The contemporary left: 1000 -isms and a result of nothing

You get my point. What concerns me absolutely and ultimately, can there be an action in nihilism, out of nihilism?

The left conquered half of the world but theory was too shit so it collapsed. We need these isms to brainstorm a new better ideology that actually works in real life.

I don't know, user. Look, if there was a socialist revolution of any kind somewhere tomorrow, I am pretty sure that most socialists would support it regardless of their personal ideology. Look at Rojava for example, which is actively supported by socialists of all stripes. (Except for leftcoms of course, but who cares about them anyways?)
This whole autistic talk about whether the Soviet Union was yay or nay might seem very important to someone only knowing leftism from the Internet, but in reality, it doesn't matter even the slightest bit. At the end of the day, if there is an opportunity to take down capitalism, most leftists will probably take it. Secterianism suddenly becomes less important when shit actually hits the fan.

I don't care who existed or not. Existence is ideology anyway. Revolution is contingent.

FTFY

Aspiring -ists into nihilism is the only action.

They can be pacified with new toys, new drugs, new distractions, new images of an enemy. Intellectual deterioration of the general public is also an undercurrent of today.

...

Fuck you and your fukuyamaism. All those luxuries will collapse aswell.

I agree sadly, but that doesn't hinder my beliefs, nor will it stop me from advocating my beliefs.

spoken like a true transhumanist
you anti-humans really are fucked in the head, must be why you need to deny human nature, you despise it and want the human body and mind shackled forever

Yet again, I have no idea what "taking down capitalism" means, it's an absolutely stark and opaque prospect for me. What's the exact moment the change takes place? The change of what? "Social order"? And more importantly, where does it take place? In social relations? Why do we assume that social relations exist objectively in the first place? Isn't it just attacking capitalism with capitalism's own ideological linguistic devices, from the standpoint of a consciousness conditioned by capitalism in its entirety? I'm highly unsure when it comes to the sacred Bibles of the left - Marx, dialectics, historical materialism etc. Doesn't it all smell like a dusty British museum today? Or perhaps it was made of this dust from the very beginning? And wasn't the "failure" of all the past "left-ism" hardwired in its framework?

Not quite, I mean a kind of action which is positive, which affects actual politics while being ultimately non-political.

Why do you think I imply luxuries? War is also a form of entertainment, and so is perversion, decay, depravity, criminality. Funny enough, I'm highly sceptical of "fukuyamaism", since it underestimates the extent to which the status quo is willing to go to preserve itself.

...

You know pretty well what I imply.

You can have and support and ideology and still end up being wrong; you can have and support an ideology and still end up being opposed by the majority of people; you can have and support an ideology, be right, and still lose. Realism is the only ideology worth having.

And what is real? Can an ideology be realist at all?

Nihilism is ideology. You will get rid of ideology only by killing yourself. But all ideology today is a commodity on the market.
We must surrender to suicide. Any ideology is impotent.

Reality is real. Facts, evidence, and objective observation is real. Your perception cannot be real, so it must be subject to change. Realism is an ideology in and of itself.

Realism is any ideology that states there is reality out there, outside of this world. It's a form of onto-theology essentially.

This is empirical truism. I already know this. How is this ideology?

There aren't many differences. It's mainly truism transcended to the ideological level, in that every conclusion you make ideologically has to be based in facts and evidence you can verify yourself or that has been verified to your satisfaction. Although I'd say the main difference is that with truism you don't allow yourself to accept anything until you've proven it. Whereas Realism, at it's core, allows you to make the trade-off between ideology and fact so long as the moment evidence to contradict your ideology comes along your ideology changes to suit said new facts. It's impossible to have a perfect human after all.

At least that's how I see it.

Read "Eclipse And Reemergence Of The Communist Movement". That is a legitimate question from a newcomer to leftism, and I believe it is the text which best answers it.

I'm telling you now that "communism is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". By the end of the book, you will know what that means, as communization is the current which most faithfully applies the character of Marx's work to modern circumstances.

People here will tell me what Dauve tells the reader, to "read Marx and not the Marxists", but it's appropriate in this case because Dauve provides a nice link for this guy to move on to actually reading Marx and reflecting back on his relevance to the modern world and changing it in his own way.

Hey user, I tried reading this a while back but couldn't really make sense of Dauve's writing style - it seemed a little mystical to me. Could you give me a run-down on this book? Trying to re-read it is the next stop on my reading list, but I would like a plain-English summary to anchor me.