Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us
He/him or they/them, doesn't matter too much
Marxist-Leninist ☭
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my Read Theory, Darn it! introductory reading list!
Ah, I see the problem. I never said Marx said socialism could only begin in western, capitalist societies. Here's what I actually said:
To be annoyingly accurate, Marx still held the belief that the west would be the first to revolt and establish socialism
Notice how I didn't say he thought it was only possible in western, capitalist countries. I specifically said that he thought that they would be the first. In the case of the commune movement in Russia, he said they were essentially squandering a very real chance to avoid that same path of development, not that he believed Russia would be first.
In short, the strawman you made of my point is indeed flatly wrong, and if I had said what you thought I said I would agree that it was indeed wrong. But I didn't make that point.
He isn't useless, he often makes good points. He isn't as good as Lenin, or modern Marxist-Leninists, but his analysis in Super-Imperialism is useful, even with his biases.
Yep! Often times reaction backfires.
Yes, he is suggesting that they could skip capitalism and enter what we understand to be socialism. He isn't wagering that they would, just that they could if the commune movement succeded in supplanting the rising capitalist class, which your sources shows that Marx's expectation was that capitalism will in fact rise. Here:
If Russia continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime.
Marx did not think Russia could go straight to what we understand today to be communism, or "upper stage communism" as Marx puts it. Just that they could skip capitalism and begin socialism right from the commune movement.
Not skip straight to what we know of as communism, ie a global system of collectivized production and distribution, just that they could begin what we call now socialism earlier. Marx still believed that the west would be the first to transition to socialism.
Sure, I’ll cop to that level of idealism. I think the “human condition” is a real thing we’ve inherited from our evolutionary forebears, and we’re constantly fighting against it. Heck, my main complaint started out as seeing Lemmy MLs as tribalistic to their own detriment. Even if it isn’t truly universal, I don’t think any form of political organization can permanently overcome that.
"Human nature" is most accurately described as formed by our social being. It does not exist outside of that, and isn't something hardcoded into us. Humanity has, for the longest time, been largely cooperative. It's mostly a factor of modern class society that negative traits like corruption take hold, it has nothing to do directly with the scale of society. That's why I try to drive that point home, a scientific analysis of the problem means that we can't treat human nature as something fixed, static, divorced from our actual lived experience, but instead something that is malleable and based on a given set of material conditions, material conditions we can deliberately change.
Also, yeah, I know that fiction doesn’t describe reality, just the author’s perspective of reality (learned that from Ayn Rand, 🤣 ). Didn’t know that Orwell was anti-semitic (nightmare ick), but the message I took from 1984 was anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-communist. I was taught that the “soc” in Ingsoc was a lie, just as in the Ministry of Truth produced lies and the Ministry of Love produced cruelty. Anyway.
Orwell kept a list of Jews and communists he would use to snitch to feds. In Animal Farm, his entire point about the bolsheviks rests on the assumption that the working classes of Russia are too stupid to understand that they are being duped, as an explanation for why the working classes really did support the bolsheviks in real life. Orwell was all manner of things, but most of all supremely British and liberal (in a bad way).
I also want to reference some things I’ve heard about the USSR and the PRC, but I feel the canned response is that it’s all Western propaganda, and I don’t see a productive outcome of that line of conversation. I have some observations after reading Three Body Problem and my partner’s fandom for MXTX’s light novels, but that’s very anecdotal.
Depends on what you're talking about. It could be entirely real, entirely invented, an exaggerated real problem, a minimized real success, or a success framed as a problem.
At any rate, I got more of the insight I wanted about Lemmy MLs, and you as always give me a lot to think about, Cowbee <3 I always appreciate your time and patience.
No problem!
Can't really agree with a list that blocks communists, like Lemmygrad.ml, which is listed on the pleroma one. To be fair, it isn't on tier0 or below, but still, Lemmygrad.ml is only guilty of being communist.
The concept of a labor aristocracy existed with Lenin, but Fanon in particular delved into the psychology of nationalist revolt against colonialism and imperialism, and Sakai with why the US Empire in particular has a settler-garrison, essentially. For a more broad concept of the modern labor aristocracy, I like how Nkrumah describes it as exporting of the heightened contradictions of late-stage capitalism from core to periphery. It's only really recently that conditions in the US Empire have begun to decay enough that the class interests of the working class there have become more genuinely aligned with the working classes abroad. Quantity into quality, etc. etc.
Are you referring to the soviet prisons in general as "re-education camps?" An enormous number of prison deaths occured during World War II, when famine was widespread due to the Nazis storming Ukraine, the USSR's breadbasket. On the whole, soviet prisons and the justice system itself were more progressive than their peers, Mary Stevenson Callcott documented it quite well in Russian Justice.
The soviet union, despite having a progressive legal system, was in a state of constant turmoil caused by pressures both external and internal. They couldn't simply delete all previously existing ruling-class people and ideology, class struggle continues under socialism. Further, pressure from the imperialist west, invasion both in threat and in action, and intentional sabateurs meant that the prisons certainly weren't empty. The soviet union never had a single year of normal, stable growth, free from intense opposition on the outside and counter-revolutionary forces on the inside.
I'll state it again, as I said in my other comment: the red scare existed because porkie was terrified of a system that stood to steal from under their feet the very foundation they set up for their total reign.
To be annoyingly accurate, Marx still held the belief that the west would be the first to revolt and establish socialism, as they had reached the higher reaches of capitalism first. He hadn't lived to see the contemporary period of imperialism Lenin had, where a bunch of competing developed capitalist nations split the world and warred over it with each other, nor had Lenin lived to see the end-result of that war, one where the US Empire stands unquestionably on top while the rest are vassalized, nor the current stage where the US Empire is crumbling beneath its feet.
In other words, Lenin, Nkrumah, Cheng Enfu, or Michael Hudson would all be strong contenders over Marx for theory on why the west in particular is the biggest obstacle for socialism globally.
The reason the red scare existed was because the western capitalists were terrified of the revolution spreading to western Europe and the United States, which was extremely likely in the early 20th century. As such, all manner of censorship of Russian-language news, theoretical texts, reporting, etc. became the norm, and what was deemed acceptable to the capitalists was extremely filtered media, either from opposition in the USSR itself, or from western reporting, complete with what we now recognize as propaganda.
The truth is that the USSR was extremely functional. It delivered consistent results for the working classes, and in so doing doubled life expectancies, brought mass literacy and industrialization, dignified the soviet people, and much more. The west had to rely on a combination of fabrication, exaggeration of real issues, minimization of real successes, and other tried and true methods to invent an alternate reality version of the soviet union. Journalists like Anna Louise Strong, that supported socialism and reported on it honestly, were censored.
The red scare existed because porkie was terrified of a system that stood to steal from under their feet the very foundation they set up for their total reign.
Marxism-Leninism is dangerous to the ruling class because it's true, understands the world in an actionable way, and stands to end all of class society.
You're confusing the way people behave in some forms of organization with the way people behave in all circumstances and forms of organization. The idea of a universal human nature that exists in static form, outside of its context, is idealism, ie an appeal to the supernatural. Further still, socialist governments and parties have all been very large, the CPC for example has 100 million people.
I don't personally take much stock in fiction as a means to explain reality. Orwell was an anti-semitic British fed that kept a list of Jews and communists. His projection in Animal Farm and 1984 are taught in western schools for the very reason you are reminded of them, to discourage socialist organizing at a young age.
Read when you gain interest! If you force yourself, you won't retain any of it, or you'll take the wrong message.
Loving your Parenti-series of posts as of late! For anyone that hasn't read or listened to the late Michael Parenti before, I highly recommend the "Yellow Parenti" Speech on US interventionism, the third world, and the USSR and Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook. His lecture on "Inventing Reality" is also excellent.
For more works on the general question of reform vs. revolution, I recommend Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution | Audiobook, as well as Lenin's The State and Revolution | Audiobook.
For learning about Marxism-Leninism in general, I recommend my intro ML reading list.
Lemmy.ml is one of the big communist instances, sure, but in no way fascist nor fascist collaborators. Communists support collectivization of production and distribution via establishing socialism, economies where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes are in control of the state. Fascism is about cementing capitalism and bourgeois rule in countries where capitalism has decayed. These stand diametrically opposed.
On Lemmy.ml's meme communities, you see lots of leftist memes. Fascists are banned, as well as fascist memes.
Yep, excellent write-up! Korea, in general, has not had a "normal" year of development for well over a century and a half. From colonization to war to the present split, Korea's conditions have been extremely tumultuous. Throughout all of it, though, has been a strong history of radicalism and resistance. Japan had a much more "normal" course of development, as it gained a head-start on industrialization and maintained it with colonization of the surrounding areas.
Yep! Lots of quirky bits like that that make sense when analyzing the development of the ROK.
I don't know why you're continuing to double and triple-down. We agree that Marx believed Russia could have sidestepped capitalist development and gone straight from feudalism to the communalist movement to socialism to communism. However, he did not think this was more likely than revolution in western Europe. He simply saw it as it was, a great but likely squandered opportinity.
In other words, if Marx believed there was a 75% chance the revolution would first come to western Europe, and a 25% chance it would come to Russia, it is correct to say that he believed it would most likely come first to western Europe. It is, therefore, equally incorrect to say that he believed it could only happen in western Europe, as you allege I say (but I have disproven this), as it would be to say that Marx believed it would happen in Russia first (as you appear to be saying).