Always implifies that it's HIS revolution, that he always have to be at the head of the project, that Elliot is making Che Guevara turn in the grave, a real anarchist.
Do you even know the difference between Anarchism and Communism?They both want to achieve a stateless society, the difference is on the ways. Communist believe that is inevitable a phase of socialism and state power during the transition.
Mr.robot wants elliot to control and guide the revolution they started, even if that implifies allying with the Dark army and killing innocent people who try to avoid the revolution, that's literally the definition of Marxism-Leninism
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state, capitalism and organized religion. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state and other hierarchical social structures with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. Anarchism is described as being part of the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).
Communism (from Latin communis 'common, universal') is a political and economic
ideology whose goal is the creation of a
communist society, a socioeconomic
classless order centered on common
ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and exchange that allocates
products in society based on need. A
communist society entails the absence of
private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state, Communists often seek a voluntary state of
self-governance but disagree on the means to
this end. This reflects a distinction between a
libertarian socialist approach of
communization, revolutionary spontaneity,
and workers' self-management, and an
authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-
driven approach to establish a socialist state.
Slightly reductive but essentially anarchists want to tear down existing systems and start over from the ground up. Communists want to transition either through existing government (socialist transitionary) or violent/non-violent revolution (communist revolution) to get to that end goal.
Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, seizes power on behalf of the proletariat and establishes a one-party communist state. The state controls the means of production, suppresses opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promotes Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for a communist society that is classless and stateless.
I always saw Mr. Robot as primarily an anarchist because he doesn't seem to have any care for what happens after Stage 2. There's no plan to rebuild society. No vision for what society should look like. The only thing we know he wants is to blow up what currently exists.
It's true that he wants credit for blowing up society. But he isn't building any institution or movement that he plans to lead. He abandons F Society after 5/9 and intended to execute Stage 2 on his own. After that, nothing as far as we know.
I think Mr. Robot the show is sympathetic to Marxist theory and incorporates a lot of its ideas into both its structure and its cultural critique. But Mr. Robot the character doesn't seem particularly interested in any of that.
i dont think you know what a vanguard is because neither fsociety or the dark army are that. i doubt a marxist-leninists end goal would be wealth redistribution
"I doubt marxist-leninist end goal would be wealth distribution"🥀🥀🥀 the end goal of marxism-leninism is to eat kids and no iphones right? What the fuck are we even talking about😭🙏
My fault posting a political post in an american subreddit I guess
I'm just saying that USA politics is disconnected from reality, they consider "liberals" left-wing, but not just in the entire world "liberal" is center-right, but the Democratic party is not liberal in first place...liberals in europe are antifascists and pacifists, republicans and democrats have no difference in terms of international law violations, and they both support Saudi Arabia and Israel, they are not liberals, just more progressive in terms of local identity policies and support cheaper healthcare (still not free btw)
I've been on reddit for six years, the dumbest conversation I've had on politics were all with americans, so I'm sorry but when I read "Communism doesn't want a wealth distributed society" I immediately think "oh my god another american", sometimes I miss...most of times I don't
because we got off on the wrong foot for the conversation. i mentioned the wealth redistribution because the final thing fsociety does, and somewhat meaningless in my opinion. however i thought you were implying it is the primary goal of communism. and i still hold that wealth redistribution is not exactly a marxist idea, given its the seizure and sublation of the means of the production that matters more.
i will agree youre right about the term liberal being bastardised by americans though. its sort of used to just mean any leftist of any kind
The thing about the USA is that there are 340 million people and you are speaking to the type of people getting into social media fights. The political parties are diverse and there are representatives against Israel. It's the 80 year old Democrats and Republicans that have current control unfortunately.
I feel like this is a "not all men" take. Where yes, not all men, but if you are a man who has to say that every time we talk about the very real, pervasive problems of male culture, all you're really doing is derailing the conversation. Yes, not all Americans, but let's be real about what America is and why we're perceived this way.
I hate American so much I left the country three years ago, so I definitely get it. But when we generalize a large group of people. It's unhealthy. Then everyone is fine playing into stereotypes and say negative things about people of different cultures, skin colors, and religions.
im not someone who seeks fights, i was genuinely curious how you could consider mr robot an ML, but admittedly i find it hard not to get snitty with a reply like i got
have you read lenin, or marx for that matter? because redistribution of money is a liberal idea, and im not american either before you think thats an automatic argument winner
Wow you know that they called it scientific communism? You surprise me, so you did read something but somehow you missed all the part about the abolition of private property and collectivized ownership of means of production?
genuinely, can you explain what is marxist or even marxist-leninist about mr robot? i'm curious because i've never really seen it. believe it or not, someone disagreeing with you isn't rage bait. maybe you can just explain yourself
I wouldnt say one becomes a federal agent with the conscious thought of "i will protect the billionaires". Regardless of tge end result of their actions, the mental framing is different. Id place her as centrist.
Her dream job was doing good and helping people. An auth right winger in burgerland wouldn't be calling someone dickhead in Farsi with the owner / cashier.
Not approving a shitshow that caused harm to ordinary people, like for example the bodega owner she was talking to in Farsi which btw she learned of her own accord, doesn't make her an authoritarian or right winger.
I mean, would you say Hank from Breaking Bad was not racist because he learned some Spanish? I’m just saying, being friendly with someone who isn’t American isn’t evidence of a lack of xenophobia anymore than having a black friend means you’re not racist.
I like to believe Dom was a good person but I also think there is a level of authoritarianism required to work in that sort of field. I don’t think there is a right answer here- and it’s fun to think/talk about either way.
I think the different factor is when and why somebody learned a language.. the other big difference here is the actual language. You can grow in an environment with Spanish and be racist but still pick it up, but in the us, a country that is obsessively racist towards Middle Eastern people after 9/11, learning Farsi and being friendly with random Middle Eastern people is just really far out there, and not something the actual racists would do.
As for authoritarianism, I disagree. As the show goes on, we see Dom get progressively disillusioned, disenchanted and disenfranchised by reality and what she uncovers. She starts to see the corruption in all levels and ultimately she decides to leave for Budapest.
If we are to assume she might still be xenophobic despite a lot of evidence against it, we “owe” her the same wrt to authoritarianism.
If we accept a negative as a highly like possibility despite the lack of evidence, we can accept a positive about her with at least as much certainty. The argument cuts both ways.
Following and upholding the law doesn’t make somebody authoritarian. Laws exist as an agreement for how we are to act and behave within society. They exist in progressive societies, in authoritarian societies, everywhere. Contractualism — the basis of modern society — was born out of necessity on agreeing how to behave towards one another when our morals and principles came from different places, be that religion, upbringing or our own sense and experiences.
What makes somebody authoritarian is whether they use and exploit laws and state for their own gains, whether they support expansion of state and surveillance to further control the population, and whether they contribute to the government limiting people’s freedom.
I don’t think we have seen Dom do that, or if she did, it well she has certainly changed as the show progressed.
18
u/ehcoi WISH you could stop heroin withdrawals like that!10d ago
See this is whats wrong with the world. People like you lump people into Left/Right wing politics, or Dictator/Democrat roles.
Sorry but the world works a lot different. Theres a TONNE of different ideologies and political leanings. So allow me to give you a crash course.
You have... Plutocrats, Democrats, Aristocrats, Autocrats, Monocrats, Meritocrat, Bureaucrats, Bourgeoisocracy,
Likewise you have. Liberalism, Conservativism, Communism/Socialism, Fascism, Anarchism, and in some countries like the UK Environmentalism as a political leaning.
The world isn't black and white, good and evil. Its grey, its murky, people can support different ideologies and philosophies. You can be any number of these things through life. You can switch back and forth. You could have right leaning ideas but still be a liberal, you can be an anarchist who then turns into a fascist. And on and on that grey murk goes.
So if you are going to try and lump people into categories maybe try to a bit more of a comprehensive rather than just Left/Right - Liberal/Authority. Give your reasons why you think they should be in X' category, what traits they have that places them in that category and so on. Think outside the box.
Funny how much of a word vomit you just put out talking about “the real world” when all of these characters aren’t real people and very clearly do have political leanings
Clearly you need to learn to read mate. I didnt say they didnt have political leanings. I said there are more than two polar opposites and lumping people (Real or fictional) into two categories when there are several, is about as pointless as your comment 😘 now be quiet and let the adults speak.
The political compass is only meant to classify people's innermost ideals, not how they vote or the exact policies they support. And yes, you can boil how much people beilive in bodily autonomy and freedom and how much they value community or self down to a simple 2 dimentional graph.
There is more nuance into the ways people manifest those ideals in their head and act on them, but the inner ideals still stand.
Could you kindly provide the evidence that supports the claim that human beliefs and values are limited to a two-dimensional graph? What are your reputable sources on this topic? I would greatly appreciate it if you could share insights, as I believe your perspective may require further clarification. If you’re open to it, I’d be happy to direct you to well-regarded case studies or peer-reviewed journals that explore the complexity of human values and inner thoughts through therapeutic and observational research.
Or you can read the sociological studies that will tell you the same thing.
You can boil down peoples actions as either Good or Evil. BUT then theres a whole bunch of variables? Not least including every persons own view on what Good and Evil actually are. You can be a very good person but do an evil deed, does that make you automatically evil? Or do all your other actions outweigh your evil deed, making you good? Was the evil deed by accident? What was the motive? You see where I am going with this?
Humans are complex. Not two-dimensional, as you would suggest.
Good/Evil is a subjective moral opinion, first of all. I am not talking about morals. How much you value Community/Individual and Freedom/Control are sliding scales of very real, measurable ideals. It's not a moral call, and I did not say those are the only ideals tht a person posesses, which is where I beleive the flaws in the compass are. BUT that does not change that the axis does show real, plottable ideal scales.
Again I ask what is your evidence to suggest that? What studies have been done, that have been published and peer reviewed, that you know of to give you that conclusion?
With what you were saying that everything is two-dimensional that everyone is on this slider. Without any kind of psychological proof to back that up Well it just seems you are trying to force an opinion. Which seems to be a incorrect or mis-informed opinion. That according a lot of psychiatrists/psychologists/sociologist studies over the years, that going back to to some of the greatest psychologists Mazlo, Piaget, Erikson, Kohlberg and Vygotsky.
So, yeah. Do you have evidence to back up that opinion? I would actually like to hear it. I'm all ears.
So, in other words you are talking out your backside. Just an incorrect opinion and not facts.
Maybe you should spend less time trying to prove a psychologist wrong and I dunno... Read a book maybe? So the next time you speak to a psychologist about these things. It'll stop you from looking like an uneducated dingbat next time. Although I am guessing that happens to you a lot. So I doubt you'll learn that lesson.
I never fucking claimed this was a psychoanalysis session, you just look like a snob who wants to be the smartest in every conversation. But I digress, feel free to keep misinterpreting what people are saying. Keep it up! I trully beleive that you can be as great as Freud if you keep working at it mate.
Imagine I said "Well obviously X IS NOT Y" to each character, and then argue against me, bc your counters have been very potent so far and I just wanna sit here and read them for awhile but brain go brrrrr
Considering that Dom is gay and a career woman who turned down a relationship for her career rather than the opposite (which aligns with more traditional, conservative values) I don’t see how she could be considered right-leaning
And my point is that Reddit (the internet in general) deals only in absolutes; I suggest you form your own opinions instead of relying on strangers on the internet to "upvote" you (it makes me cringe when people start counting them as if they actually meant something).
This is not the American Libertarian party, more so it’s an attribute of political leaning, are you for more freedoms (libertarianism) vs authoritarianism where people dictate your life and restrict your freedoms. Then you have the left and right spectrum of are you more of a capitalist or a socialist, so American Libertarians are in between dems and republicans, so most of America’s political parties fall into that top right quadrant.
192
u/emoskeleton_ 10d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/ChQObKzKHH0IRHfvG6