This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/thedeprogram by /u/CabbageDemon_ on 2025-09-03 20:51:39+00:00.

Socialism, unlike every other ideology that is pushed in the west, is not a static position. There is a vision that all comrades should share, but the path to achieve such goals will never be consistent. This is the basis of dialectical materialism, existing projects must make decisions from the existing material and social conditions.

Those in the west have been conditioned to think purely ideologically. The American revolution is framed as an idealist escape from the restrictive British rule. But was it not the economic conditions of settler colonialism that put this bourgeoise revolution into motion? Were the freedoms purely ideological, or we’re they a product of the desire to expand settler rule and the slave economy?

Let’s look at the civil rights movement. The common belief is that the protests and speeches from leaders like MLK created such a frantic shift in general consensus that some legislation was passed as liberal democracies should. The deeper context is the international struggle between the US and USSR. At a time where the US is vying for territorial control across the globe, was the fervent racism within the US not disadvantageous to the state department’s goals? Did whites in the country completely change their ways in a matter of a couple years, or was this a calculated decision that the state knew would cause domestic uproar, but was beneficial for their international image? The lack of this understanding is why so many protests today lack momentum.

Now the western left lives in the wake of these progressives ideas but with no understanding of the outside forces that made them possible. Not only that but these ideals have been co-opted into rainbow capitalism commodifying individual’s relationships to their identity. All the while the state continues its exploitation globally, and in doing so brings with them ideological baggage of 18th century liberal ideas.

It is the profit motive that allows for these seeming contradictions to co-exist.

The problem with the western left critiquing socialist projects, is that they fall of deaf ears. Why would any aes country take advice from those in the imperial core who have no conception of the realities they face? That isn’t to say critique is bad, but it must first be applied inwardly to build a coalition capable of communicating on an even playing field, removed from idealism.

Mistakes aren’t just inevitable, they are necessary. It is the goal of the party to recognize these mistakes and adapt ideologically around them (unlike every liberal country in existence). This desire for a perfect revolution is not rooted in reality and is, in fact, incredibly dangerous. All the ideals in the world mean nothing if you cannot put them into action through the masses. Nor are any of the rights currently existing in the western sphere safe from the ever growing reactionary base.

In short: the western left needs to contend with the origins of the ideals they hold, understand that progression is not always linear, and to give aes countries the time to contend with their contradictions themselves. Or in other words, worry about your own problems, because there’s a shit ton of them.

(And if you’re going to speak on something make sure you are actually knowledgeable to speak on the issue in the first place)