• CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, when you realize that most of the radical communists on here truly believe that there must be an eternal struggle working towards communism but never actually achieving the goal, it makes sense why they are the way they are.

    Literally had one of them tell me that is beyond unrealistic to expect any state to be able to even implement Socialism to any real degree. Of course, in Marxism a Socialist state must exist before withering away as Communism is fully realized, so they will literally admit that their philosophy is impossible to achieve.

    They fetishize the struggle; they don’t actually want progress, they want to complain.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do you find it shocking that someone wants their political goals to be achieved but is also realistic with themselves that they may never see them accomplished?

      • CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you accept that your goals cannot be accomplished, why maintain them as goals? If you know it is futile, why bother? It is literally a waste of time at that point.

        That said, I personally dont think it is futile. I think it mostly is an attainable goal, minus the withering of the state; I don’t think we could reach a point where the state is completely unnecessary, so I advocate Socialism. I just also think it is ridiculous that someone would try and claim something is futile while simultaneously advocating that everyone adhere to that thing. Their philosophy states clearly attainable, objective goals. If they think it is unrealistic for anyone to ever achieve those goals, then they don’t believe in their own philosophy. That is textbook cognitive dissonance.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Communism is very utopian and it is not well defined about how it would work in a practical or thoeretical sense (AFAIK). It is something to aspire to. Something to guide your path. One day, something like it may be achieved, but will take a long time to get there. Like, say, carbon neutrality, the “pursuit of happiness,” the elimination of world hunger, to be like Jesus and to not sin, to have pyramids built, etc. It’s a fairly common concept.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort one may feel when holding contradictory beliefs and forced to reconcile the two.

          Edit: spelling

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to agree with statism, but it sounds like you’re combining the incompatible beliefs of two different people.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They fetishize the struggle; they don’t actually want progress, they want to complain.

      In the past they were sitting in cafes across Europe, chain smoking and writing pamphlets.

    • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” - Eleanor Roosevelt.

      Which of these are you discussing now?

      • CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should go back to your quotes, its pretty obvious that we are discussing the idea of holding a belief while simultaneously categorizing that belief as impossible.