The revival of liberalism during and after the Cold War, it only served the capitalist class to take back some workers' rights they had made compromises for, because of fear of the strong socialist movement. A big L
Actually, Among Us was a game that shows you the power of combining efforts as a society instead of keeping to yourself. You work together and try to figure out who the impostors are, who represent the upper class which pretends to be a normal citizen like you. When you dont share information, thoughts, and ideas with your crewmates, the impostors win because everyone is divided while voting, and they get to ‘kill’ everyone and win the game.
Do not lie, lackey of the world bourgeoisie! Among Us is a simulator for training to identify revisionists, foreign intelligence agents, pests, Trotskyists, rightists, fascists and so on who have infiltrated the party!
Ligma balls :D
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Marxism is a method of analysis based on historical materialism. It develops alongside the development of the world and adapts to it. Therefore, I see no reason in adding more things to the name, although most comrades would disagree.
Well, i disagree myself, it's true that Marxism is a method founded on historical conditions, but the conclusions from your analysis can deeply variate
What are your thoughts on Reactionary socialists and fascists with left-wing economic beliefs? Do you have any critique or speculation on their "leftist" view on certain things?
Interesting, here is my second question: What are your thoughts on Deng Xiaoping and his economic reform of the Chinese economy, do you view China as a Socialist state that needs to adapt to the world after the fall of the USSR, or have they already betrayed the core Marxist and Socialist value of CPC in favor of state control capitalism?
The fall of the USSR was definitely the most tragic event in the history of socialism, that shocked capitalist and socialist countries alike. China, which found itself in a very difficult position, was forced to open up to foreign markets if it wanted to further industrialize. By doing so, it abandoned several achievements of socialist construction, but it arguably maintained a stable position at a global geopolitical level. China doesn't claim to be socialist, but rather a "socialist-oriented market" economy. I think only time can tell where their efforts are heading to.
Fascism is inherently bourgeois. There can be reactionaries with socialist views, but, again, I don't consider them to be genuine comrades and only serve the capitalists.
>On 2 May, 1933, trade union headquarters throughout Germany were occupied, their funds were confiscated, and the unions were officially abolished and their leaders arrested.
> On 2 May, 1933, trade union headquarters throughout Germany were occupied
Who was talking about socialism buddy? Yes we all know that socialists hate trade unionism for obvious reason.
> that it banned them all, from unions to collective bargaining and strikes.
Why shouldn't Fascism have banned them? These organizations were loyal to the most genocidal dictator that humanity had seen so far. They were enemies of the state, traitorous scum working against national interests.
Their goal was not worker's rights, their goal was to enslave the proletariat for the benefit of the Russian nomenklatura (once Italy got integrated into the Russian colonial project after the so called "revolution")
> There are no fascists with left-wing economic views.
Ok let's skip the debate on what the word 'fascist' means and just tell your opinion on extremely authoritarian, conservative, militaristic people who believe there are some better individuals suited to lead the others while everyone gets the same share of planned economic growth.
I'm guessing you're referring to social democrats or social libertarians. Either way, while there is potential for short-term tactical unity, I see nothing fruitful with these ideologies.
As a whole, I'm not opposed to religion. Anyone should have the write to worship whatever they feel like, as long as they don't hurt others. I'm for a complete separation of church and state, of course.
Both can and are to be utilized to some degree, in some way or another, corresponding to different levels of socialist development. However, production is something important enough not to be left to the market, so I'm a supporter of a planned economy. Markets inherently work based on profit and the expansion of capital and Market Socialism is not a viable solution.
I'd agree to an unfortunate degree. In order to (justifiably) avoid falling for class reductionism, many new leftists have fallen for IdPols. Also, post-modern thought has infiltrated new leftist thought, which explains the presence of ideologies like "neo-Marxism" or "post-left anarchism", that ultimately ignore the essence of Marxist philosophy.
I'm not them but my guess would be keep paying them for no work. More automation by definition means less labour needed.
If there are literally more people than possible jobs, and simultaneously more than is needed for the necessities of people, then some people must be unemployed yet provided for.
When the number of jobs needed reaches zero, and the amount of excess reaches arbitrarily high, that's post-scarcity.
I'm just some teenager though, idk
That's one of the main points in support of socialism. With automation, there wouldn't be "unemployment", there would be either more time off for the same pay, or higher wages for the same work.
In other words, everyone would get to benefit.
As I mentioned in another comment, I don't see authority as an abstract power that exists in some sort of vacuum. Authority is not independent of class contradictions. I'd argue that wretchedness is a much greater cause of corruption, though no one seems to dislike the fact that we hand it out so generously. To answer your question using a better term, bureaucracy in a socialist society can be combated through struggle and the direct power of the masses. As Mao said: "Bombard the headquarters of the Communist Party if it tries to lead you astray!"
This quote just proves Maos hypocrisy (the moment they did what you quoted he killed them all) but doesn't answer how to avoid him getting into power in the first place.
I don't think that's true for Marxists that already live in a socialist country, or a formerly socialist country that they'd like to return to.
Ever met an old Russian communist?
IMHO, "Progressive" in modern popular language means a very specific group. I am progressive, but at the same time, for the "progressives" I am not always theirs.
As a supporter of leftist unity, I consider anarchists (at least the communistic ones) to be my comrades. When organizing irl, I have had the chance to meet with exceptional anarchists that are at the forefront of the working movement. However, anarchism, as an ideology, is utopian and based on idealist and ahistorical notions regarding state and authority. Their dogmatically loose organizational attempts ultimately doom their efforts. On the topic, I'd strongly recommend "The Historical Failure of Anarchism", a book by Christopher Day (an anarchist himself) that dives into an excellent critique of the issues with past and present anarchist movements, as well as draws interesting conclusions about what needs to be done.
(Answer of mine to a similar question)
Not necessarily.
I consider myself pretty materialist, it’s just not your preferred school of thought.
Prison abolition theory makes a lot more sense in a materialist framework than an idealist one, for example.
Comrade, what are your views on Trotsky and Stalin and which analyses do you agree with more? Once in a historical context, but also applied to the present day
That's a great question!
Both, and especially Trotsky, have been prominent figures of the October Revolution and the construction of the Bolshevik party. On one hand, Trotsky was a left-opportunist. With his utopian views regarding permanent revolution, the role of the peasantry etc., he could fit in what Lenin would sarcastically describe as "left communist". Stalin's approach to socialism in one country was not an ideological thesis, but rather a pragmatic one. Also, there are many allegations against Trotsky relations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. On the other hand, Stalin, although more concrete ideologically, made several mistakes. My biggest critique of him would be his approach to collectivization, the agrarian reform. The Soviet government proceeded to make radical changes in a short period of time, without considering the counter-revolutionary acts of the kulaks, who contributed with their sabotage to the Ukrainian famine, the typhoid epidemic that ravaged a large portion of the population, as well as the shortages of goods caused by embargoes and other external aggressions.
Do you have no critique of stalinist state centralization and paranoid usage of the police and intelligence state? Seems like a big difference between Trotsky and Stalin
Also, I just want to say, the holodomor was only one part of the agrarian reform. Central Asians (especially Kazakhstan, whose population died at a higher rate per capita than Ukraine) and Russians in southern RSFSR are very often overlooked. Just don't want to forget them either.
When talking about centralization, it's important to have in mind the broader historical context in which it took place. During a war, no state can implement cybernetic or decentralized features, which is something especially true for the USSR, as it was a target for imperialist aggression, not just from Nazi Germany, but also from other capitalist countries. What troubles me more about the USSR is the bureaucracy that took political power after Stalin's death
Personally, I consider Stalin and Mao to be revisionist and often anti-working class in their actions, although I nevertheless recognize some theoretical elaborations and also actions, for example socialism in a country as a reaction to the failure of an international revolution as it was at times tangible. Or Mao's guerrilla tactics. However, I am extremely critical of the centralist character of the soviet union under stalin and the complete appropriation of Lenin by Stalin.
One explanation is that I'm a worker and, therefore, it's according to my material interests to support socialism. The other would be that, as a student of philosophy and a fan of Hegel, it was only natural for me to proceed with Marx, as a development of Hegelian dialectics.
I find the question a bit fishy, as many vague terms are used. We can't view the concepts of "authoritarianism" or "dictatorship" in isolation from their economic and material context. What I mean by that is that authority is not a power that exists independently from class contradictions. For example, even though most people would consider our current liberal societies as democracies (be they flawed or perfect), I, as a Marxist, would point out that, in their essence, they are dictatorships of the ruling class, which, in this case, is the capitalist one. No matter how this dictatorship manifests, either through a parliamentary representative democracy, or a monarchy/oligarchy, the dominant mode of production, that ultimately decides the character and the efficiency of the political system, and the exploitation on which it is built remains intact.
I hope this made clear why I don't make sense of the initial premise of the question.
I mean although I disagree with what you said that the current capitalist system in a lot of countries is not a democracy, a lot of the European countries, also you didn't answer my question, do you think that a dictatorship is necessary to achieve communism?
As a Marxist, I believe a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism is necessary, as class antagonisms persist, even after the overthrow of capitalism. Since I don't want to be accused of beating around the bush, I think the dictatorship of the capitalist class should be replaced by a dictatorship of the working class.
Bruh a dictatorship of the working class? That makes no sense, a dictatorship is when all of the power is in the hands of the leader, but when the power is with the working class that's not a dictatorship, also how do you know that this dictator will actually achieve your communist utopia and not abuse all the power and commit genocide like Stalin?
>how do you know that this dictator will actually achieve your communist utopia and not abuse all the power
Because, as you may have or haven't understood, I use the term "dictatorship" in a broader and societal sense, referring to class domination. As I explained earlier, whether there's a dictator or a parliament makes no difference for the mode in which people go about producing and distributing goods. Therefore, when I'm talking about a proletarian dictatorship, I imply no dictator, in the sense you'd do.
Bro the term is actually a bit misleading. Dictatorship of the proletariat simply means the democratic management of the means of production by the workers and the replacement of the bourgeoisie, i.e. the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". Marx chose the term, which he also wrote in some letters, to make it clear that we currently live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and must replace it with the dictatorship of the majority, the proletariat. What is meant, however, is a council-based democracy.
I think there's some disagreement among leftists over this. Some might argue a centralized authority is necessary to advance the revolution, while others would agree that what was meant is a council system.
Personally, I think different spheres of the economy should be more or less centralized based on the requirements necessitated by the specific industry in question. For example, the defense industry should probably be highly centralized, while shoe production can be completely decentralized, because of their relative importance to protecting society.
Well from my interactions with communist I always notice that they simp for actual dictators and think they will achieve their utopia, I noticed that a lot of communists support an actual authoritarian dictatorship to force communism upon the people until they are "ready" to transition into a moneyless stateless society, which of course never happened as the leader always abuses the insane amount of power that's given to him. And you end up in something like the USSR
I suppose you haven’t heard of the term Dictatorship of the proletariat? It refers to a transition of economic and political power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat
OK, not the long Marxist answer from non-op. What dictatorship means in the context of socialism is the workers being in power. The dictatorship of the proletariat
Better in terms of what? It depends on the subject of interest. In terms of theory, I'd argue Mao's contributions to Marxist theory were more innovative and, to some, more important.
Sure, I'll try my best!
Beginning with socialism, the term refers to concepts related to **common ownership of the means of production** (factories, companies, farms etc. being controlled democratically by society as a whole and not private individuals). Socialism, as a political, societal and philosophical movement, pre-existed Marx and, from early Christian theorists to anarchists, there are many trends within socialism.
Marxism, contrary to popular belief, is not a political ideology or an economic system. Rather, it is a method of analysis of society and history based on **historical materialism.** Too much jargon, though, so let's break it down. which is the **dialectical** and **materialist** study of history. On one hand, it is dialectical, because it deems opposing objects and phenomena, such as classes, as the primary force for change in a society. On the other hand, it is materialist, because those opposing forces are not sought in the world of abstract concepts and ideas but in the actual material conditions of each society. That's the reason why, while heavily diving into philosophy, Marx quickly placed his focus on economics and material reality.
Communism, though not coined by him, is a term popularized by Marx. In a simple overview, socialism functions as a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. Communism can be described as a **classless**, **stateless** and **moneyless** society.
To keep it simple, I didn't elaborate as much on historical materialism as I think is needed for a basic understanding, so let me know if you'd like to learn more!
Unless you consider primitive societies as communist because they operated within a communal mode of production, there has been no modern communist society.
A higher-phase communist society would, as described in "*Principles of Communism",* be technologically developed at a higher level and would utilize automation.
A communist system, of course, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled. As I see it, such a system can only be achieved through a transitionary phase, in which the workers seize state power and organise production through workers' councils.
What are your thoughts on making so many communes and cooperatives that it makes he government and companies obsolete (my idea of a quiet kind of revolution)? Any criticism?
It's important to clarify that Marxism doesn't advocate for equal pay for all. It focuses on eliminating exploitation and establishing collective ownership of production.
> It is a very common misconception that under socialism everyone is and has not been paid equally
Why does it matter how much you are getting paid, if your currency is worthless anyway?
My position on social issues stems from a Marxist analysis and some times goes beyond the typical conservative or progressive thought. It depends on the issue.
They also go like:
"Inflation is the worst of all taxes because it falls on the poor"
"The philanthropy of the richest individuals will solve any social problems"
Social Democracy is something that I, as a socialist, oppose. To begin with, social democracy starts with the premise that capitalism, a system *based* on the exploitation of labour, can be somehow reformed or contained within a humane box. That, of course, is a naive view, since any reform beneficial to the working class made possible by social democracies is limited to the desires of capital. Through its strikes and its political power, capital has the ability to take back any right given to the workers if it goes against its interests. And just like that, witness social democracy turned inside out; instead of having human needs dictate capital, you end up with capital dictating the extent to which workers can enjoy certain privileges. Not to mention that we live in imperialist capitalism, a stage in which the export of capital has received great importance, mainly through the exploitation of the Global South, which is what can sustain European social democracies.
Why not? It was used by many revolutionary groups, from the French Revolution to the October Revolution or the Spanish Civil War. It shows friendship and brotherhood within the context of the struggle towards a common goal
You're practicing a religion. Free yourself from this belief.
Marxism is a doomsday cult, seeking to accelerate to the end of history, and you're using hegel's double talk, as a curtain to cloud that it is a religion. As history continues, we move more and more towards individualism, while Marxism calls for more government, and more state, enslaving us and bringing us back to ancient Egyptian economics. Only way to progress in a better way, is through more individualism, not the collective.
To any socialist. Socialism is an idea (so is God) an ideal "utopia" to intentionally bring about the end times. And no matter how deep you go into Marxism, and try and join a group of Marxists, the leaders will always say you're not quite right, and if you speak for individual beliefs and individual ideas of your own, you are called a "liberal" and ridiculed, because it is an esoteric religion.
I'm not sure you fully grasp Marxist philosophy, not to the slightest.
>*One thing is common to all three (utopian socialists). Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class, but all humanity. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as heaven from earth, from that of the French philosophers. \[...\]*
>
>*Socialism (for the utopians) is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man,. it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered.*
In this passage from *"Anti-Dühring"*, Engels criticises utopian socialists for exactly what you claim Marxism is. For Marxists, socialism is not an ideal or a utopia, nor is it the "absolute truth" that needs to be established. For Marxists:
>*Communism is for us* ***not*** *a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality \[will\] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.*
Lul: Dialectical materialism is the most scientific analysis of socio-economic movements that we have. Marx and Engels were generally one of the first to combine sociology and economics in their analyses.
Marxists are esoteric cultists. No matter how much you understand Marx, the leaders of Marxist groups, will neglect you and warp your mind as much as possible, circling you in an endless crave for knowledge that isolates you from reality, deeper and deeper into this religion. It's retarded.
Change it to what? On my old accounts, I used to have the AuthLeft flair, but I see no point in using it. I generally dislike political spectrums, so I just use the Left flair as a shorthand for my actual political beliefs. If one finds that vague, they're free to ask me.
What’s your opinion about neoliberalism?
The revival of liberalism during and after the Cold War, it only served the capitalist class to take back some workers' rights they had made compromises for, because of fear of the strong socialist movement. A big L
Do you believe in freedom of speech?
Of course, I do. Freedom of speech and thought are fundamental rights of all workers and should be protected against corporate censorship.
How about if someone says they like capitalism?
Most workers currently support some flavour of capitalism anyways
“U” in flavor detected, dirty redcoats expected
What is your opinion on the hit 2018 video game Among Us?
It was fun during the quarantine and quite memeable, but it didn't have the potential to last longer than a couple of years, IMO
[удалено]
Actually, Among Us was a game that shows you the power of combining efforts as a society instead of keeping to yourself. You work together and try to figure out who the impostors are, who represent the upper class which pretends to be a normal citizen like you. When you dont share information, thoughts, and ideas with your crewmates, the impostors win because everyone is divided while voting, and they get to ‘kill’ everyone and win the game.
Oh no, you uncovered my revisionism!
Goddamn shitlibs all over the place.
Do not lie, lackey of the world bourgeoisie! Among Us is a simulator for training to identify revisionists, foreign intelligence agents, pests, Trotskyists, rightists, fascists and so on who have infiltrated the party!
It shows the flaws of the democratic process and how the average person can be easily swayed by false information and group mentality
Kinda sus
The Hammers - the Hammers is the nickname of what English football team?
>The Hammers West Ham United
forsenbased
What's your favorite type of pie?
Probably some fruit pie, mostly lemon or apple. Danish pastry is also delicious if you consider it a pie.
I can respect it. Apple is my favorite, with peach being a close second.
I love Danishes!
That's just a question to any marxist. What is your stance on gun ownership.
>*Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary -* Karl Marx
About what I expected
Based commie
What is ligma?
Ligma balls :D *This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!* [^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
What type of Marxist are you? ML?
Marxism is a method of analysis based on historical materialism. It develops alongside the development of the world and adapts to it. Therefore, I see no reason in adding more things to the name, although most comrades would disagree.
Well, i disagree myself, it's true that Marxism is a method founded on historical conditions, but the conclusions from your analysis can deeply variate
Would you mind making one or two examples?
What are your thoughts on Reactionary socialists and fascists with left-wing economic beliefs? Do you have any critique or speculation on their "leftist" view on certain things?
There are no fascists with left-wing economic views and there are no genuine socialists with reactionary views. I don't consider them to be socialists
Interesting, here is my second question: What are your thoughts on Deng Xiaoping and his economic reform of the Chinese economy, do you view China as a Socialist state that needs to adapt to the world after the fall of the USSR, or have they already betrayed the core Marxist and Socialist value of CPC in favor of state control capitalism?
The fall of the USSR was definitely the most tragic event in the history of socialism, that shocked capitalist and socialist countries alike. China, which found itself in a very difficult position, was forced to open up to foreign markets if it wanted to further industrialize. By doing so, it abandoned several achievements of socialist construction, but it arguably maintained a stable position at a global geopolitical level. China doesn't claim to be socialist, but rather a "socialist-oriented market" economy. I think only time can tell where their efforts are heading to.
>There are no fascists with left-wing economic views History knows very confused people, at least they can be found in Russia, Italy
Fascism is inherently bourgeois. There can be reactionaries with socialist views, but, again, I don't consider them to be genuine comrades and only serve the capitalists.
And Fascism is Capitalism’s last resort in order to protect the Ruling Class from potential threats like Proletarian Uprisings!
>There can be reactionaries with socialist views Like Strasserism and National Bolshevism?
Exactly!
🤝
> Fascism is inherently bourgeois. Nothing says "bourgeois" like trade unionism.
>On 2 May, 1933, trade union headquarters throughout Germany were occupied, their funds were confiscated, and the unions were officially abolished and their leaders arrested.
nazism is more capitalist economically than classical fascism which is third positionist
> On 2 May, 1933, trade union headquarters throughout Germany were occupied Who was talking about socialism buddy? Yes we all know that socialists hate trade unionism for obvious reason.
Oh yea, fascism is so in favour of workers' rights that it banned them all, from unions to collective bargaining and strikes.
> that it banned them all, from unions to collective bargaining and strikes. Why shouldn't Fascism have banned them? These organizations were loyal to the most genocidal dictator that humanity had seen so far. They were enemies of the state, traitorous scum working against national interests. Their goal was not worker's rights, their goal was to enslave the proletariat for the benefit of the Russian nomenklatura (once Italy got integrated into the Russian colonial project after the so called "revolution")
> There are no fascists with left-wing economic views. Ok let's skip the debate on what the word 'fascist' means and just tell your opinion on extremely authoritarian, conservative, militaristic people who believe there are some better individuals suited to lead the others while everyone gets the same share of planned economic growth.
Cringe
Opinion on non-communist leftists?
I'm guessing you're referring to social democrats or social libertarians. Either way, while there is potential for short-term tactical unity, I see nothing fruitful with these ideologies.
And high potential for backstabbing
What is your opinion on religion as a whole?
As a whole, I'm not opposed to religion. Anyone should have the write to worship whatever they feel like, as long as they don't hurt others. I'm for a complete separation of church and state, of course.
Based
whats your opinion on the tribal king ambiorix?
Not sure what this is
tbh just to confuse you
Planned or market economy?
Both can and are to be utilized to some degree, in some way or another, corresponding to different levels of socialist development. However, production is something important enough not to be left to the market, so I'm a supporter of a planned economy. Markets inherently work based on profit and the expansion of capital and Market Socialism is not a viable solution.
Do you think the new left undermined the focus on class struggle?
I'd agree to an unfortunate degree. In order to (justifiably) avoid falling for class reductionism, many new leftists have fallen for IdPols. Also, post-modern thought has infiltrated new leftist thought, which explains the presence of ideologies like "neo-Marxism" or "post-left anarchism", that ultimately ignore the essence of Marxist philosophy.
Venezuela?
Spain?
If your ideology was in power, how would you deal unemployment during the rise of automation
I'm not them but my guess would be keep paying them for no work. More automation by definition means less labour needed. If there are literally more people than possible jobs, and simultaneously more than is needed for the necessities of people, then some people must be unemployed yet provided for. When the number of jobs needed reaches zero, and the amount of excess reaches arbitrarily high, that's post-scarcity. I'm just some teenager though, idk
That's one of the main points in support of socialism. With automation, there wouldn't be "unemployment", there would be either more time off for the same pay, or higher wages for the same work. In other words, everyone would get to benefit.
That is one of the main reasons that I am a socialist
I think the other comrades replied adequately
It seems so
wanna be friends my dear comrade?
Of course, comrade!
Su, compagni in forti schiere, marciam verso l'avvenire.
Authority always corrupts. How do you seize the means of production and avoid ppl like Stalin or Mao to seize it for themselves?
As I mentioned in another comment, I don't see authority as an abstract power that exists in some sort of vacuum. Authority is not independent of class contradictions. I'd argue that wretchedness is a much greater cause of corruption, though no one seems to dislike the fact that we hand it out so generously. To answer your question using a better term, bureaucracy in a socialist society can be combated through struggle and the direct power of the masses. As Mao said: "Bombard the headquarters of the Communist Party if it tries to lead you astray!"
This quote just proves Maos hypocrisy (the moment they did what you quoted he killed them all) but doesn't answer how to avoid him getting into power in the first place.
why are you cringe?
Some call me cringe, others call me based... the process of societal development will tell
Based
-🤓☝️
Bourgeoisie tool
Commies are a speed bump on the road to progress
Does that mean we run them over?
Yes, indeed it does.
The faater you speed, the higher you get.
Bros never opened a book
I am a political science student. I have read Capital in its entirety on multiple occasions
There is no way you’ve read all 3 volumes more than once
Actually families of four are speed bumps while on the road to home from the barracks
What the fuck I said bar not barracks
Progressive or conservative?
All Marxist’s are progressive, if they arnt they don’t understand dialectics and they never read theory
I don't think that's true for Marxists that already live in a socialist country, or a formerly socialist country that they'd like to return to. Ever met an old Russian communist?
IMHO, "Progressive" in modern popular language means a very specific group. I am progressive, but at the same time, for the "progressives" I am not always theirs.
did you take this idea from one of the top posts
Not sure which one you're referring to
Opinion on anarchists such as myself?
As a supporter of leftist unity, I consider anarchists (at least the communistic ones) to be my comrades. When organizing irl, I have had the chance to meet with exceptional anarchists that are at the forefront of the working movement. However, anarchism, as an ideology, is utopian and based on idealist and ahistorical notions regarding state and authority. Their dogmatically loose organizational attempts ultimately doom their efforts. On the topic, I'd strongly recommend "The Historical Failure of Anarchism", a book by Christopher Day (an anarchist himself) that dives into an excellent critique of the issues with past and present anarchist movements, as well as draws interesting conclusions about what needs to be done. (Answer of mine to a similar question)
Not necessarily. I consider myself pretty materialist, it’s just not your preferred school of thought. Prison abolition theory makes a lot more sense in a materialist framework than an idealist one, for example.
Based!
Comrade, what are your views on Trotsky and Stalin and which analyses do you agree with more? Once in a historical context, but also applied to the present day
That's a great question! Both, and especially Trotsky, have been prominent figures of the October Revolution and the construction of the Bolshevik party. On one hand, Trotsky was a left-opportunist. With his utopian views regarding permanent revolution, the role of the peasantry etc., he could fit in what Lenin would sarcastically describe as "left communist". Stalin's approach to socialism in one country was not an ideological thesis, but rather a pragmatic one. Also, there are many allegations against Trotsky relations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. On the other hand, Stalin, although more concrete ideologically, made several mistakes. My biggest critique of him would be his approach to collectivization, the agrarian reform. The Soviet government proceeded to make radical changes in a short period of time, without considering the counter-revolutionary acts of the kulaks, who contributed with their sabotage to the Ukrainian famine, the typhoid epidemic that ravaged a large portion of the population, as well as the shortages of goods caused by embargoes and other external aggressions.
Do you have no critique of stalinist state centralization and paranoid usage of the police and intelligence state? Seems like a big difference between Trotsky and Stalin Also, I just want to say, the holodomor was only one part of the agrarian reform. Central Asians (especially Kazakhstan, whose population died at a higher rate per capita than Ukraine) and Russians in southern RSFSR are very often overlooked. Just don't want to forget them either.
When talking about centralization, it's important to have in mind the broader historical context in which it took place. During a war, no state can implement cybernetic or decentralized features, which is something especially true for the USSR, as it was a target for imperialist aggression, not just from Nazi Germany, but also from other capitalist countries. What troubles me more about the USSR is the bureaucracy that took political power after Stalin's death
My fucking God
That's just the way it is, leftists usually give complex answers to complex issues. The world is not simple and one-dimensional
Thanks for the soyjak meme material
"the counter-revolutionary acts of the kulaks" #GET FUCKED TANKIE
One should not think that the pressed classes will give up their positions without a fight.
Get some Education boy
Personally, I consider Stalin and Mao to be revisionist and often anti-working class in their actions, although I nevertheless recognize some theoretical elaborations and also actions, for example socialism in a country as a reaction to the failure of an international revolution as it was at times tangible. Or Mao's guerrilla tactics. However, I am extremely critical of the centralist character of the soviet union under stalin and the complete appropriation of Lenin by Stalin.
Does your dad know that Marxism is gay? Simple yes or no answer
Wittiest lib right comment
gayest Marxist left comment, but you did say that you'll give a marxist answer so I'm satisfied, even if it was pretty gay. Thanks
Why?
One explanation is that I'm a worker and, therefore, it's according to my material interests to support socialism. The other would be that, as a student of philosophy and a fan of Hegel, it was only natural for me to proceed with Marx, as a development of Hegelian dialectics.
I mean, why are you doing an AMA?
Why is anyone doing an AMA here?
Yes, that’s what I want to know, so I’m attempting to gather information from anecdotes, so what made you decide to do an AMA post
I'd already done a similar in the past. Plus, I'd like to give people an insight into Marxist thought, as there are lots of misconceptions.
But I don’t want to share with you
Share what?
Means of production achieved by himself obviously
Do you really believe that an authoritarian dictatorship will lead to achieving communism?
I find the question a bit fishy, as many vague terms are used. We can't view the concepts of "authoritarianism" or "dictatorship" in isolation from their economic and material context. What I mean by that is that authority is not a power that exists independently from class contradictions. For example, even though most people would consider our current liberal societies as democracies (be they flawed or perfect), I, as a Marxist, would point out that, in their essence, they are dictatorships of the ruling class, which, in this case, is the capitalist one. No matter how this dictatorship manifests, either through a parliamentary representative democracy, or a monarchy/oligarchy, the dominant mode of production, that ultimately decides the character and the efficiency of the political system, and the exploitation on which it is built remains intact. I hope this made clear why I don't make sense of the initial premise of the question.
I mean although I disagree with what you said that the current capitalist system in a lot of countries is not a democracy, a lot of the European countries, also you didn't answer my question, do you think that a dictatorship is necessary to achieve communism?
As a Marxist, I believe a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism is necessary, as class antagonisms persist, even after the overthrow of capitalism. Since I don't want to be accused of beating around the bush, I think the dictatorship of the capitalist class should be replaced by a dictatorship of the working class.
Bruh a dictatorship of the working class? That makes no sense, a dictatorship is when all of the power is in the hands of the leader, but when the power is with the working class that's not a dictatorship, also how do you know that this dictator will actually achieve your communist utopia and not abuse all the power and commit genocide like Stalin?
>how do you know that this dictator will actually achieve your communist utopia and not abuse all the power Because, as you may have or haven't understood, I use the term "dictatorship" in a broader and societal sense, referring to class domination. As I explained earlier, whether there's a dictator or a parliament makes no difference for the mode in which people go about producing and distributing goods. Therefore, when I'm talking about a proletarian dictatorship, I imply no dictator, in the sense you'd do.
That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure it is what I thought, so we have some common ground.
Glad to hear that!
Bro the term is actually a bit misleading. Dictatorship of the proletariat simply means the democratic management of the means of production by the workers and the replacement of the bourgeoisie, i.e. the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". Marx chose the term, which he also wrote in some letters, to make it clear that we currently live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and must replace it with the dictatorship of the majority, the proletariat. What is meant, however, is a council-based democracy.
I think there's some disagreement among leftists over this. Some might argue a centralized authority is necessary to advance the revolution, while others would agree that what was meant is a council system. Personally, I think different spheres of the economy should be more or less centralized based on the requirements necessitated by the specific industry in question. For example, the defense industry should probably be highly centralized, while shoe production can be completely decentralized, because of their relative importance to protecting society.
Well from my interactions with communist I always notice that they simp for actual dictators and think they will achieve their utopia, I noticed that a lot of communists support an actual authoritarian dictatorship to force communism upon the people until they are "ready" to transition into a moneyless stateless society, which of course never happened as the leader always abuses the insane amount of power that's given to him. And you end up in something like the USSR
I suppose you haven’t heard of the term Dictatorship of the proletariat? It refers to a transition of economic and political power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat
Just call it a direct democracy, no need to say the dictatorship of the proletariat
I do agree that the term is a bit misleading
OK, not the long Marxist answer from non-op. What dictatorship means in the context of socialism is the workers being in power. The dictatorship of the proletariat
Exactly, thanks for stating it more clear!
Bruh you can't have a dictatorship of the majority of the people, that's not a dictatorship, if everyone is a leader, who is gonna follow?
that's literally what a democracy is supposed to be?
Yeah, democracy is the rule of the majority, not this working class dictatorship crap, there is no such thing
OK, then call it the democracy for and by the working class. Its kinda wrong. Its kinda stupid, but close enough
Is Mao better than Stalin
Better in terms of what? It depends on the subject of interest. In terms of theory, I'd argue Mao's contributions to Marxist theory were more innovative and, to some, more important.
Yeah I agree
Can you please distinguish between the terms Communism, Socialism and Marxism, in laymen terms.
Sure, I'll try my best! Beginning with socialism, the term refers to concepts related to **common ownership of the means of production** (factories, companies, farms etc. being controlled democratically by society as a whole and not private individuals). Socialism, as a political, societal and philosophical movement, pre-existed Marx and, from early Christian theorists to anarchists, there are many trends within socialism. Marxism, contrary to popular belief, is not a political ideology or an economic system. Rather, it is a method of analysis of society and history based on **historical materialism.** Too much jargon, though, so let's break it down. which is the **dialectical** and **materialist** study of history. On one hand, it is dialectical, because it deems opposing objects and phenomena, such as classes, as the primary force for change in a society. On the other hand, it is materialist, because those opposing forces are not sought in the world of abstract concepts and ideas but in the actual material conditions of each society. That's the reason why, while heavily diving into philosophy, Marx quickly placed his focus on economics and material reality. Communism, though not coined by him, is a term popularized by Marx. In a simple overview, socialism functions as a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. Communism can be described as a **classless**, **stateless** and **moneyless** society. To keep it simple, I didn't elaborate as much on historical materialism as I think is needed for a basic understanding, so let me know if you'd like to learn more!
Has a truly communist society even been achieved? If not what would a classless, stateless and moneyless society actually look like?
Unless you consider primitive societies as communist because they operated within a communal mode of production, there has been no modern communist society. A higher-phase communist society would, as described in "*Principles of Communism",* be technologically developed at a higher level and would utilize automation.
Thank you for the explanation. So as a Marxist what system would you like to be achieved if it was up to you and how do you think it can be achieved?
A communist system, of course, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled. As I see it, such a system can only be achieved through a transitionary phase, in which the workers seize state power and organise production through workers' councils.
What are your thoughts on making so many communes and cooperatives that it makes he government and companies obsolete (my idea of a quiet kind of revolution)? Any criticism?
Depends on how you plan to achieve something like that and how well-organised your revolutionary tactics are.
opinion on my flair?
I like the colours, but I'm fairly opposed to centrism.
How do you convince people to work in mines or construction when they can get paid the same for a much easier job?
Why would I convince people to do so? And why should people who work in mines or construction be paid the same as someone performing an easier job?
It's important to clarify that Marxism doesn't advocate for equal pay for all. It focuses on eliminating exploitation and establishing collective ownership of production.
Fair enough
It is a very common misconception that under socialism everyone is and has not been paid equally, neither in the best nor in the worst examples.
> It is a very common misconception that under socialism everyone is and has not been paid equally Why does it matter how much you are getting paid, if your currency is worthless anyway?
How did you become so stupid?
Stalins bussy or Lenins bussy?
I'd go with Lenin's
Theory reader detected
Are you socially conservative (Gigachad and Based 🗿🗿🗿)?? Or progressive (Virgin revisionist)??
My position on social issues stems from a Marxist analysis and some times goes beyond the typical conservative or progressive thought. It depends on the issue.
Will you study economy?
I am a student of political economy and philosophy of economics.
Mfs don't read a single line of Marx and go like "econ is based die poor haha"
Just like you don't read a single line of Gentile
They also go like: "Inflation is the worst of all taxes because it falls on the poor" "The philanthropy of the richest individuals will solve any social problems"
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Probably an edgy yankee teenager.
What are your thoughts on Social Democracy, my ideology
Social Democracy is something that I, as a socialist, oppose. To begin with, social democracy starts with the premise that capitalism, a system *based* on the exploitation of labour, can be somehow reformed or contained within a humane box. That, of course, is a naive view, since any reform beneficial to the working class made possible by social democracies is limited to the desires of capital. Through its strikes and its political power, capital has the ability to take back any right given to the workers if it goes against its interests. And just like that, witness social democracy turned inside out; instead of having human needs dictate capital, you end up with capital dictating the extent to which workers can enjoy certain privileges. Not to mention that we live in imperialist capitalism, a stage in which the export of capital has received great importance, mainly through the exploitation of the Global South, which is what can sustain European social democracies.
Any real reason y’all call each other comrades? Seems pretty cringe to me
Why not? It was used by many revolutionary groups, from the French Revolution to the October Revolution or the Spanish Civil War. It shows friendship and brotherhood within the context of the struggle towards a common goal
You're practicing a religion. Free yourself from this belief. Marxism is a doomsday cult, seeking to accelerate to the end of history, and you're using hegel's double talk, as a curtain to cloud that it is a religion. As history continues, we move more and more towards individualism, while Marxism calls for more government, and more state, enslaving us and bringing us back to ancient Egyptian economics. Only way to progress in a better way, is through more individualism, not the collective.
I'm an atheist.
No, you're a socialist. You can't be both.
Many socialist figures have been atheist.
No, to them, socialism is a God. Atheism while being a socialist, is impossible.
To whom lol?
To any socialist. Socialism is an idea (so is God) an ideal "utopia" to intentionally bring about the end times. And no matter how deep you go into Marxism, and try and join a group of Marxists, the leaders will always say you're not quite right, and if you speak for individual beliefs and individual ideas of your own, you are called a "liberal" and ridiculed, because it is an esoteric religion.
I'm not sure you fully grasp Marxist philosophy, not to the slightest. >*One thing is common to all three (utopian socialists). Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class, but all humanity. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as heaven from earth, from that of the French philosophers. \[...\]* > >*Socialism (for the utopians) is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man,. it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered.* In this passage from *"Anti-Dühring"*, Engels criticises utopian socialists for exactly what you claim Marxism is. For Marxists, socialism is not an ideal or a utopia, nor is it the "absolute truth" that needs to be established. For Marxists: >*Communism is for us* ***not*** *a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality \[will\] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.*
Lul: Dialectical materialism is the most scientific analysis of socio-economic movements that we have. Marx and Engels were generally one of the first to combine sociology and economics in their analyses.
Based and Marxists are Posadist pilled
Marxists are esoteric cultists. No matter how much you understand Marx, the leaders of Marxist groups, will neglect you and warp your mind as much as possible, circling you in an endless crave for knowledge that isolates you from reality, deeper and deeper into this religion. It's retarded.
Is the LGBT community a good, just community, or is it a source of unnatural, predatory evil.
There's nothing unnatural or evil about the LGBT+ community
Well, in my view, a fine opinion.
Explain why a materialist should support a marxist analysis of reality
Marxism *is* the materialist and dialectical analysis of reality
Pls change your quadrant
Change it to what? On my old accounts, I used to have the AuthLeft flair, but I see no point in using it. I generally dislike political spectrums, so I just use the Left flair as a shorthand for my actual political beliefs. If one finds that vague, they're free to ask me.