• DMBFFF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry about that: I didn’t realize there was a link; and thanks for making it.

          Neither the words “socialist” nor “leftist” appears in that article.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Neither the words “socialist” nor “leftist” appears in that article.

            They don’t have to because…

            The title, Of One Blood, refers to the biological kinship of all human beings.

            …sounds perfectly radical to me.

            • DMBFFF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              We have a biological kinship with all mammals.

              You have to be more specific.

              This is not to denigrate her work, and she might have had at least some sympathies with socialists and leftists, but it’s probably neither socialist nor leftist in the same way that Rand was ideological, much less “Fascist.”

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                We have a biological kinship with all mammals.

                …and deep down we’re all just stardust. What is your point?

                neither socialist nor leftist in the same way that Rand was ideological,

                That’s because it’s utterly impossible to be “socialist” or “leftist” in the same way Rand was ideological - being an unhinged bootlicker has decidedly never been the point of leftism.

                • DMBFFF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  We have a biological kinship with all mammals.

                  …and deep down we’re all just stardust. What is your point?

                  You have to be more specific.

                  That’s because it’s utterly impossible to be “socialist” or “leftist” in the same way Rand was ideological - being an unhinged bootlicker has decidedly never been the point of leftism.

                  Do socialism and leftism have definitions, and if so, what are they, and did Pauline Hopkins, or her fiction, fit those definitions?

                  • masquenox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    *Leftism" doesn’t have a hard and fast definition. An idea can be considered leftist if it threatens the status quo - as opposed to an idea that enforces it (which would be considered right-wing).

                    Socialism does - a condition wherein the working class controls the means of production. An idea that supports this end can be considered socialist (in our current state) whether the holder of such an idea labels it “socialist” or can even spell the word. Therefore, Christ rejecting the idea that people must go hungry by dividing fish and bread - socialist. Hopkins rejecting the tenets of white supremacism - socialist.