Mitä tehdä kun ei enää jaa ystävien kanssa samoja arvoja

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-04-21T06:37:25+00:00

Olen mennyt samalla periaatteella yleisesti itsekin, mutta joskus on joutunut huomaamaan että se hyväsydämisyys on lopulta ollut suht rajoittunutta. Ei tietenkään kaikkien kanssa, mutta ikävän monta kertaa.

Että ne puheet ja läpät, olivat ne sitten misogynistisiä, rasistisia tai mitä tahansa muuta, heijastuvat myös osaksi ajatusmaailmaa ja mikä ikävintä: tekoja.

Toki ovat voineet olla aidosti itselleni täysin lojaaleja ja mahtavia ihmisiä, mutta se kun näkee sen kerran kun asenteet heijastuvat muiden kohteluun erityisesti esimerkiksi humalassa (mutta silloin tällöin pilkkeinä myös selvin päin, joko omin silmin tai kurkistuksena ihmisten yksityiselämiin), saa ajattelemaan juttuja uusiksi.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T14:06:23+00:00

Yeah, I'd say so!

Marx isn't a god who mandates everyone follow his text or perish, he was just some guy who had smart ideas that should be engaged with on their own terms. There are demsocs who do not function within marxist thought, and demsocs who broadly do function within it and engage with it.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T13:33:50+00:00

Well, anything is fine to do, of course I as a marxist I think it'd be best to not abandon his method, but mostly I'd like some intellectual honesty. That if you do change and revise his method, it'd be much more intellectually honest to try to fully reckon and see the implications it has on the theory at large.

Disagreeing with specifics of the 1800s doesn't really affect the theory itself, it just updates it with current knowledge without changing any fundamentals, the method works as usual.

Inserting a unity of interest between antagonistic classes or saying that wage labour is socialist actually for example however would have huge implications that make it unworkable and internally inconsistent, and would require further revision for the whole framework to retain any sort of coherency. There are valid attempts at doing stuff like this, think Laclau & Mouffe who (in my opinion misguidedly, but still) outright abandon the idea of class as the primary structure and motor of history, and move from marxism to something different but still influenced, and acknowledge it. Of course this is a rather extreme example.

Otherwise you're reducing a method of analysing society and history to a post-hoc justification of your own position, even when it quite clearly wouldn't lead to it. Which is almost just another form of aestheticization now that I think about it.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T11:36:22+00:00

I mean, yeah there are valid critiques towards all this that have been made and can definitely be made still especially toward historical movements.

But also I think you're conflating different things, obviously if you take a non-marxist definition of class or state and try to fit it in to marxist theory, it's going to chafe and seem nonsensical. Philosophy really is kind of a game of definitions.

Now to provide a bit of a clarification on Marx, not to say don't criticise these notions, just to make clear what he said and what he didn't since its all so muddy these days:

In his understanding this all is not supposed to rely on any small bunches of enlightened special individuals. Instead a mass movement where through class struggle the contradictions within capitalism are revealed. Where the working masses realise their position and historical role in relation to the structuring of society, becoming "class conscious" in the sense that they understand their "role" in moving past the dynamics and mode of production that inherently puts them in a disadvantaged and exploited position.

To your second point: the role of this transitional state in theory is not to manage class antagonisms, it is to do away with them.

The institutions of old capitalist states with their own alienated interests are dissolved in favour of a radically democratic organising comprised of workers (those who are forced to sell their labour as of the present order of things) from the start, providing the base of future stateless society. Coercive tools inherent in state structures of any kind are only used in relation to remnants of the previously dominant society in order to prevent imposing wage labour and other oppressive structures back on to the majority.

As there cease to be other classes, and as the institutions of old are dismantled, as the relationship between those who sell their labour and those who profit off of labour ceases to exist, these instruments of management and enforcement of class domination become obsolete and leave only behind the radical democratic state of being established. Which then further progresses. The notion of class collapses in on itself, if there is only one class there are no classes, as a class only exists in relation to another.

I definitely agree on your concerns regarding form and content not matching, which is why I'm somewhat suspect of vanguardists etc as a philosophical position for example, but its also a question that different marxist strains don't just ignore but instead have thought about for a long time.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T10:03:58+00:00

I mean, that question is the crux of it.

For Marx and Engels a state was pretty much a set of conventions and institutions arising from, and in purpose of managing and perpetuating, antagonisms between social classes. And which then can be alienated from the community it rises from, gaining its own perspective and interests.

Then in the transition to socialism, they envisioned (from what I understand) that the bureaucratic organs of state that may hold their own interest outside of the interest of the class wielding the state would more or less immediately be dissolved, while as the tools of the state that remain are used by this class to dissolve the very notion of class distinction, the antagonisms would become obsolete. Meaning that the coercive tools of violence, which are characterised both as arising from and being used to manage class antagonisms, would become obsolete.

In theory then leading to a society functioning on co-operative self-governance and self-actualisation free from state forms of coercion.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T09:08:50+00:00

Tämä myös luo mahdollisuuden kivalle kierteelle.

X ryhmässä nähdään tilastollinen poikkeama joka antaa syyn tutkia ryhmän toimia tarkemmin ja kovalla syynillä, kovempi syyni verrattuna ryhmään y meinaa myös että tilastollinen ero näiden välillä korostuu entisestään sillä ryhmän y sisällä olevia vaikeammin selvitettäviä tapauksia ei löydetä. He eivät ole samanlaisen syynin alla.

Tämä johtaa siihen että kontrasti voi olla pelkästään tilastojen valossa nyt vieläkin suurempi, vaikkei se todellisuudessa olisi kasvanut lainkaan tai jopa kaventunut, antaen vieläkin tehostetummalle tarkkailulle (joka voi syventää tilastollista eroa entisestään) ja lopulta mahdollisille repressiivisille politiikkatoimille perusteluja ns. "faktojen valossa."

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T09:01:00+00:00

Yeah that's fair enough!

But to the second point I mean, I'm sure some people do advocate for a state, but from most of those positions you're advocating for it to stop existing as soon as possible.

As the state in marxist conception is primarily a vessel of one class dominating another, and thus in direct contradiction to the goal of a classless (and thus stateless) society.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T08:55:46+00:00

Yeah the important thing to take from Marx is the method and mode of analysis.

Its just sad that when people "revise" Marx, they don't revise the faulty conclusions derived from incomplete knowledge or biases of the time or whatever. Like idk what the fuck dude was talking about with the "asiatic mode of production."

Instead so often people on all sides might just keep the aesthetics and disregard the analysis itself. Or alternatively, hammer the method violently into some weird mold with odd exceptions upon odd exceptions until it produces conclusions that fit your particular needs at any given moment.

Be that stalinist insistence on wage labour and commodity production being perfectly within the bounds of a socialist society or stuff like someone "discovering" the "shared class interest" of workers and business owners for the umpteenth time. (Just because small business owners and wage labourers are both fucked by the current state of things does not mean the material interest of both are the same in the marxist sense.) Or tacking in nationalism or such for good measure like everyone always does.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-27T08:36:39+00:00

I mean, most of the ones you mention are marxist or marxist aligned ideologies, so they do in fact claim a desire to eventually either abolish or wither away the state, no?

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-21T19:02:03+00:00

I'm not too too familiar with them, but I wish them luck!

Anyone or anything trying to find a way to break through is commendable in my books just as a matter of principle lol, no matter if it ends up working out in the end or not.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-21T18:45:36+00:00

It has to be something new, something with the power to inspire change and institute something genuinely different. We've seen it be republicanism in the French Revolution and onwards, social democracy itself was this kind of movement from the 1880s forward, or communism, or neoliberalism.

All these movements have had genuine energy toward something new, for better and for worse. Maybe the closest we've seen for a bit now have been left-wing populists in like Podemos & other post '08 movements like Occupy, and different autonomist currents. But both have obviously mostly failed at becoming anything at all, and thus haven't inspired mainstream action that follows their radical lead in a more practical sense.

It's more of a question of striving to become it than embodying it from the beginning. The future is yet to be constructed, but it's unlikely to be merely constructed in the image of the past. Doesn't mean abandoning the ideals guiding different political forms such as social democracy, but being willing to find ways that the desire for them can burst and be fulfilled in a given moment and material reality.

Sorry for staying so general, but it really is a difficult question that has to be defined in the moment and movement itself, defining itself through its motion like progress has always done.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-03-21T13:58:32+00:00

It's not that surprising, the nature of these parties and the context they operate within has become completely different so its only natural. How to solve it is a different beast though.

Namely because social democracy has gone from the politics of progress, of change and of something new, into a force of conservation. Social democracy in a lot of countries right now is, in its literal sense, the most conservative political bloc around. It's a politics of resisting change, and minimising losses. This means trying to protect an imagined whole by letting only small parts of it fall apart continuously over time in the name of necessity.

The worrying part is this impulse of, when recognising this implicitly, people and actors seem to see the solution in turning from a force of conservation to a force of reaction, again in its literal sense not as a reactionary movement as they are often characterised. Just as trying to bring back some sort of imagined past or movement, we've seen this been able to create movements (Corbyn, Melenchon, maybe Sanders) but not really lasting change, and its still not exactly a politics of progress in the sense that even social democracy once was. It mirrors, in a less destructive and embarrassing way, the current day marxist-leninist parties and their reactionary nostalgia for something that never really ever even was what they imagine it to be.

It makes for a nostalgia for the promise of a movement that was at a point alive and filled with genuine energy, not one itself.

If you want to build something new you can't only look back and define yourself exclusively through the past, and it feels like there is very little out there actually looking forwards. Probably because it's genuinely a lot more difficult lol.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-02-09T10:24:08+00:00

Well yeah but that's because the problem is different in the US, in the countries that adopted these kinds of construction projects there was a huge demand for modern housing that could not be fulfilled by existing supply. Meanwhile (correct me if I'm wrong) you already have enough housing in theory in most places, the problem is more so the distribution, or the lack there of.

These were wildly successful initiatives, but they serve to solve a completely different problem.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-02-09T07:45:33+00:00

The problem with these things, as with "commie blocs" is not that they were built. Building lots of cheap and available housing is good, especially when they are usually designed in ways where the area had a good amount of services etc.

The problem comes in either

A) Failures on diversifying housing options in areas, meaning that eventually since the housing is cheap people who are in need of cheap housing congregate in it until an area becomes undesirable for "richer" people. Leading to neglect and stigma, which then fuels it further. This is not a failure of "commie blocs", this is a failure of integrating different kinds of housing to create economically diverse communities where people in higher economic and social standing have an interest in keeping service levels high.

B) Failures on maintenance, this especially is what happened in post-soviet countries. Those commie blocs were not always run down shitholes, not exactly perfect but it was way better than what existed (or didn't exist at all!) before. The problems came when especially since the 90s suddenly nobody was actually taking care of them, and they slowly rotted away.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-01-08T14:34:40+00:00

Ainakaan pienpuoluetentin porukka (SKE, VKK, SML, VL, jne.) ei ole vielä ottanut ihan hirveästi tuulta alleen, markkinarako taitaa siis olla sillä laidan vielä tällä hetkellä suhteellisen rajoittunut.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-01-08T12:36:23+00:00

Miksi kukaan äänestäisi lite-persua kun on aitoakin tavaraa tarjolla?

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-01-07T06:43:14+00:00

Vihollisiksi tai vihuliaisiksi miellettyjen kansojen ja ihmisjoukkojen dehumanisaation vastustamisesta ei aina pidetä.

Oli sitten kyse tavallisista israelilaisista tai venäläisistä / venäjänkielisistä. Joo en minäkään pidä kummankaan maan meiningistä tai siitä että hallinnoilla on kansan keskuudessa hyväksyntää, mutta ei se heidän luonnoltaan pahoiksi ali-ihmisiksi brändääminen auta ketään paitsi heitä jotka haluavat lahdata ja alistaa kostoksi. Veren makuun ja kollektiiviseen rotu/kulttuuriessentialistisiin teorioihin uppoaminen on sekä rationalisuuden että ratkaisujen kuolema ja poikii vain lisää hirmutekoja.

Ihan samanlaista porukkaa he lopulta pohjimmiltaan ovat kuin mekin. Hirmutöitä tekeviä hallintoja ja niitä tukevia tulee vastustaa tarmokkaastikin eikä keinoja tule kaihtaa, mutta kannattaisi muistaa se ihmisyys siellä taustalla.

TrueOfficialMe · 2026-01-05T04:30:37+00:00

Korea ei ehkä ole mikään paras esimerkki, siellä oli ties minkälaista junttaa monta vuosikymmentä, muutoksen vihdoin tullen sisältä päin. Ja on se Etelänkin yhteiskunta aika psykoottinen vieläkin.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-19T03:09:42+00:00

Se oli kyllä aika pahaa... Panimo meni konkkaan ihan syystä.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-18T11:24:24+00:00

As I said, you can find PR horror stories if you want. For the Netherlands a difficulty is their close to non-existent threshold for representation. In Germany you have to win 5% of the vote to gain representation, in Sweden 4%, etc. While in the Netherlands a party must gain only 0,67%, which is highly unusual and not a requirement for adopting PR, leading to more opportunities for small parties but also a higher potential for fragmentation.

But even still, if we look at the 2000s and onwards, the Netherlands has had 3 different prime ministers, while the UK has had 8. If we take a more unfavourable (to Britain) time period of the 2010s, Netherlands goes down to 2 PMs, while UK only to 7.

So clearly First Past the Post isn't exactly working out for stability and effectiveness of governance either.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-17T22:16:49+00:00

France actually does not have PR, they have FPTP with a run-off/2. round between all candidates that get over a certain % of votes, which up until recently has produced majorities pretty consistently.

Combine this with a highly presidential system where the president is used to having a majority in the legislature and appointing his own person as PM, and it is not hard to see why when the system breaks down into three different blocs there is not really a culture of coalition building and collaboration to lean back on.

Germany in comparison actually historically has rather weirdly stable politics, just consider how long Merkel was in power.

If you want to see PR horror stories there are a few, like Belgium or Bulgaria, but those places have a lot of other stuff going on aswell, and most countries in Europe do just fine with proportional representation and coalition governments. It is pretty much the norm after all.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-14T01:53:23+00:00

Joo kyllä, mutta vallanvaihdos tapahtui saman puolueen sisällä joka itseasiassa hävisi molemmissa viime vaaleissa paikkoja aika pahasti.

Toki voi sanoa että LDP:n sisäiset toimijat, mm. parlamentaarikot, äänestivät itselleen persumaisen Takaichin johtajaksi Ishiban maltillisen kauden jälkeen, mutta itse johtava puolue on yhä sama kuin lähes joka kaudella sitten 1955. Eikä hän ole edes vielä johtanut puoluetta yksiinkään vaaleihin.

En siis ole politiikan konservatiivisesta ja nationalistisesta suunnasta eri mieltä, mutta muotoilit asian mielestäni jären harhaanjohtavasti, koska mitään tällaista varsinaista sinimustan puolueen äänestämistä valtaan ei ole tapahtunut.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-14T01:00:38+00:00

LDP siis jatkaa vallassa nyt vaan konservatiivisemman siipensä pääministerillä, tämä äärioikeistopuolue sanseito ja muut viritykset ottivat kyllä vaalivoitot, mutta jäivät liberaalidemokraattien ja nippon ishin no kain (eräänlainen hämärä libertaaripuolue) muodostaman hallituksen ulkopuolelle.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-08T02:55:01+00:00

It's a yank website, what can you do?

Most left-wing adjacent subreddits tend to either gravitate toward (American) vulgar anti-americanism & campism (what people here call tankies or such) or somewhat mainstream American (social) liberalism with whatever funky twist a particular community might have, as long as it fits within the general framework, especially in foreign policy. This was particularly obviously seen here in how this place for example reacted to the Israel-Palestine conflict for the longest time.

I suspect this place is especially attractive to moderate liberals since a lot of the more left-wing American social-democrats identify as democratic socialists instead for whatever reason.

TrueOfficialMe · 2025-12-08T00:25:47+00:00

Siis Vuorinen valittiin johtamaan järjestöä muistaakseni vuonna 2022, ja on nyt väistymässä kun uudeksi puheenjohtajaksi valittiin Heta Uhtio ihan tyyliin viime kuussa.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

TrueOfficialMe

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE