I'm a commie now and I used to be an evangelical. Amazing how this momo happens to get both of them totally wrong.
Excuse me, my leftism is Gnosticism with the serial numbers filed off.
The Demiurge of Capital must be destroyed in our minds.
Capital is actually literally cthulu and we need to build an ontological weapon to destroy it, which may involve attaching rocket boosters to ceres.
Evangelicals, famous for not spreading their beliefs or forcing governments to change laws to comport to their worldview lest they be called "lukewarm Christians", a thing that totally exists. Also yes, communists totally agree things will be fixed immediately after the revolution rather than communism being a gradual process to improve society.
hot take
everyone in this thread is projecting this to voting in the us but you could say the same things about people who write off Vietnam and China as capitalist because they arent pure communistchristian ideology of purity/sin/salvation/messiahs/etc is omnipresent in the west and highly affects people who wouldnt even think to call themselves evangelicals or christian
its rotting a lot of brains in ways people too rarely examine on themselveshttps://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/
Essay on this that from what I recall of reading it when it first dropped is pretty good, points out the contradiction of viewing Chinese Marxism as entagled with Confucianism, and Middle-Eastern Marxism as entagled with Islam, but ignoring Western Marxist tendencies and their entanglement in Christianity.
I find Red Sails very good both in their original content and in republishing old and possibly less known texts with some commentary.
Though I feel like I should say that it is an explicitly ML website that is dismissive/hostile towards anarchists and other tendencies like trots, its usually not their primary focus but it will come up in essays and in introductions for republished texts, just so people here are aware and don't get surprised by it.
it's a nice feeling when you go to link redsails, but someone already has :comfy-cool:
Who was it who said if you can replace "the left" with "the garfield fandom" in someone's post then they aren't talking about leftism, they're just talking about online? Anyway this seems like a case of that.
Does a take need to be controversial or controversial and right in order to be "hot"?
Every day I have to make sure to
offer a sacrifice tobrush myMarsteeth to make sure mylegionariesteeth have victory overthe Gaulsplaque. After Isacrificebrush, I make sure to check I did it right by examininganimal entrailsmy teeth . If I don't do this, then mylegionsteeth will surelyfalter in battleget cavities.A big problem with strawmanning is the fact that you immediately get revealed as wrong the second people actually start examing your beliefs. This person is probably thinking of a very specific subset of leftist that mostly exists online, but because it's the internet, everything is written in a weird generalizing way. Like, these are very specific critiques for a very specific group of people, but written in the most annoying way possible, which means people just get mad because they feel like it unfairly targets them (which again, is a product of the dumb generalizations that the auther made).
yeah it's like, these habits of ideology definitely show up in crude internet leftist discourse.
a very specific subset of leftist that mostly exists online
To a lot of people, that's all they ever see. So they think that's what leftists really are.
You can just vote for the Democratic Party, no one is physically stopping you.
But if you didn't blame everyone else except your leaders for the failures of your party would you really be a Democrat?
It's because the part of the bible they're talking about, new testament, is a metaphor for the collapse of Rome
I kind of agree with disco elysium where faith in communism is, in a way, a replacement for faith in religion
that's where the similarities end though
that's really really smearing together two usages of "faith".
even if we never do full communism, working towards it has massively improved the lives of all but the most wall deserving bourgeoise, while working towards whatever religion is has gotten us.... uh... child rape, queerphobia, misogyny, anticommunism, sabotage of pubic health and education, religious nationalism, and some actual theocratic countries that are terrible in somewhat unique ways.
I mean I gotta have faith that it's at least theoretically possible to get better because otherwise killing yourself becomes the only reasonable thing to do.
These two comments together is Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, but faith toward a materialist goal is contrasted with a leap of faith into idealism. The faith toward a materialist goal is just living in scorn of the impossible system you're given. If we're constantly rebelling against that, that's the most we can do individually because we don't get to choose to put the rock down and the only point of the system is to break us.
Killing your self keeps you out of heaven and prevents you from ever seeing the revolution
