would like some data! too bad we can’t do polls on lemmy.

i’m curious about this since i’m wondering how many people required a gradual approach towards radicalization (first a liberal, then a soc dem etc, then marxist) vs a clean break (liberal straight to marxism, for example).

i assume most people here are ML now, but i guess i don’t know that with a lot of certainty either, so that could be interesting data as well.

for reference: i went from baby liberal, to uneducated and unlabeled idealist anarchist who was basically a socdem, then straight to ML.

edit: thanks for all the responses!!! interesting to hear everyone’s political journey. i will probably wait until this leaves the front page and then do some simple data analysis to publish here in the near future: how many participants vs daily/weekly users, how many stages people went through, etc etc

  • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
    0·
    6 days ago

    When i was younger i had what could broadly be called liberal views, because that is the default growing up in a capitalist society. Now i just call myself a communist. It was a gradual process catalyzed by learning history and reading the works of Lenin and other communists.

    I don’t like when communists split themselves into dozens of different tendencies with increasingly complex labels. I think that’s bad for the revolutionary movement and to some degree probably a bourgeois psyop. Labels, especially when overly elaborate, are divisive and generally not that useful. It is better to just explicitly say what you believe in, how you see the world and what kind of world you are fighting for.

    If you disagree with someone on certain things, identify whether that disagreement constitutes a primary contradiction or secondary. If it directly hinders your ability to implement your primary goal, then it is a contradiction that cannot be temporarily set aside. If it is not something that fatally contradicts your main objective, you can still work with them toward the shared common goal, and later, once that is achieved, you can address the differences you still have.

    If someone is anti-imperialist (without exceptions – no “but China is revisionist!”, “but Iran is a theocracy!”, or “but Russia is capitalist!” excuses), anti-fascist and anti-capitalist, that is enough to consider them a comrade. I might strongly disagree with them on other issues but it is important to recognize that people will have diverse views on a lot of issues and that letting secondary disagreements divide us only serves the class enemy.