the masses into the political struggle? It is entirely untrue. Any and every manifestation of police tyranny and autocratic outrage, not only in connection with the economic struggle, is not one whit less “widely applicable” as a means of “drawing in” the masses. The rural superintendents and the flogging of peasants, the corruption of the officials and the police treatment of the “common people” in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes and the persecution of the religious sects, the humiliating treatment of soldiers and the barrack methods in the treatment of the students and liberal intellectuals — do all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the “economic” struggle, represent, in general, less “widely applicable” means and occasions for political agitation and for drawing the masses into the political struggle? The very opposite is true. Of the sum total of cases in which the workers suffer (either on their own account or on account of those closely connected with them) from tyranny, violence, and the lack of rights, undoubtedly only a small minority represent cases of police tyranny in the trade union struggle as such. Why then should we, beforehand, restrict the scope of political agitation by declaring only one of the means to be “the most widely applicable”, when Social-Democrats must have, in addition, other, generally speaking, no less “widely applicable” means?

    Lenin here telling you to get over this mindset of focusing solely on class struggle and economic arguments.

    I’ll add that you should probably also get over this mindset of what you agree with and what you disagree with. If you’re already on board with socialism then you know that the goal is revolution. All struggle is a vessel through which to bring members of different sections of society into the political struggle that will lead to revolution. You do not bring these people into the political struggle by refusing to support their various non-class battles because you personally don’t understand them or because they’re outside of your sphere of personal experience or understanding.